DAD - Digital Assured Destruction

>>137862121
You'd be spiting your current enemy, but empowering the next. Pyrrhic Victory is a perfect phrase for it. Its only worth it if you think ISPs would be less censorship happy.

>>137862121
If we really want to fuck over the content providers we need to embrace decentralized
blockchain tech

>>137862440
Only in the case they call our bluff, the purpose of MAD was to be an overhanging threat other both groups so that either one would be reluctant to "Light the Match" so to speak.

The problem with it is, getting ourselves into such a position where the threat of "Lighting the Match" is there but we don't have it lit for us by the said ISP because of the "Sudden groundswell of support" from the public

>>137862121
With the attempts being made to shut down or demonize Torr and similar ideas, why do you think the idea still has legs?

>what is TOR I2P P2P BBS that weird radio internet protocol thingy

>>137862440
>>137862828
I think you make much better points, it's not really a MAD situation. This is more akin to hitting the self destruct button and getting cozy.

If it came to it should we embrace selfdestruction instead?

>>137863241
most people either don't know how or don't want to access their daily dank maymays through those services

>>137862440
The thing is net neutrality is such a bluff. The tiered internet nightmare where you pay multiple packages for specific websites would never happen because there would suddenly be competition from different ISPs offering a service with no restrictions. It's an Orwellian fantasy that could never happen in a competitive capitalist system.

Hell, I'd argue what we have right now is worse: locational monopolies held by ISPs in different parts of the country. They all just agree not to compete with one another in separate parts of the US.

>>137863452
onion links can be viewed on the clearweb with stuff like tor2web
abc.onion.to
boom no tor needed normies can read/comment/etc X now

>>137863470
>tfw McDonald tm raised the access price to 4reddit by 2Bitcoin and you are ready to ddos their servers with your prepaid limited use botnet but then your local burgerking tm comes up with a counter offer of unlimites dank maymay access for the low price of 1bitcoin a month and throws in a free child slave so you decide to just switch ISP's

>>137862121
Its an interesting concept ill give him that.

File: github.png (17KB, 247x63px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 247x63px

>>137862121
It's a great idea.

Silicon Valley has broken the social contract of the internet. No more a platform of free speech, nor a place where each page is equal to another, it is now a walled garden, each page their personal "property" to be run as they see fit. They own the servers, the infrastructure, the algorithms, and use them to impose their will on all.

No way they will stop at "Nazis". This will only become normalised as companies and the media rationalise the shift over this weekend. We already know what happens online when Silicon Valley doesn't like what they hear from your arguments. Pic related.

Jim is only articulating a consequence of this that is already playing out. Neither the tech nor libertarian nor free-thinking communities will continue to support the dystopia nightmare panopticon the internet is becoming. The enthusiasm will not be there in 5-10 years time. Why write your congressman to save Facebook cents on the dollar for its bandwidth costs? Because "free speech"? You won't have it anymore.

Let it burn.

Does anybody else hear how weird and heavily edited this video sounds? I'm honestly kind of suspicious of Jim being some kind of bot now.

>>137862440
>Pyrrhic Victory is a perfect phrase for it.
Losing an unfree internet is no great loss.

Freedom of Speech is like the relief valve on a pressurized vessel. Without it, things become explosive. You see the results in the streets today.

>>137862121
No. On top of that, it'd give ISPs the ability to censor people. It'd literally just lead to more censorship. I mean, Twitter can't ban you from 4chan, but your ISP could.

>>137863613
>what is tor blocking?
>what is ISP DPI?
>what is the Chinese Firewall?

>>137870286
>implying getting b& from here wouldn't be good for some people