internet

> or else we may all end up banned from 4chan

That statement is just false.

4chan is going to ban all users because there 's no net neutrality? No.

Being unable to access a website because your ISP won't let you go there isn't the same thing as being banned.

What's to stop you from accessing 4chan from another carrier? If Comcast or Cox won't let you, just switch to Verizon or Virgin Mobile via a wifi hotspot. Customers will flock to the companies that offer unrestricted access to the web.

This is all a scare tactic to allow the government to control the Internet. Don't kid yourself, many in it would like the FCC to shut down 4chan because Russian fake news hacker Pepe .

>>346067
It's overstatement, mostly advocating for net neutrality. If ISPs are allowed to throttle whatever traffic they like, life could get more expensive and annoying quite easily, but that's not the same as getting banned.

>>346077
>>346079
Thank you.

>>346079
It's not an overstatement, it's a euphemism.

Your ISP could totally ban 4chan for being a "hate site" or a "violent pornography site" or an "underage pornography site", and no-one will speak up for you because they're not racists, they're not perverts and they're not paedophiles.

Your ISP will be legally justified in doing this, because it's not a common carrier anymore.

>>346115
Dafuq you mean? This site is 100% legal.

>>346131
Tell that to /pol/.

>>346131

If you've ever been to /b/ you'd know that's false

>>346131
Common carriers are obliged to provide access to everything that's legal.

If ISPs are no longer common carriers, they aren't obliged to do that, and could quite legally block every website that mentions the word "earthworm", and you would have no legal remedy to make them unblock them, and your only option would be to get your Internet from some competing ISP that doesn't hate earthworms, assuming one operates in your area.

>>346067
Should I care about this if I'm not American?

>>346131
Yes the site is legal, so under CURRENT net neutrality laws, ISPs cannot block it.
With net neutrality laws changed/removed, ISPs could freely choose to block or throttle whatever they wanted.
Theoretically you can say "free market economics, people will just go to the competing less-shitty ISPs". But in reality, this is not a free market. In most of the US, one ISP or another has a government-enforced local monopoly. Most consumers have 1 or maybe 2 options for their internet provider. The market is about as far from "free" as it can be.

>>346238
Probably not, but affects on american companies could bother you if, say, Netflix goes out of business. Large internet companies like Comcast also own online streaming as well as TV services, so they have an incentive to throttle Netflix and make its service shittier so people go back to either watching Comcast's cable TV or using Comcast's online streaming.

>>346077
Some companies have a monopoly on local areas, and moving is expensive.