404OilDrum said:
I know that's a lot of questions, but if your answer isn't "Liberals" then i got bad news for you...

Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you...

The real question is, why does the current government support this idea?

It's visible within the news networks. Trump supporters own some of them (and buy more media companies recently), while the president demonizes more critical journalism. Now imagine what would happen when the net neutrality isn't given any more. Companies close to Trump could decide which content is available for most people.

Want to get news from fox.com? - It comes with the cheapest package
Want to get CNN news? - Oh, the premium pack contains it, and only costs additional 15$
(I think you get the idea)

For me this looks like an attempt to destabilize the two party dictatorship democratic processes within the USA.

1)Journalists get muted and demonized
2)Media networks are brought on line with the govermental believes
3)The public gets cut from unwanted informations

As german, some sentences come to my mind
-The NSDAP from 1933 called, they want their methods back
-Orwell was wrong, he was 33 years too early with his prediction
-What does the president say to the republican ISPs? "You keep them stupid and I keep them poor"

WOW. It's actually sad that so many people are so upset that we're actually bringing back freedom for ONCE. Let me respond to this one by one. Massive TL:DR ahead.

Faux-Pa: "Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal."

Okay, so making sure that social media leaders don't abuse their powers to censor conservative beliefs and giving a free pass for liberals to call for violance and reverse bigotry, as well as the ability to advertise liberal propaganda is a "political takeover machine of a repeal". I'll add that to the "communist manifesto" list then... There's also a point worth noting, you calling me the "few right-ist", i believe the term you're looking for is "Alt-Righter" because as you know, the republican party is mainly being run by Neocons, we call them "Cuckservatives", who are basically SJW enablers, we call it "the establishment". We already have like 5 Rep senators you are revolting against Trump and the people. I got the feeling that those senators will vote against this repeal.

I also know exactly what NN is: it's just one of many SJW policies being introduced over the years that continue to drive our society closer and closer to "1984". I certainly don't want my only beverage be "Victory Gin", and i don't think you do too. Do you?

Faux-Paw: *quotes the first amendment*

You keep quoting it, but i don't think you know what it means, because if you think that literally only congress can't censor speech, i would be surprised that we aren't already in an orwellian society already, because that would mean bodies like the president and the executives branch, the courts, the states and local governments can easily censor speech just fine, as well as the press, the military, entertainment media, groups of people, religons, social media and businesses and corporations, which you claim would be able to censor liberals if NN is repealed. Obviously, the first amendment doesn't just literally mean: "Only congress can't, but everybody else can!"

Faux-Pax: *quotes Facebooks community standards*

Do you seriously think that FaceBooks rules, or any social medias rules for that matter, be constitutional? If the Supreme Court wasn't run by SJWs, they would've overturn those rules on day one.

Faux-Pax: "Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque."

Really? Of all the groups to victimize, you chose Muslims? Let me ask you this: Are there whole armies of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of "christian extremist" committing terrorism? And no, "what about the KKK" is not an answer, ISIS and the likes DWARFS anything the KKK and the likes could ever pull out, and i'm not talking about "then", i'm talking about the "NOW". (In case your still not convinced, go and take a look at lower Manhattan: do you still see two towers standing there? Didn't think so.) If you're about to say: "Not all Muslims are terrorists." well then, why don't you take a good read of the Qurun. It doesn't exactly promote "liberal principles" now does it?

Oh, and somebody with mental illness is TOTALLY a great example!

Faux-Paw: "And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW."

Apparently, "civil rights" and "equality" means causing choas, destroying property, punching people and calling for violence in order to achieve said "equality", as well as demonizing the police via race baiting and divding the nation on race and "gender pronouns", and demoralizing those they think are against said "equality", thus giving a free pass for reverse bigotry... Not exactly the "equality" and "civils rights" that people like MLK were thinking of. (Although recently we found out that people like MLK in history are not exactly as they seem.)

Faux-Paw: *quotes GamerGate article*

Seriously??? Do you really believe what those Anti-GG articles have to say? *sigh* Firstly: Quinn, Wu, Anita, were all caught sending fake harassment posts to them self's. Secondly: We know that "Gaming journelism" is biased in favor of Feminazism. Thirdly: We found out via leak that Anita doesn't even like video games. Fourthly: Pro-GamerGaters are the people ACTUALLY receiving harassment from Anti-GamerGaters. Fifthly: Anti-GGs want to destroy the gaming community with political correctness, Pro-GGs want to SAVE the gaming community from Political correctness. It's called FACTS.

Faux-Paw: *accuses me of hypocrisy*

I've just explain that repealing NN will help prevent the people running sociel media and SJWs to censor free speech via the internet. I've also explained that it will help prevent SJWs from spreading reverse bigotry via the internet.

Faux-Paw: *godwins law*

You know, the Mainstream Media doesn't have "protective privilege" from the first amendment, they can be sued or even jailed for libel and the likes. And a democracy don't have news that spreads propaganda. Yes, that Russia story is NOTHING but a conspiracy theory told by the major media, no different than the "grassy knoll shooter" idea or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" idea and the likes.

Faux-Paw: "... what? A little context would be appreciated."

We've all heard the stories of SJWs proposing and passing laws that censor free speech and laws that discriminate males and whites. Somethings that the media doesn't cover intentionally.

Faux-Paw: "Other gamers and YouTubers."

The Youtuber you linked doesn't seem like a bigot to me, he just posts video pointing out the SJW stupidity going on, you know, more FACTS. I'm also talking about YouTubers who have been wrongfully demonized, like PewDiePie and JonTron, they were also just pointing out FACTS.

Faux-Paw: "Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing?"

Liberals who want to take down statues of are generals and want to change history to demonize whites and males, even asking whites tp pay for their ancestors. Liberals Who demonize america and american patriotism. It seems like we're not aloud to be proud of are own country anymore. Liberals also do this in Europe too.

Faux-Paw: *Links from the fake news washington post bashing trump*

Also typical. The media doesn't report on the great job Trump has done with the economy. Jobs have been created, unemployment is at a record low point in 20 years, wages are up, our stock markup is at a record high in also 20 years, and our dept is starting to drop. We recently just caught the washington post faking rape allegations against Roy Moore. The very definition of yellow journalism.

Faux-Paw: "Both sides of the political spectrum."

Not at all. Again, we've seen time and time again that liberals have the WORST record on truth. It's as if truth has become partisan.

Faux-Paw: "YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos."

So somebody making a "politically incorrect" joke should have money stripped from their job is "perfectly reasonable." *sigh*

Faux-Paw: "Kathy Griffin, Katie Mary Rish."

Those are the only two answers you got correct.

Faux-Paw: "That's subjective, but let's just play along."

Dodging the content of the movie. Very Typical.

Faux-Paw: "You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment."

I was making an example when Waba accused conservatives of being "idiot", "petty" and "pathetic". I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't abuse their power in the State Department.

Faux-Paw: "Not all liberals are SJWs. I'm not an SJW."
Waba: "Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you..."

