Hahaha who needs net neutrality it's just a leftypol me

Just what we all need, Jewtube-watching morons netlagging the rest of us like it's 1996.

>>134757939

Good. Fuck your cat videos, I have arrows to make in World of Warcraft.

>>134758624
>>134759280
idiots, the endgame isn't "now my shit will be faster
the endgame is "my shit will be throttled next with the normal rate being sold to me at a premium"

if you think there isn't a "gaming package" in your ISP's net-neutralityless future I don't know how you operate on a daily basis without even the most rudimentary bit of foresight

>>134760167
>ISP throttles connection to your favorite site
>Switch ISP to one that doesnt

>>134761776
>surely there will remain an ISP who decides they don't want to make free money!
>besides, we're really spoiled for choice when it comes to ISPs, not like it's a crippled, monopolistic syste-oh wait
>just like how nintendo didn't charge for its onli-oh wait
>or how data caps never really caught on-oh wait
>or like how long distance calls on a cellphone are meaningl-oh wait!


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>134757939
>Surely the Free Market will take care of us!
>Verizon admits to trottling
>Ah, the comforting invisible hand of the economically-rational man!

>>134757939

Fuck Netflix, and Google.

You're not making me shill for one giant corporation instead of another with your net neutrality bullshit.

You think this shit is bad, wait til America gets its own great firewall soon enough.

>>134762718
>this is just between corporations, there's no way one option could be better for me than the other!
>anyways I'm sure any extra costs incurred will stop at the corporate level and leave me, the consumer, unaffected! That's just How It Works™!

I'm genuinely trying to come up with somewhat plausible internal dialogue of a person who doesn't support net neutrality here but it's just fucking impossible

>>134757939
There is a very valid argument on this senpai. Its not like one side is retarded, should netflix and jewlu pay more for their excessive bandwith usage because they cause overall speeds to slow? Honestly im up in the air on this one but my values lie in the free market.

>>134762581
>everything should be cheap enough for me to afford REEEEEEEE

>>134763076
I will not accept that you aren't aware of the distinction between saying
>everything should be cheap
versus
>I will actively choose to make things more expensive for myself

>>134757939
Don't give a fuck

If lefties support it, I will be against it just to make them cry

>>134757939
No we dont need the government to regulate the internet. Fuck off libshit.

>>134761776
why don't you read up on telecommunication laws in the u.s. and canada before you blab dumb shit like 'hurr durr, just switch ISPs'?

>>134763045
Nah theyre doind this shit so Verizon can push its own shitty platform. There are plenty of examples like this.

>>134763460
based, but what about righties who support it?

>>134763045
No. Not only should that not be the case, but even once net neutrality falls Google and Netflix aren't going to be the only ones paying for this shit: you are.


>>134763703
You literally need the government to protect the freedom of the internet. Somehow morons like you have been convinced that the government, an entity which exists to protect the populace against the inherently exploitative interests of massive profit driven corporations, is your enemy. It's like you live in a violent black neighborhood and all you've got is a guarddog. There's a fucking gang at the edge of your property trying to stage a break-in and you're screaming at your dog to shut up so the free market can sort itself out.

>>134757939
Thank god net neutrality stopped this from happening.

>>134764373
did you just come in from an alternate timeline where the US has net neutrality or

So net neutrality was revoked or not?

>>134762949
>>134764530

I was under the impression that yes, Title II had passed in the US. If it hasn't then disregard but if you have net neutrality now, and they are still throttling you, then what is scrapping it supposed do? As far as I know it is just going back to how it was pre-2015. Are they passing another law in its place?

>>134757939
Good, degenerate TV-watchers should be treated as second-class citizens

>>134764218
Nope. We dont need the FCC regulating the internet.

>>134764218
>the government, an entity which exists to protect the populace against the inherently exploitative interests of massive profit driven corporations

there are people who really believe this

>>134764989
you genuinely need the FCC regulating how providers must offer unfettered access to the internet, because without that you will not have it

>>134765551
>there are people who have been convinced otherwise
I wonder who could have been doing the convincing

File: 1498297858715.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

>>134757939
>1 out of 2500+ USA ISPs did something I don't like a few years ago, so let's give the internet to a few bureaucrats who know nothing about it
Your retarded mindset is why leaf internet is so expensive and shitty.