I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies. CurentYear Oliver used Anita as an example of "cyberbulling" while also saying that "cyberbulling" only affects women. (Pretty much leaving people like furries in the dirt.) Samantha Bee blamed all white people for Trumps victory. It was also liberal politicians who proposed "liberal arts studies" in the first place. A liberal may say there're not an SJW, but the instant somebody says "there are only two genders" they'll immediately get triggered.

Faux-Paw: "Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?"
D4rk: "I didn't see any facts, just a rage post against SWJ and feminists. "Alternative facts" also wouldn't fall under the definition of being facts."

It's a sad time when the Mainstream Media, Historians, Hollywood, experts, professors, Wikis, dictionaries, and "intellectuals" have constantly told us lies, telling us the truth are lies, and the lies are the truth. At this point "alternative facts" are the actual facts. The Media telling us that Breitbart and InfoWars are the "fake news", and that their lies are the truth. As their saying goes: "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Holy hell, i've been writing this for who knows how long their may have been other posts since i've started this, but i wasn't expecting so many people would be upset that we're going to have free speech back on the internet again. It's so sad in fact, as Trump would say.

Yeah, I have a feeling that someone here is ban-evading, but anyway, I find it hilarious the alt right would oppose NN. Your 'movement' isn't as mainstream as you think it is. Nobody wants you around. Even reddit cracked down on your asses. What makes you think that ISPs aren't going to limit access to alt-right bullshit, especially when they're going to be desperate for some good pr? You're getting played like a cheap kazoo, but I have a feeling it's going to take ISPs going "See, repealing NN was GOOD because we can block alt-right websites!" to make you see it.

I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies.

I could say the same thing for the other side.

But if you want it, here you go:

I think it is horrible how the loudest, most extreme mouths are the ones that are used an an example of how all others of "that" are.

A rabid dog is not an example of all dogs.
A serial killer is not an example of all humans.
Movie Stars and models are not examples of what all people look like.
Far right extremists are not an example of what all conservatives are like.
Far left liberal extremists are not examples of what all liberals are like.
A murderer is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A terrorist is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A SJW is not an example of what everyone interested in social justice is like.
A Nazi is not an example of what everyone interested in strong borders is like.

Extremists, however, get news coverage. It's REALLY easy to say "look at what this one guy did!" and hold them up like an example of what everyone else 'over there' is like.

Everyone else says "no, really, that's not what we're like!" and generally... it goes unheard, because it's not "big news".. it's not exciting. It doesn't get people riled up and angry and afraid and hungry for more information.

I'm a liberal. I hate bullying and condemn anyone who bullies another. I condemn those who feel the only way to make everyone 'equal' is to degrade others. I condemn those who want to bring people down instead of lifting them up. I condemn those who say harsh words with the intent to harm another. I condemn those who marginalize other humans. I condemn extremist behaviors, on both sides.

I just want everyone to fucking get along, to care about each other and to help each other out, regardless of what they look like. I want people to judge each other based off of their actions, not the actions of unrelated strangers. Y'know?

Extremists of all sorts don't really like getting along with each other. They want to fight. With actions and words and thoughts. and this is true of ALL extremists. Including SJW, liberal extremists, far right extremists, nazis, and every other grouping of humanity out there.

So there. Good enough? Please don't lump us all in with the worse examples of 'our side'.

I promise, we've been fighting against SJW for ages.

regsmutt said:
Yeah, I have a feeling that someone here is ban-evading, but anyway, I find it hilarious the alt right would oppose NN. Your 'movement' isn't as mainstream as you think it is. Nobody wants you around. Even reddit cracked down on your asses. What makes you think that ISPs aren't going to limit access to alt-right bullshit, especially when they're going to be desperate for some good pr? You're getting played like a cheap kazoo, but I have a feeling it's going to take ISPs going "See, repealing NN was GOOD because we can block alt-right websites!" to make you see it.

If the Alt-Right is as fringe as you make it out to be, then why did the UK leave the EU? Why has populist parties have gained ground in many European countries? Why do the general public trust independent news more then mainstream news? Why do the general public believe that reverse bigotry has become a bigger problem then normal bigotry? Most importantly, why is Donald Trump president of the US right now? The statistics are not in your favor.

We were played a fool of a few weeks ago, when we lost elections, i was pretty beat about that, until this resent NN repeal proposal.

Also, nice Ad Hominem, I don't see what ban evading has anything to do with what we're talking about.

After more than a week of calling, I finally received two responses from my congressman and Senators.

The congressman and at least one senator claim to support net neutrality. The other one outright mirrored Ajit Pai's "it stifles innovation" claim.

Also interesting: One of the supporters is a righty.

SnowWolf said:
I think it is horrible how the loudest, most extreme mouths are the ones that are used an an example of how all others of "that" are.

A rabid dog is not an example of all dogs.
A serial killer is not an example of all humans.
Movie Stars and models are not examples of what all people look like.
Far right extremists are not an example of what all conservatives are like.
Far left liberal extremists are not examples of what all liberals are like.
A murderer is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A terrorist is not an example of what everyone of his/her race/religion are like.
A SJW is not an example of what everyone interested in social justice is like.
A Nazi is not an example of what everyone interested in strong borders is like.

Extremists, however, get news coverage. It's REALLY easy to say "look at what this one guy did!" and hold them up like an example of what everyone else 'over there' is like.

Everyone else says "no, really, that's not what we're like!" and generally... it goes unheard, because it's not "big news".. it's not exciting. It doesn't get people riled up and angry and afraid and hungry for more information.

The problem with vocal minorities in a nutshell.

404OilDrum said:
WOW. It's actually sad that so many people are so upset that we're actually bringing back freedom for ONCE. Let me respond to this one by one. Massive TL:DR ahead.

Whatever, here we go.

Faux-Pa: "Yes. Yes you are one of the very few right-ists who are pushing for this political takeover machine of a repeal."

Okay, so making sure that social media leaders don't abuse their powers to censor conservative beliefs and giving a free pass for liberals to call for violance and reverse bigotry, as well as the ability to advertise liberal propaganda is a "political takeover machine of a repeal". I'll add that to the "communist manifesto" list then... There's also a point worth noting, you calling me the "few right-ist", i believe the term you're looking for is "Alt-Righter" because as you know, the republican party is mainly being run by Neocons, we call them "C**kservatives", who are basically SJW enablers, we call it "the establishment". We already have like 5 Rep senators you are revolting against Trump and the people. I got the feeling that those senators will vote against this repeal.

I also know exactly what NN is: it's just one of many SJW policies being introduced over the years that continue to drive our society closer and closer to "1984". I certainly don't want my only beverage be "Victory Gin", and i don't think you do too. Do you?

That's cute. You're trying to demerit my post without any proof that what you're saying is even true. You keep saying that you know what Net Neutrality is, but you actually have no clue. Even as I give you an exact definition of what Net Neutrality is and why it's so important, you plug you ears and sing "Amazing Grace" at the top of your lungs. You then proceed to hide behind the fact that you're part of the political minority, essentially saying that I "hurt your fee-fees", and that "c**kservatives" are "SJW enablers". That's such a strong argument. \s

Also, I'm more of a tequila guy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Paw: *quotes the first amendment*

You keep quoting it, but i don't think you know what it means, because if you think that literally only congress can't censor speech, i would be surprised that we aren't already in an orwellian society already, because that would mean bodies like the president and the executives branch, the courts, the states and local governments can easily censor speech just fine, as well as the press, the military, entertainment media, groups of people, religons, social media and businesses and corporations, which you claim would be able to censor liberals if NN is repealed. Obviously, the first amendment doesn't just literally mean: "Only congress can't, but everybody else can!"

I would draw you a flow chart to show you how ISPs would be able to take bribes from the "Alt-Right" to strategically mute any opposition online, but then I'd need scissors and crayons to make it have pop-ups and pictures.

Plus, even if Facebook were censoring conservatives like you claim they are, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to allow you to trapeze all over their website while making outrageous claims. That same logic would also apply here. E621 administration could totally remove this entire thread if they wanted and ban both of us (or reban, in your case).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Pax: *quotes Facebooks community standards*

Do you seriously think that FaceBooks rules, or any social medias rules for that matter, be constitutional? If the Supreme Court wasn't run by SJWs, they would've overturn those rules on day one.

Like I just said, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to protect your rights. If that weren't the case, I would be able to sue Burger King because they fired me for no reason (which is a law here in Nevada; they don't have to give you a reason).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faux-Pax: "Can't have everyone who hates Muslims jumping on Facebook to plot their next attack of a Mosque."

Really? Of all the groups to victimize, you chose Muslims? Let me ask you this: Are there whole armies of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of "chris-

No, I'm not getting into that here. I'm not getting banned because you want to be a bigot.

Oh, and somebody with mental illness is TOTALLY a great example!

It is a great example! Thanks for agreeing! Anyone who's willing to go out and kill hundreds of people just for doing or believing something has a mental illness, but that doesn't excuse them from being commented on.

Faux-Paw: "And I just laugh when conservatives automatically think that because a liberal attempts to advocate for equal civil rights that they're a far-left feminist who wants to enslave men , or a whiny let's-hold-hands-and-cry-in-the-middle-of-the-freeway SJW."

Apparently, "civil rights" and "equality" means causing choas, destroying property, punching people and calling for violence in order to achieve said "equality", as well as demonizing the police via race baiting and divding the nation on race and "gender pronouns", and demoralizing those they think are against said "equality", thus giving a free pass for reverse bigotry... Not exactly the "equality" and "civils rights" that people like MLK were thinking of. (Although recently we found out that people like MLK in history are not exactly as they seem.)

And I guess being a member of the Alt-Right means being thieves and ex-patriots , vigilantes (video) , and racists . Again, \s if you couldn't tell

Like I said multiple times in my previous statement, the "femnazis" (as you call them) and the SJWs don't represent the Liberal party as a whole. Do you honestly think I would go out and destroy my town because the federal courts ruled against something I supported? Do you honestly think that I "hate" the police that protect me from getting attacked by tweakers at the city bus station? No, I don't, so stop generalizing us.

Faux-Paw: *quotes GamerGate article*

Seriously??? Do you really believe what those Anti-GG articles have to say? *sigh* Firstly: Quinn, Wu, Ani-

Blah blah fucking blah. You're attempting to roam away from the original argument for/against Net Neutrality. I'm not even going to spend the time of day debunking that spew of nonsense.

Faux-Paw: *accuses me of hypocrisy*

I've just explain that repealing NN will help prevent the people running sociel media and SJWs to censor free speech via the internet. I've also explained that it will help prevent SJWs from spreading reverse bigotry via the internet.

Nowhere in the repeal motion for Net Neutrality does it mention squashing the opinions and rights of anyone. It also doesn't detail any plan to "stop Facebook from censoring free speech"... even though they haven't been doing such a thing.

Faux-Paw: *godwins law*

You know, the Mainstream Media doesn't have "protective privilege" from the first amendment, they can be sued or even jailed for libel and the likes. And a democracy don't have news that spreads propaganda. Yes, that Russia story is NOTHING but a conspiracy theory told by th-

I had to cut you off after the Russia collusion part because you were attempting to go off topic again. For the third time now, they are a private company. They are at no liberty to protect your rights. I don't know how many times I have to say it.

Faux-Paw: "... what? A little context would be appreciated."

We've all heard the stories of SJWs proposing and passing laws that censor free speech and laws that discriminate males and whites. Somethings that the media doesn't cover intentionally.

I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence supporting your statement. That's what I meant by a little more context.

Faux-Paw: "Other gamers and YouTubers."

The Youtuber you linked doesn't seem like a bigot to me, he just posts video pointing out the SJW stupidity going on, you know, more FACTS. I'm also talking about YouTubers who have been wrongfully demonized, like PewDiePie and JonTron, they were also just pointing out FACTS.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about PewDiePie and JonTron. That's old news. They don't seem to be affected by that anymore, do they?
And I linked Raggs because of the stories he covers, and how moronic the people in those videos sound/are. I never implied that he was a bigot. Long-winded, more like it.

Faux-Paw: "Cleansing? People who would rather not remember what awful things that our country has done to people. Demonizing?"

Liberals who want to take down statues of are generals and want to change history to demonize whites and males, even asking whites tp pay for their ancestors. Liberals Who demonize america and american patriotism. It seems like we're not aloud to be proud of are own country anymore. Liberals also do this in Europe too.

rrrrrrr.... I don't know how many times I have to say this, but- you know what? I won't. It seems as if everything I'm saying is falling on either deaf or stubborn ears. Every time your generalize us or roam away from the original argument, I'll just post a random picture from what.

post #1376872

Faux-Paw: *Links from the fake news washington post bashing trump*

Also typical. The media doesn't report on the great job Trump has done with the economy. Jobs have been created, unemployment is at a record low point in 20 years, wages are up, our stock markup is at a record high in also 20 years, and our dept is starting to drop. We recently just caught the washington post faking rape allegations against Roy Moore. The very definition of yellow journalism.

post #1376872

Faux-Paw: "Both sides of the political spectrum."

Not at all. Again, we've seen time and time again that liberals have the WORST record on truth. It's as if truth has become partisan.

post #1344549

Faux-Paw: "YouTube.com and corporations who don't want their content shown on "non-ad-friendly" (yeah, bullshit) videos."

So somebody making a "politically incorrect" joke should have money stripped from their job is "perfectly reasonable." *sigh*

What? I never said that. I agree that YouTube is doing their users a disservice by putting this corporate censorship rule into effect. I think that one of very few things that we actually agree on.

Faux-Paw: "Kathy Griffin, Katie Mary Rish."

Those are the only two answers you got correct.

Oh, shut up. I said "Kathy Griffin, who I want to point out that she no longer sorry for posing with it.". Stop trying to mangle my words for your own amusement.

Faux-Paw: "That's subjective, but let's just play along."