>>134764674
net neutrality never existed for wireless providers in the u.s. in november they'll eliminate it for regular ISPs, as well.

File: file.png (51KB, 1001x367px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1001x367px

>>134765763
>it's an "American Pays More For The Same Service With Less Consumer Protection But Has Been Convinced By The Very People Fleecing Him That He's #1" episode

lmao over here

>>134764838
The way lefties/redditors are acting it makes it look like we have it and desperately need to protect it or the internet is over. Seems like we either have it and it's not doing shit, or we don't have it and it hasn't mattered.

>>134765763
>2500+ USA ISPs
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAH
Nigger, most people only have AT MOST 3 ISPs to choose from in their area, even in my hometown (one of the larger cities in Massachusetts) I only get to choose between Comcast and Verizon. Charter can't even set their shit up in my city thanks to a fucking contract that Comcast has with the municipalities, which artificially limits which ISPs are allowed into the market.
Fuck off with this shit, most people in the US fucking WISH they had 5 or more ISPs to choose from.

>>134765763
>implying anyone in the US can choose between just 3 ISPs at any time, let alone 2500
>implying Verizon is "1 out of 2500"

Do you even know how much infrastructure Verizon owns? That's like saying Comcast is just "1 out of 2500". I'm lucky that Cox isn't shit at the moment and has been good to me because literally my only other option is AT&T who charges $60 for 10mbps vs the 65 I get from Cox for the same price. Cox has a monopoly in this area just like many others, same as Comcast and Verizon.

If they were allowed to do whatever they want, you can't just "switch to another ISP :^)" because there ARENT ANY NEARBY you dumbfucks, if there are their plans are extremely limited because of the big provider around that owns all the infrastructure.

>>134766406
Lots of your ISPs have fucking data caps, stones glass houses ect.

Also my internet is 45 bucks a month for 100mps, would be 30 if bothered with TV and a landline phone.

>>134766688
Nigger, lots of our ISPs have data caps too, what's your fucking point?

>>134757939
All this is about is HD video streaming sites putting enormous strain on the infrastructure during the evening and ISPs want to charge THEM extra (not the customer) to not get throttled.

>>134766747
Not even comcast uses data caps. Maybe some shitty ass rural satellite internet provider, but that's not mainline. The government even includes clauses in regulation of merges saying that ISPs aren't allowed to start using caps.

>>134766688
yes, both our markets have ISPs that offer service with datacaps

yes, I too pay under my national average for my unlimited service

yes, your original premise
>leaf internet is so expensive and shitty
has been destroyed as on average american internet is more expensive for the same shit

File: 1493032067067.jpg (15KB, 408x305px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 408x305px

Title ii doesn't apply to mobile networks

>>134766940
>Not even comcast uses data caps.
???
Comcast has had 300 GB data caps for years, only recently did they increase it to 1 TB because the FCC was breathing down their neck.
Comcast is not a proper business, they don't stimulate proper free market competition, none of the major ISPs do, if given the chance they WILL collude, which is why these regulations and net neutrality exist.
Getting rid of net neutrality will only make sense when we split up the regional monopolies like we did with the Bell System back in the 80s.

>>134766842
you fucking idiot. who do you think that cost will be passed onto, the massive data corporations or you, the consumer?

>>134766940
>Not even comcast uses data caps.

they do and have been capping data for at least ten years. 1 second of googling will tell you exactly what the comcast cap is.

>>134757939
>jewflix throttling
>bad
Fucking leaf

>>134766940
Cox Communications caps their standard plan at 1TB and is a mainstream provider, not some shitty rural satellite. So does Comcast (not sure what #). You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>134766842
Literally this. That's why they put data caps in the first place.
Just because you get a maximum of 40 Mbps, doesn't mean the whole neighbor gets access to the same speed at the same time. There's a limit to the hardware. If people are using Netflix and killing the speed for everyone around them, they need to cap it.

I'm OK with killing net neutrality, but they need to allow competition in the ISP market in exchange. You can't have 1 or 2 companies controlling internet access and it's content.

>>134767047
First of all that wasn't me, but also, the average cost of highspeed internet is disingenuous because our rural population is even by proportion much larger. A median comparison would be better. Plus our average and median disposable income is higher.

>>134767280
My info was out of date, but you're completely wrong in thinking that the FCC has your interests at heart more than the ISPs. I would like to see more monopolies busted but that not happening does not mean we should be using massive and vaguely defined increases in the power of the federal censorship committee as a stopgap

>>134767378
>you fucking idiot. who do you think that cost will be passed onto, the massive data corporations or you, the consumer?
The ISPs have proposed charging those companies, not creating specific website packages for consumers. Not only would the latter be really shitty optics, it would be technologically difficult. If netflix has to increase its monthly fee then it will. But also internet prices would likely marginally decrease

>>134767606
>that doesn't mean that the whole neighborhood gets the whole speed

Is that my fucking problem? I paid for 40mbps and so did the rest of the neighborhood if not even better speeds than me, if they can't max out everyone at that speed then don't offer it. Simple as that dumbass leaf. The companies deserve no sympathy. This is a hole they dug, they can't just cap their way out of it to get around their own fuckup.

>>134767731
>My info was out of date, but you're completely wrong in thinking that the FCC has your interests at heart more than the ISPs.
I don't think ANY of them have my interests at heart, but ISPs are going to be fucking me over more than the FCC, so either split up the monopolies or keep net neutrality intact.
I don't like the idea of given the government so much power, but I hate the idea of giving huge corporations just as much power even more, especially when they have such insane regional monopolies.

>>134767954
Fuck you, videostreaming faggot. You don't get to ruin the internet because you're too lazy to actually download or buy your shows.

>>134757939
Pay for your extra bandwidth instead of pushing the lag and data caps and etc on everyone else, nigger.

>>134767378

If Netflix tries passing the costs onto the consumer they will lose money that way as well because people will cancel their accounts.

This is all about Netflix wanting to continue to maximize profit off their ability to jew ISPs.

>>134768007
>but ISPs are going to be fucking me over more than the FCC
ISPs are companies so public opinion is important. The FCC is a bureaucracy full of unelected employees and they are not accountable to anyone at all.

>>134757939
Fucking leaf shill

"Net neutrality" is fucking stupid. Why shouldn't people who use more be required to pay more? If you use more electricity or water than your neighbor, you have to pay more. And bandwidth is a limited resource just like electricity.

That said, the ISPs that took public money to expand their capacity and instead just pocketed it (like comcast) should have their CEOs and board members publicly executed.

>>134757939
>throttling Netflix
Good.
>throttling jewtube
Good.

Anti-white video services can get fucked.

>>134767954

No, you are paying for a "maximum of 40 Mbps". You get whatever they give you at the time.
It isn't your problem, it's the ISP's problem. Either netflix has to pay for it, or you do. Fiber lines aren't cheap.

I love the idea of turning over every possible aspect of our lives to some government bureaucrat.

>>134768180
>ISPs are companies so public opinion is important.
Not when you have a monopoly, at that point public opinion means fuck all because your customers have no choice.

>>134768077
>implying I don't torrent everything I use

Are you saying downloading my shows doesn't use bandwidth? Fuck off with your communist bullshit faggot. I pay for my service, I should be able to do whatever I want with said allotted bandwidth. Fuck nu/pol/ + t_d for allowing this shit to be accepted. If 4chan took a lot of bandwidth for some reason and they were throttling it I'm sure you'd come here crying about it, but because Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Video are for le normies, you'll gladly bend over for corporate cock to throttle it just to see normies mad. One day they will come for your shit. Block 4chan because of obscene content or some bullshit reason, fine you for using a VPN to access it, and you'll cry and cry. But no, it's ok, as long as you got your revenge on normies.

>>134760167
My ISP has to follow leaf laws, since all of their shit is based in leaf land (where I am we're on the Canadian grid for everything, near the border)
How fucked am I?

>>134768838
>Block 4chan because of obscene content or some bullshit reason
You know the government is about 1000x more likely to do this, right? Do you ecen know why broadcast TV is so kosher for decades?

>>134768340
>Why shouldn't people who use more be required to pay more?
Because you're already paying more to get access to those speeds you fucktard.
>And bandwidth is a limited resource just like electricity.
No it's not.