Dodging the content of the movie. Very Typical.

post #1350312

Faux-Paw: "You want me to say Senator and Former First Lady Hillary Clinton, right? Okay, I'll give you that.
Hillary Clinton, who has made no open statements about the Net Neutrality repeal motion, and has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the first amendment."

I was making an example when Waba accused conservatives of being "idiot", "petty" and "pathetic". I'm pretty sure conservatives wouldn't abuse their power in the State Department.

Firstly, https://www.aclu.org/other/top-ten-abuses-power-911
Secondly, post #1315086

Faux-Paw: "Not all liberals are SJWs. I'm not an SJW."
Waba: "Except answering "liberals" to all of those questions would be incorrect. If you truly believe that all liberals think the same, act the same, and do the same things, then I got bad news for you..."

I see all the time that liberals that the term "SJW" as an "overused term", and an "over used argument", when i have yet to see any other liberal condemn any SJW and their activities and policies. CurentYear Oliver used Anita as an example of "cyberbulling" while also saying that "cyberbulling" only affects women. (Pretty much leaving people like furries in the dirt.) Samantha Bee blamed all white people for Trumps victory. It was also liberal politicians who proposed "liberal arts studies" in the first place. A liberal may say there're not an SJW, but the instant somebody says "there are only two genders" they'll immediately get triggered.

post #1283585

Faux-Paw: "Huh. You claim that your false truths are "facts", but then choose not to provide any kind of proof. Did someone say fake news?"
D4rk: "I didn't see any facts, just a rage post against SWJ and feminists. "Alternative facts" also wouldn't fall under the definition of being facts."

It's a sad time when the Mainstream Media, Historians, Hollywood, experts, professors, Wikis, dictionaries, and "intellectuals" have constantly told us lies, telling us the truth are lies, and the lies are the truth. At this point "alternative facts" are the actual facts. The Media telling us that Breitbart and InfoWars are the "fake news", and that their lies are the truth. As their saying goes: "WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Wow, that's a lot of alternative facts .
Also, post #1230294

Holy hell, i've been writing this for who knows how long their may have been other posts since i've started this, but i wasn't expecting so many people would be upset that we're going to have free speech back on the internet again. It's so sad in fact, as Trump would say.

Yeah, I've spent a lot of time on this as well. I'm pooped. I've been giving the most evidence to back up what I'm saying, and you've been going off on tangents about Muslims, GamerGate, SJWs and Feminists. This is going nowhere anytime soon, so can we just stop? If you have nothing worthwhile to provide to the argument, then please refrain. If you feel like starting a thread against Net Neutrality, then feel free.

BlueDingo said:
The problem with vocal minorities in a nutshell.

Err... There's nothing wrong with vocal minorities. There's something wrong with the vocal minorities that go about spreading their message in all the wrong ways, and the people on the other side of the argument who use them as an example to generalize the other side.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Err... There's nothing wrong with vocal minorities. There's something wrong with the vocal minorities that go about spreading their message in all the wrong ways, and the people on the other side of the argument who use them as an example to generalize the other side.

That's kinda what I meant. It's the loud ones who get all the attention, and influence how the quiet ones are perceived. Most inaccurate stereotypes are a direct result of this.

D4rk said:
The real question is, why does the current government support this idea?

It's visible within the news networks. Trump supporters own some of them (and buy more media companies recently), while the president demonizes more critical journalism. Now imagine what would happen when the net neutrality isn't given any more. Companies close to Trump could decide which content is available for most people.

Just because Donny Two Scoops bashes on journalist for crappy reporting doesn't mean he's going to start having them censored. I think it's all over hyped bs to get the proles worked up. Like I mentioned before you have to look at the main groups that are talking about censorship. Then add Facebook and Google to the mix and you a bunch of groups that are pro-censorship claiming to be fighting against censorship. Not only is it hypocritical but it makes the claim seem insincere. Idk if people realize how ironic the whole situation is.

>Want to get news from fox.com? - It comes with the cheapest package.
That's still too much.
>Want to get CNN news? - Oh, the premium pack contains it, and only costs additional 15$
You gone too far Donny Two Scoops!!!!!!

For me this looks like an attempt to destabilize the two party dictatorship democratic processes within the USA.

1)Journalists get muted and demonized
2)Media networks are brought on line with the govermental believes
3)The public gets cut from unwanted informations

Donny Two Scoops is literally Orange Hitler, I guess that means CNN was right and we should stop calling them fake news.

>why do republicans want to get rid of it?
I wouldn't be surprised at to find that there some that have stock in the companies but like pajeet purposed it seems to bring in investors. It would be funny to see facebook and google take a hit. Also the liberal salt mining will be fantastic.

Verizon 5g will be coming out and stock is going up to.. If lowering taxes and repealing NN encourages people to invest in companies that are developing 5g technology(like Verizon), then I don't really see a problem with any of it. Atm, Verizon is the only company that can provide any real competition against AT&T and Comcast. Not only will it force those companies to develop 5g to stay competitive but it will help keep their prices in check too.

>Also what is this "Commiefornia" thing? Some kind of patriotic phrase?
Just making fun of California. All the stuff going on with antifa, feminazis and sjw's the whole "calling lefties commies meme" has became popular again.

It's an economical cycle between ISPs and the companies - Without conntent (from the companies) there wouldn't be a reason to get into the internet for many people, while without connection (provided by the ISP) the companies couldn't deliver their services.

You are right, they will have to come to a fair deal. I really doubt they will raise the price to much if at all(for consumers) people pay already pay alot and don't like the companies.

And sure, building a better network costs money, that's how an economy works. Profit needs always an investment before (maybe also with funds from the goverment). One of the problems the USA stumbles over is the fact that way more money get send to the military rather than civilian infrastructure.

Not only does the US invest a lot in the military but we way over pay for every thing too, its BS.

404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

F

404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

Esc > Load

I dunno what else I could add to this discussion, so the prosecution rests. The defense may call their next witness.

ThoughtCrime said:

404OilDrum was convicted of thoughtcrimes.

F

Is it really a thoughtcrime if the act of posting is bad, not the thinking?

Violet_Rose said:
I second that sentiment. The right to have an opinion isn't the same as the right to beat people over the head with it. If it would have been fine if he had been more civil and thoughtful about it instead of antagonizing and belittling people, then no thoughtcrime issue here. Granted, the line between not being able to have an opinion and not being able to say it is a thin one, but I think you're on the right side of that line considering this site isn't really a place for political debate anyway. Choose your venue wisely, that's what I always tell people who want to get on a soapbox…

Back on topic, yeah, I'm worried about this. I've spent several hours over the last few days saving all of my favorite images from this website and a few others, just in case. Never bothered doing that before, especially because having them in an unsearchable, harder to share pile on my hard drive is an objectively worse use case, but things have just stacked up lately to remind me that nothing lasts forever - my preferred mainstream porn site losing its domain temporarily, having my mentor tell me to always store website resources locally because services go down (RIP Geocities), and the way HentaiFoundry and FA and Reddit's policies went bad - and the talk about smaller websites dying lately pushed it over the edge.

I don't know what we can actually do though. Contact representatives, yeah, but they're not the ones making the decision. Still a good idea because it sets up a future climate that's a bit more favorable, but Ajit Pai specifically is very obviously bought and paid for, not working for the people. So I think the smart thing to do is what I'm doing - make offline backups of things important to you, and get contact information from your friends if you only know them through services that might be threatened.

Seeing what direction our government is going in, I completely agree with you. While it may be pessimistic to "bare down and wait for the storm to pass", the current administration has already set a precedence of being un-interested in what the people want. Without going too far into the talking cheeto's agenda, I'll just leave it at this-

Mainstream media (CNN, CNBC, Fox, etc.) isn't even making an effort to report on this, so the American people have no clue about what's to come. Trump isn't saying a single word (most likely because he supports the repeal and doesn't want to attract any attention to the issue). If nobody with power in this country is saying anything, then who will?

We will. The odds may not be ever in our favor. We may not win. But maybe, just maybe if we kick and scream loud enough, maybe someone outside of the trunk that we're tied up in will hear our cries for help.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
I dunno what else I could add to this discussion.

Some more copypasta and links to click bait articles, from biased news organizations, couldn't hurt.

NotMeNotYou said:
Is it really a thoughtcrime if the act of posting is bad, not the thinking?

I thought the memeing would indicate I was being a bit sarcastic. I was going to send him a message to suggest it toning down a bit, but they were unpersoned(I know I'm not using the term properly but it's a joke) before I had a chance. Sad.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Mainstream media (CNN, CNBC, Fox, etc.) isn't even making an effort to report on this.

Just because they're reporting on 24/7 doesn't mean these they're not reporting on it. Every one already knows that they're heavily biased and not always the most credible news sources. I think not reporting on it constantly, might be an attempt to make themselves seem like credible news sources.

I didn't want to go down this route but I guess it's to play the copypasta game.

Here is an example of some top notch journalism

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, as part of the plan to promote his plan to undo the country’s net neutrality rules, has thrown Twitter and other online services under the bus in order to show that it’s not just broadband providers that can exert control over internet content. “When it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” he explained. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”

I see the problem of him pointing out how these people are hypocrites.

The Chairman’s speech, which you can watch here along with the rest, began with a brief history and justification of the rollback. He specified exactly two downsides to the present rules: it decreases investment and it stifles innovation.

Neither of these things is true: the investment story is at best a mix and the numbers, like all numbers, can and have been cherry-picked to show different things.

> The data is inconclusive but it kind of looks like Pai cherry-picked some information to push his agenda.

Holy shit people this is yuuge! Someone cherry-picking info is unheard of, we have to tell everyone about this.... If you look at all stocks pertaining to ISP's, it seems like they are all going up. So, yeah.

He stated, as quoted above, that Twitter is “part of the problem.” After this followed some examples of platform partisanship:

Twitter blocked Representative Marsha Blackburn from advertising her Senate campaign launch video because it featured a pro-life message. Before that, during the so-called Day of Action, Twitter warned users that a link to a statement by one company on the topic of Internet regulation “may be unsafe.” And to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users. This conduct is many things, but it isn’t fighting for an open Internet.

But it’s not the only one. “Despite all the talk about the fear that broadband providers could decide what Internet content consumers can see,” he said, “Recent experience shows that so-called edge providers are in fact deciding what content they see. These providers routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.” (Emphasis Pai’s, in prepared remarks.)

Now, this is not an assertion that is without merit. The threat of large companies that touch a significant portion of content (such as Google and Cloudflare) having power over that content is a real one.

But he takes things a step too far:

In this way, edge providers are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint… So let’s be clear. They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.

There are a couple of things to unpack from the sleight of hand here.

For one thing, it’s a disingenuous comparison, like saying bullets are more dangerous than guns. The job of ISPs is to perform data-agnostic packet transmission. Edge providers, on the other hand, are in the business of sorting, modifying and presenting information to users according to various preferences, algorithms and, yes, ideologies. For many of them, “discrimination on the basis of viewpoint” is a feature, not a bug.

Wew lad, just that all sink in for a sec. Just wait it gets better.

And even granting the comparison credence for a moment, it’s quite a stretch. Internet providers are in a position of incredible power as the main conduit for information to go from here to there. People are free to choose another search engine, quit Facebook and Twitter, or even start their own platforms, which indeed is how the present power structure was arrived at. But people (in the U.S. at least) are seldom free to easily change their internet provider, and of course that internet provider affects all their online activities, not just ones on a certain platform. So the idea that those reached through the internet are a greater threat than the ones that provide that reach is unconvincing.

But most importantly, the hypothetical bad behavior of another industry is not what should concern the FCC, and in fact is outside its jurisdiction; net neutrality is specifically about preventing the threat presented by broadband providers, keeping the pipe itself clear of blockage, throttling, fast lanes and so on.

It's ok that these companies censor certain view points, that's part of their business model. They want to turn their platforms into circle-jerk echo cambers, because they can't let what happened with trump in 2016 take place again. Just remember NN is about keeping the evil ISP's from bullying us ;) It doesn't matter that NN was written in 03 and there has only been a few instances of the ISP's being assholes.

The entire finger-pointing exercise is a distraction, and a petty one. Like a thief who shakes your hand while picking your pocket, he puts the focus on anything but the crime.

>Pointing fingers is a silly distraction.
Hey look, the evil ISP's are trying to screw you guys over. But don't pay any attention to how NN benefits us.

I'm not on the side of the ISP's, I just think this is all being over exaggerated. The group that looks like it will get hit the hardest are the BIG tech companies Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Streaming sites. That's a good thing, screw these companies for trying to turn the internet into something it never was. A safespace hugbox for snowflakes and investors that are afraid nasty content/people.

That's a good thing, screw these companies for trying to turn the internet into something it never was. A safespace hugbox for snowflakes and investors that are afraid nasty content/people.

I'm going to repeat what I said to your friend:
Major social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are at no liberty to protect you rights. When you signed up for those services, you agreed to follow their ToS, just like this website. If you failed to read them, and you want to stamp your feet and hide behind the first amendment, then that's your prerogative. That still doens't change the fact that they're a private company that's offering a service (for free, might I add).

From Pai's rant:
They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.

Isn't that the point of a business? To be at the top of it's market? I feel like this next part really hits it home for me:

And even granting the comparison credence for a moment, it’s quite a stretch. Internet providers are in a position of incredible power as the main conduit for information to go from here to there. People are free to choose another search engine, quit Facebook and Twitter, or even start their own platforms, which indeed is how the present power structure was arrived at. But people (in the U.S. at least) are seldom free to easily change their internet provider, and of course that internet provider affects all their online activities, not just ones on a certain platform. So the idea that those reached through the internet are a greater threat than the ones that provide that reach is unconvincing.

I know that's a copypasta of what you just said, but you were using it in the wrong context. This paragraph alone is enough to compress all arguments supporting Net Neutrality into a fool-proof statement.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
I'm going to repeat what I said to your friend:

Just because we brought up similar talking points doesn't mean we know each other. Really?