>>134769097
>No it's not.
Retard detected

>>134769097
>Because you're already paying more to get access to those speeds you fucktard.
If you aren't received service that you paid for, that's one thing. It's another thing to demand an infinite pipe at a low price. That's not really feasible.

>No it's not.
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>134767942
>>134768170
oh come on. we've known how telecoms work for how many years now? not exactly an industry known for delivering quality services to the consumer. now big data is in the mix. anyone with a modicum of common sense can see where this is headed and what it's about. they WILL jew the everliving shit out of you because they can. they can do it easily and you won't be able to avoid it because you will have no choice in the matter.

if these goddamn regional monopolies were broken up and municipal fiber initiatives (ala the lucent gigabit project in chattanooga) not quashed, then the conversation would be different. the reality, unfortunately, is not so ideal.

>>134768340
Because unlike water and electricity, I am paying for an allotted amount of throughput. I am not paying for the amount of data that I use over time, contrary to popular comparison that you're making.

I am not "using more", I am simply taking advantage of the rate of data coming through that I paid for already.

>>134769036
Oh sure, that explains why we had to pass NN in the first place right? Id rather risk the government blocking a website (which is not lawful btw) than a corporation being able to do so at any given time because they have been given free reign over their enormous monopoly that I cannot escape due to ISPs not being able to enter the market because of said monopoly.

>>134769309
>If you aren't received service that you paid for, that's one thing. It's another thing to demand an infinite pipe at a low price.
What the hell are you talking about?
If I'm being throttled I am 100% not receiving the service I paid for.
If I paid more than you, and I get better service, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I shouldn't have to pay even MORE because you just so happened to pay for an inferior service.
>>134769299
Bandwidth is not at all a limited resource like electricity, bandwidth is only limited in terms of allocation, not in terms of production.

>>134769542
>I shouldn't have to pay even MORE because you just so happened to pay for an inferior service.

So basically, you want lower paying users to SUBSIDIZE your higher cost, more wiring needed internet. Fuck off.

>>134769030
sounds ideal desu
leaf protections but have to compete with burger post-neutrality pricing

you might be in the sweet spot

>>134769309
>an infinite pipe

But that's the point fucking retard, infrastructure can deliver data constantly, indefinitely and it will not stress it. What stresses it is the speed. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about because you're comparing two totally different things. I totally understand not offering high speed data at a constant rate 24/7, I am simply demanding that if they cannot handle that load, then spend the money you charge me to upgrade your equipment or offer rates that they can sustain. Data is not a finite resource, I should not be throttled because I'm using all of the bandwidth I paid for. If your network cannot handle everyone maxing out their allotted bandwidth speed at the same time, then you shouldn't be offering it.

>>134769881
>higher cost, more wiring needed internet.
I can't tell if this is bait or not.
You're a sandnigger, so you're probably just retarded.

>>134769912
Hope so, haven't had any issues with anything yet

>>134769932
To elaborate, with an ISP's plan, to compare it to a standard utility, you are not paying for the amount of water you drain into your cup, you are paying for unlimited water but the water comes out faster depending on what plan you choose.

I should not be charged more because I leave my tap on all the time, because I am not paying for the water itself, I am paying for the rate at which the water is dispensed to me.

I should not be charged extra because I am utilizing 100% of what I am paying for. Anyone who does not use 100% of their plan is simply wasting that speed, hence wasting money. It is not my problem that my torrenting or video streaming stresses your network. Sounds like you need to upgrade your equipment to get with the times. I am paying for X mbps, I expect to get no more and no less than that for the price I pay per month, that the ISP agreed to serve.

File: 1498020842111.png (138KB, 354x504px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 354x504px

Nice slide thread leftypol faggot net neutrality is for boot licking niggers

>>134771058
10/10 argument
countersage

>>134768838
The FCC is much more likely to block 4chan for its content than ISPs, that kind of stupid bullshit is literally their job

>>134769382
Internet prices have fallen and speeds have gone up dramatically in the last 5 years. And yet you would have me believe that suddenly they're going to turn around and cap it at 5 gigs or whatever and try to sell us the rest back? I agree that monopolies need to be busted, but you're complaining about a potentiality that there is no evidence is actually going to happen. You are buying into the propaganda of literally google.