Major social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are at no liberty to protect you rights. When you signed up for those services, you agreed to follow their ToS, just like this website. If you failed to read them, and you want to stamp your feet and hide behind the first amendment, then that's your prerogative.

Facebook use to be much more lax then it is currently. Twitter only recently starting cracking down on "hate speech" and I don't go on instagram. I'm well aware of their TOS but they never really enforcing it like do now and even then it's blatantly selective. They just don't go after everyone saying offensive stuff, they target people. That's why people are so pissed.

Isn't that the point of a business? To be at the top of it's market?

Yes it is. Repealing NN will not change that.

I feel like this next part really hits it home for me:

I know that's a copypasta of what you just said, but you were using it in the wrong context. This paragraph alone is enough to compress all arguments supporting Net Neutrality into a fool-proof statement.

>I know that's copypasta
I should have been more specific. Copypasta and links are fine just don't make them as an argument.

>you were using it in the wrong context
Not taking blatant BS at face value, is not using it in the wrong context. Just because there is potential for abuse does not mean there is going to be abuse. In 13 years there has only been a hand full of cases of the ISP's being assholes. Even then, they were not anything major.

>Throttling bandwidth whores and bit torrent was one of them
>An ISP not providing access to a competitor
>AT&T being retarded

So, i'm suppose to believe that when NN is repealed the ISP's are going to censor everything and over charge everyone? Come on. The FCC claims they are going to keep the internet free and open.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

People will throw a bitch fit if they try to over charge and it will be another EA disaster all over again. It would be much for them worse if people give up the internet for at least one month. Plus 5g is going to change everything, there will at least be one new major provider and it might help smaller ones.

Violet_Rose said:

>I don't really have the near-omniscient perspective needed to sort truth from BS with so much partisan lying flying around

No one does

>at this point I don't trust anyone when they talk about the evils the other side are perpetrating.

I've only read articles from sites that want to keep it and parts of what the FCC has put out. Someone on a Korean sports fishing forum pointed out the whole thing seems fishy and now I think it does too.

>But hypothetically speaking, let's say that Twitter, Google etc. are abusing their position of power to bully people and force their own ideology. That in mind, would you care to explain exactly how you think the repeal of net neutrality will improve that situation?

It won't stop them from being assholes but it will funny to watch tears.

>Looking at the facts here, not what anyone says it's being used for. All net neutrality is is a set of regulations which force ISPs to provide equal access to everything on the internet, without censoring or prioritizing any given content. Nothing is treated as a bad website or a good website, it's all just the internet.

There has been no mass censoring before and don't think that will change. Plus that goes against the 1st amendment which still protects everything.

>Now, you might not like Google, Twitter etc. but considering those are already the websites that are the biggest and actually can afford to pay for fast lane access, they'll still be the ones succeeding most if this happens. They'll be making less money, which they don't want, but if anything their market share will increase because alternatives don't have that kind of money and will get degraded service.

The only thing i've read about the whole "fast lane slow lane" thing is there will be a fast lane slow lane, whatever that means. I would like to see what the companies are going to purpose or some technical data on what that entails, cause "fast lane slow lane" sounds dumb. Tech is the biggest growing industry in the US and i don't think Drumpf would do anything that would hurt it. That would be the mistake ever.

Is that what you want to happen? A country where most internet users only use Google, Facebook, and Twitter because those are the cheapest packages available? Is that worth spiting those allegedly biased companies by making them split a portion of their money off to ISPs? You'll be more inconvenienced than them, I can promise you that.

I've only seen fake web bundle info graphs that were made for propaganda. I would like to see what the isp's are going to try to do. If anyone has a link please share.

>I really do not understand how anyone thinks repealing that is going to be a blow against the liberal left.

It won't be but it will be funny to watch people get upset over this.

>Yes, companies perceived as left-leaning are trying to defend net neutrality, but that's not because net neutrality repeal will favor conservatives. It's because those companies don't want to pay out to ISPs to get favorable treatment in the fast lane, which they know they'd need if such a scheme came to pass. Net neutrality does "stifle innovation" - the innovation to develop tiered services and plans to rake in more money. It "decreases investment" by making ISPs unable to effectively climb any higher than they already are. All those arguments are, is the words of a paid shill who has been bribed to secure the legal ability to deepen their monopoly and further slake their greed by eroding the service they provide and charging more for it.

If they implement a system where no new companies can pay for the "fast lane" it will ruin the whole us economy. No one will go to those sites and there will never be a new tech business ever, it just sounds dumb. Not you, the people that keep putting that in every other article about NN.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is a three-way battle between:
A. Stingy internet giants, who lean liberal more as a cultural trend than anything relevant to the situation - their stake in this is not paying out, not anything related to leftist ideology.They don't want to give up their money.

Couldn't agree more with you

B. Corrupt politicians (and the ISPs quietly lurking behind them) who aren't on the side of America's economy, America's people, or the Republican party - only the fat paychecks they get from the ISPs who would benefit from this repeal. They only want to get more money.

I don't agree with that at all. They have to be for the US economy or it would ruin the country. Both sides have different ways of going about it but saying they don't care is kind of silly.

C. The actual users of the internet who don't want to pay more for worse service. Yeah… we also want to keep our money. But also our freedom. Our freedom to visit the sites we want, our freedom to choose where we go and what data we consume.

I don't think much is going to change tbh.

>So I suggest you stop reading the news so much, stop listening to people with vested interests, and pay more attention to the actual laws being discussed here. The sudden shrinking of the internet that would result from tiered pricing and fast/slow lanes would do far, far more to censor alternative viewpoints than anything Twitter ever could, albeit unintentionally by freezing out non-mainstream sites who can't afford to compete with the fast lane giants. Which is the last thing you or I really want.

I mainly read stuff from pro NN news sites. It all sounds like propaganda.

>Think critically. Ask who profits.

That is the only way to view politics. Sorry for the format but this forum is awful for having a discussions.

ThoughtCrime said:
>I don't really have the near-omniscient perspective needed to sort truth from BS with so much partisan lying flying around

No one does

>at this point I don't trust anyone when they talk about the evils the other side are perpetrating.

I've only read articles from sites that want to keep it and parts of what the FCC has put out. Someone on a Korean sports fishing forum pointed out the whole thing seems fishy and now I think it does too.

>But hypothetically speaking, let's say that Twitter, Google etc. are abusing their position of power to bully people and force their own ideology. That in mind, would you care to explain exactly how you think the repeal of net neutrality will improve that situation?

It won't stop them from being assholes but it will funny to watch tears.

>Looking at the facts here, not what anyone says it's being used for. All net neutrality is is a set of regulations which force ISPs to provide equal access to everything on the internet, without censoring or prioritizing any given content. Nothing is treated as a bad website or a good website, it's all just the internet.

There has been no mass censoring before and don't think that will change. Plus that goes against the 1st amendment which still protects everything.