>>134769932
>>134770666
The ISPs do not want to throttle you, nor charge you more, they want to charge the HD streaming services

>>134772378
>The ISPs do not want to throttle you, nor charge you more
I can counter that with one word
Comcast

>>134772625
I should have clarified, in the context of this issue they do not want to throttle you. comcast always wanted to throttle

>>134772378
Actually, you know what, I'm sure the companies will totally ignore that cashcow and let Netflix and Youtube pay. Yep that's exactly how it will happen. I guess you're right. I am a huge retard.

>>134772704
AT&T, Charter, Cox, Verizon, they all throttle.

>>134772805
There is no cashcow there. the number of people willing to pay extra for greater internet access is marginal. People would just watch at lower resolutions.

>>134772915
Most have been caught experimenting with it, only comcast does it regularly to anyone besides high volume pirates

>>134757939

OH NOOOOOOO THE HORROR THE HORROR
YOU MEAN THEY WERE TESTING TO OPTIMIZE DATA ON PHONE NETWORKS
THE HORROR

QUICKLY!!!!

SOMEONE CALL OBAMA!!!!

GET HIM ON THIS!!!!

>>134773204
>there are people who are sceptical of absolutely everyone's motivation
>except for Corporate PR Responses
>that shit's basically the word of god

yeah that's about the expected level of intellect of an anarcho-capitalist

>>134773100
>People would just watch at lower resolutions.
>4k tv selling more and more every day
>"nah I'm just going to watch this shit at 720p for the TV I just paid $500 for

>>134772249

Why should the ISP charge the website or service provider I am attempting to access, using the service I am paying the ISP for?

They aren't selling me access to a selection of websites; they sell me a connection, usually rated in an up-to download speed, potentially with a maximum download limit (there may be fair-usage clauses involved also).

What I choose to use that connection for, is my own business (within the law). If I choose to use Netflix, why should that usage of the service I have bought be treated differently to if I was just downloading a file of equal size over an equal amount of time?

The answer, of course, is greed. The ISP wants to get a cheque from me, a cheque from Netflix, and a cheque from anyone who wants to access my browsing history (they lobbied against strong opt-in rules for sharing that data). They are rent-seeking, rather than innovating, and cry to politicians about how they have been cutting investment in infrastructure because of how cruel and harsh giving customers the service that they have been selling is. Of course, they have been telling their investors (to whom it is a federal offence to lie to) that everything is fine.

>>134773501
>they are throttling them because corporations are evil
>no we are testing data optimization
>liars! you are lying because you are evil

nice religion you got there. no wonder you believe in the religion of the state.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

Also no idea what anarcho-capitalism has to do with corporations. Don't know if you know this (of course you don't, because you probably didn't spend a single day of your life in the free market), but corporations ARE THE CREATIONS OF A STATE.

>>134757939
Fucking idiot doesn't realize there is no such thing as net neutrality.
It doesn't exist now.
/pol/ you should know by know that we already live in a dystopian future, it's not going to happen, it's ALREADY here.
Same thing with the internet.

>>134774032
no-ones are saying it's because of evil
it's because throttling it creates a new market

but I'm sure there's no long, storied history of PR responses being disingenuous in order to quell public outcry lmao!

>>134773204
>pay for specific download speeds
>company decides what services are worthy of said download speeds
Time to start mailing the DVDs again.

>I want government to have more power
COMMON CARRIERS

File: downloadfile.gif (1MB, 500x241px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x241px

>>134774611
>I'd rather take corporations' giant cock up my tight twink rectum than be called a bootlicker! That'll show those lefties!

>>134774611

>I want my ISP to decide how I can use the service I pay them for

FREEDOM

>>134774734
The fact that you think it's a choice of which cock to take and accept this false notion is very telling

>>134774734
Let's not forget; taking giant corporate cock up your ass makes you just as much of a bootlicker as taking giant government cock up your ass.
>>134774861
Don't think that's what he's saying at all, you shouldn't take ANY giant dick up your ass.

>>134757939
I think Time Warner does the same thing. Youtube videos load slow as hell until I use a VPN, then they load instantly.

>>134774944
Yet he wants the state's cock in place of an evil voluntary contract.

>>134774374
>throttling it creates a new market
As much as bad service in a restaurant created a new market

>>134774944
>>134774861

Of course I don't think you should take any dick up your ass, but doing it through the process of the law is simply the best choice we have. You don't have to give government total control over private infrastructure, but you can at least find legislation that can outlaw throttling for this shit, and data caps. The ISPs don't give a fuck about you and neither does the government, but the rule of law does, and if you get legislation (such as NN) to pass, you can prevent this shit and also save your rectum from gape. Getting rid of the safeguards that keep the ISPs balls out of your soup is just plain stupid and we will all regret it soon enough if Pajeet gets them taken down.

>>134775241
>Pfft, you don't NEED internet
Then you should be willing to lead by example, I'd be all for removing net neutrality wherever you live as a nice test run.

>>134775460
You're even dumber than I thought. Goodbye.

File: really_expands_the_universe.jpg (226KB, 995x803px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 995x803px

>>134775592
See ya in the next thread faggot

>>134775260
if there were three big restaurants through which all other "competing" restaurants had to purchase resources, and those three big restaurants regularly engaged in anti-competitive price fixing and turf division, then yes: shitting on customers would indeed create a new market.

>>134775260
It definitely creates more money that the ISPs strongarm from anyone wanting to deliver out a service to consumers just because they see demand in that service that they can jew money out of, is that simply put enough for you retard?

>>134768838
Streaming vs downloading
Streaming produces more strain with the same file size

>>134776291
How do you figure that?

Also, who gives a shit about network strain? Is it my problem that their shit network can't live up to the task of today's internet services? Sounds like maybe they should improve infrastructure instead of sitting with their thumbs up their ass raking in cash.

My service never got throttled before Net Neutrality. And the keyword in this article is accused.

The main battle is with regional government. Local government has the control in what ISP is allowed in their region. Mobile network should be fined if they dont offer service you pay for. Everyone agrees this should be part of the law.

Its about who you want to have more power - Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc... or Time Warner, Cox, Att.

Its all the same people, corporations fighting over power.

My data cap was lowered because of N.N and expansion has been slow in my region. Now my data went up 1tb and gigablast is coming in my region very soon.

>>134757939
Regardless, there are so many groups, companies, the government who are hellbent on censoring, whether in the name of protecting profits or ideology.

>>134776868
>Its about who you want to have more power - Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc... or Time Warner, Cox, Att.
I think it's more about who can be more easily replaced if they fuck up.
If I don't like Google, Netflix, or Kikebook, there are dozens of alternatives, as well as piracy.
If I don't like any of the big ISPs, chances are there are no other options in my area, so it's a lot harder to tell them to fuck off when they try to bend me over.

File: 1500534664581.gif (613KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 498x498px

>Instead of a corporation controlled internet we need to have a state controlled internet

>>134777958

Government control would be the government choosing what websites you can, or cannot, access.

Net Neutrality is the government telling ISPs to treat consumer data usage as equal, regardless of the source or purpose of that data.

>>134779248
This. Retards in this thread equate any kind of requirement for equal treatment as handing over the internet to the government.

>>134777779
>I think it's more about who can be more easily replaced if they fuck up.

this guy gets it. if facebook suddenly wanted your ssn then people would dump it and move on to something else. now if your isp started selling "access packages" like cable for internet you'd be totally fucked.

>>134780327
>what is a slippery slope

>>134761776
Yes, because providers just grow on trees! I have ONE, and don't live in the country or a tiny town, either. Fuck yourself.

>>134757939
Honestly im just glad they are targeting netflix and other normie sites first. worst would have been if they throttled less known sites only, i dont even know what to call people who have been on the internet a long time and know about all the nice sites anymore, leet haxxors? This way net neutrality will get some sopport among normal people.

>>134782065
>Government consumer protection (nanny state) vs (((fair trade)))

File: 1497675334404m.jpg (110KB, 1024x356px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x356px

Surely if the isp are for net neutrality I as a gender neutral anrcho communist should be for it too right? I mean its 2017 and I only trust what late night comedians say.

>>134782065
A fallacy. Next question?