>Now, you might not like Google, Twitter etc. but considering those are already the websites that are the biggest and actually can afford to pay for fast lane access, they'll still be the ones succeeding most if this happens. They'll be making less money, which they don't want, but if anything their market share will increase because alternatives don't have that kind of money and will get degraded service.

The only thing i've read about the whole "fast lane slow lane" thing is there will be a fast lane slow lane, whatever that means. I would like to see what the companies are going to purpose or some technical data on what that entails, cause "fast lane slow lane" sounds dumb. Tech is the biggest growing industry in the US and i don't think Drumpf would do anything that would hurt it. That would be the mistake ever.

Is that what you want to happen? A country where most internet users only use Google, Facebook, and Twitter because those are the cheapest packages available? Is that worth spiting those allegedly biased companies by making them split a portion of their money off to ISPs? You'll be more inconvenienced than them, I can promise you that.

I've only seen fake web bundle info graphs that were made for propaganda. I would like to see what the isp's are going to try to do. If anyone has a link please share.

>I really do not understand how anyone thinks repealing that is going to be a blow against the liberal left.

It won't be but it will be funny to watch people get upset over this.

>Yes, companies perceived as left-leaning are trying to defend net neutrality, but that's not because net neutrality repeal will favor conservatives. It's because those companies don't want to pay out to ISPs to get favorable treatment in the fast lane, which they know they'd need if such a scheme came to pass. Net neutrality does "stifle innovation" - the innovation to develop tiered services and plans to rake in more money. It "decreases investment" by making ISPs unable to effectively climb any higher than they already are. All those arguments are, is the words of a paid shill who has been bribed to secure the legal ability to deepen their monopoly and further slake their greed by eroding the service they provide and charging more for it.

If they implement a system where no new companies can pay for the "fast lane" it will ruin the whole us economy. No one will go to those sites and there will never be a new tech business ever, it just sounds dumb. Not you, the people that keep putting that in every other article about NN.

This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is a three-way battle between:
A. Stingy internet giants, who lean liberal more as a cultural trend than anything relevant to the situation - their stake in this is not paying out, not anything related to leftist ideology.They don't want to give up their money.

Couldn't agree more with you

B. Corrupt politicians (and the ISPs quietly lurking behind them) who aren't on the side of America's economy, America's people, or the Republican party - only the fat paychecks they get from the ISPs who would benefit from this repeal. They only want to get more money.

I don't agree with that at all. They have to be for the US economy or it would ruin the country. Both sides have different ways of going about it but saying they don't care is kind of silly.

C. The actual users of the internet who don't want to pay more for worse service. Yeah… we also want to keep our money. But also our freedom. Our freedom to visit the sites we want, our freedom to choose where we go and what data we consume.

I don't think much is going to change tbh.

>So I suggest you stop reading the news so much, stop listening to people with vested interests, and pay more attention to the actual laws being discussed here. The sudden shrinking of the internet that would result from tiered pricing and fast/slow lanes would do far, far more to censor alternative viewpoints than anything Twitter ever could, albeit unintentionally by freezing out non-mainstream sites who can't afford to compete with the fast lane giants. Which is the last thing you or I really want.

I mainly read stuff from pro NN news sites. It all sounds like propaganda.

>Think critically. Ask who profits.

That is the only way to view politics. Sorry for the format but this forum is awful for having a discussions.

This has been one of the most logical and levelheaded responses and perspectives I've seen regarding this issue. I wish there were more levelheaded comments like this. I believe that the entirety of the issue is being overblown and sensationalized by the mainstream media to rile people up enough to get them to take action.

The best course of action is trying to be logical and collected and do our civic duties as US citizens. People running in the streets and thinking that the sky is falling won't solve anything in this country.

I’m starting to wish that people would use \

Violet_Rose said:
Instead of that, here's a radical proposal: how about we just leave the protections in place and make sure nothing changes, instead of guessing/hoping that it won't?

For too long have the American people been toyed with. Nobody was stamping their feet when Net Neutrality was passed back in 2015 because it was "unfair". So why start now? Because the current presidential administration is flexing their muscles. "Look, we got rid of Obamacare! We got rid of Net Neutrality! Look at how much I'm doing to make America great again!"

I agree with Violet's statement wholeheartedly. How about we just leave the protections in place?

Violet_Rose said:

…I'm making this last post to answer you, but I just lost a lot of respect for your assertions when it seems like you don't understand the subject. Simply put though, what this means is that websites will be able to pay ISPs more to get user traffic to their websites prioritized, making it faster by giving it a larger share of the ISP's total throughput (how much traffic they can support at a given time). Whereas smaller websites and ones that refuse to pay will be allotted slow speeds and unfavorable packages.

That is not what I was talking about and yeah i'm done talking about this too. I'll just sit back and enjoy the shitshow.

An article form Wired titled: What everyone gets wrong in the debate over Net Neutrality.

‘Most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.’

Nearly everyone, it seems, wants to prevent the FCC from allowing some companies to have internet “fast lanes” while others toil at slower speeds.

The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

“Fast lane is how the internet is built today,” says Craig Labovitz, who, as the CEO of DeepField Networks, an outfit whose sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other internet experts agree with him. “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works,” says Dave Taht, a developer of open-source networking software.

The concepts driving today’s net neutrality debate caught on because the internet used to operate differently—and because they were easy for consumers to understand. In many respects, these concepts were vitally important to the evolution of the internet over the past decades. But in today’s world, they don’t address the real issue with the country’s ISPs, and if we spend too much time worried about fast lanes, we could hurt the net’s progress rather than help it.

Even Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, will tell you that the fast lane idea isn’t what it seems. “The fast lane is not a literal truth,” he says. “But it’s a sense that you should have a fair shot.” On the modern internet, as Wu indicates, the real issue is that such a small number of internet service providers now control the pipes that reach out to U.S. consumers—and that number is getting even smaller, with Comcast looking to acquire Time Warner, one of its biggest rivals. The real issue is that the Comcasts and Verizons are becoming too big and too powerful. Because every web company has no choice but to go through these ISPs, the Comcasts and the Verizons may eventually have too much freedom to decide how much companies must pay for fast speeds.

Unfortunately, in this case I'm talking about corrupt elites who posture as "Republican" to get what they want, which is always nothing more than money and power for themselves.

That describes most of the government.

ThoughtCrime said:
That is not what I was talking about and yeah i'm done talking about this too. I'll just sit back and enjoy the shitshow.

That describes most of the government.

so net neutrality not currently being enforced is why we need to get rid of it? by that logic we should repeal the right to a fair trial.

kamimatsu said:
so net neutrality not currently being enforced is why we need to get rid of it? by that logic we should repeal the right to a fair trial.

I used the article to support the argument I've made so far.

Most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.

This is all over exaggerated BS.

We shouldn’t waste so much breath on the idea of keeping the network completely neutral. It isn’t neutral now. What we should really be doing is looking for ways we can increase competition among ISPs—ways we can prevent the Comcasts and the AT&Ts from gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for internet bandwidth. Sure, we don’t want ISPs blocking certain types of traffic. And we don’t want them delivering their own stuff at 10 gigabits per second and everyone else’s stuff at 1 gigabit. But competition is also the best way to stop these types of extreme behavior.

The best way to keep the ISP's in check is to create competition in the market. With NN being repealed and the new tax code being passed, there might be new ISP's popping up sooner then anticipated. I know rich assholes will make more money but we'll get nice new shit to buy in return. #Capitalism #MAGA

Not gonna lie, former Trump voter here. This is fucking hilarious watching Trump crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let the ISP's make people pay for internet fast lanes.

ThoughtCrime said:
I used the article to support the argument I've made so far.

This is all over exaggerated BS.

The best way to keep the ISP's in check is to create competition in the market. With NN being repealed and the new tax code being passed, there might be new ISP's popping up sooner then anticipated. I know rich assholes will make more money but we'll get nice new shit to buy in return. #Capitalism #MAGA

Even if you could produce evidence that ISPs are doing this "right under our noses", is this is the kind of "innovation" that you want our ISPs partaking in? You even said your self, in one way or another, that you are a proponent of free speech. With Net Neutrality laws out of the picture, this would get even worse. ISPs have to hide this integration from the people because people would cry "Net Neutrality!!!1!one", but without it in place, they would be able to do it openly and more aggressively. You can call the public outcry about Net Neutrality silly, but we both know that the ISPs have a track record of not falling through on their long terms goals. They choose to run their businesses in the here and now, and that means raking in as much money as possible.

Sure, I agree with you that people would be able to start their own ISPs, but unless they wanted to work though all the bureaucratic redtape nonsense just to lay down these networks, they would need to buy access to the networks of companies like AT&T and Comcast who basically laid the backbone of the internet as we know today. There's no innovation there. Even if the third-party ISP were willing to charge less than their corporate overlord "competition" (which would be great for the consumers), they're getting screwed over by paying full price for you. They'd go broke in a matter of years.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
You even said your self, in one way or another, that you are a proponent of free speech. With Net Neutrality laws out of the picture, this would get even worse.

I really don't buy into to all this propaganda and fear mongering. But i'll say this, as far as censorship goes, I'm fucked either way. I'll either be censored by the FCC, or by google when silicon valley tech companies buy up everything pertaining to the internet. Feels bad man.

I feel I should point out (not that I like discussing politics) that even Trump supporters who are informed on the issue want to see net neutrality remain.

Also, ThoughtCrime, the ISPs do everything in their power not to compete (Comcast and Charter ). On the state level, they write or otherwise support laws barring local utilities from offering Internet service (Michigan Maine ) while suing states trying to expand coverage (Comcast v. Vermont Frontier v. West Virginia ), and in one of these situations the laws had to be voted down via referendum (Fort Collins, Colorado ). Your argument has no proof to back it up; ours does.

I normally should't be posting political things, but...

I'm confused.

People who hates republicans for enforcing media bias and repealing internet freedom are probably democrats, yet they also hates other democrats for enforcing media bias (again) and being an SJWs. What?

Speaking of bias, should we trust this website?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

cerberusmod_3 said:
People who hates republicans for repealing internet freedom are probably democrats, yet they also hates other democrats for being an SJWs. What?

SJWs are the 'loudest extremists'.

It's like how PETA does not represent all animal rights activists, and how ISIS doesn't represent all Muslims.

SJW tend to be supremely aggressive and have more of a "kill yourself you worthless piece of shit" attitude, which most of us frown heavily upon. Generally speaking, democrats seek to end racism and sexism and other -isms... while SJW's effectively bring more hate to the table and become bullies--basically antithetical to our perspective.

Further, SJW has become something of a slur. I gotta head off to bed, so let me steal something I've written about this before..

SJW has a bit of history...

It was used, initially, to describe people with an extremist opinion about social justice. The "this artist said retarded! They're ableist and sexist and ONCE DREW RON AND HERMOINE KISSING so he's a pedophile too! BLACKLIST THIS SCUM!" type of extremist. ... They were very loud, very obnoxious, encouraged cyberbullying and the idea that any type of misstep means that you are VILE and EVIL.

(I had a friend who was a victim of one of these sorts... Friend A was accused of doing something to his Girlfriend (I say accused because his accuser relished attention and was physically, mentally and emotionally abusive to Friend A BEFORE all this so I really have my doubts, but this is not the point)... Girlfriend posted about this publicly on tumblr. Friend B basically posted "Hey, this doesn't seem right..." and Outsider C came in, doxed Friend B. (As in, "posting pictures of spouse and child" and "outting her trans status publicly")... Also doxed Friend A, called the police on Friend A, and basically latched on to girlfriend and became her best friend for a few months.... until Girlfriend made some joke about something or another and Outsider C turned on her like a ragefilled snake and started posting about how vile Girlfriend was for being so racist or sexist, or whatever had set her off.)

These are the sorts that are very focused on "you can't WEAR your hair in small braids, that's CULTURAL APPROPRIATION!!!!" regardless of what the culture in question thinks. Any small offense is made dramatically worse. (as a note, cultural appropriation's totally a thing! But they latch onto any tiny offense. Even the ones that people don't care about.)

....More recently, it's been used as an insult for anyone--ANYONE--who says anything left-leaning, used to basically put them on the same level as crazy conspiracy theorists. It's like how any exgirlfriend becomes "crazy" because she was 'so clingy' and wanted to know things like why he came home at 11pm, and not 6pm like he said, and cried for no reason at all over stupid things like missing her birthday... etc. It's a way of invalidating their concerns. "the problem's not me, it's them." Y'know?

(of course there ARE crazy girlfriends, and there ARE insane SJWs out there, but not everyone who disagrees with them is wrong or crazy or both.

Politics are always blown out of proportion, fear-mongering, I've heard it all before. Why can't people just wait and see what actually happens before losing their shit?

For fuck sake. Americans get ypur lazy asses out on the street. When the hungarian government tried to apply taxes on the internet peope went out and protested, it was so huge that they canceled it. The internet has great power but it seems that you guys can only speak and make petitions instead going out on the street to make a mess.

Hexdragon said:
For fuck sake. Americans get ypur lazy asses out on the street. When the hungarian government tried to apply taxes on the internet peope went out and protested, it was so huge that they canceled it. The internet has great power but it seems that you guys can only speak and make petitions instead going out on the street to make a mess.

k tho

I wonder if the protesters are a bigger threat to Freedom(tm) than BLM sammiches and Native American Indians who don't want pipelines in their backyards

No matter how many people get out and protest they won't change the minds of the corporations. The more people turn out the more they will call them terrorists and enemies of the state.
There are meshnets like the internet in the 90s, BBS and all that, but that developed. The internet would be put back 25 odd years but this time it could develop without central control, patriot acts and great firewalls.

SnowWolf said:
SJWs are the 'loudest extremists'.

It's like how PETA does not represent all animal rights activists, and how ISIS doesn't represent all Muslims.

SJW tend to be supremely aggressive and have more of a "kill yourself you worthless piece of shit" attitude, which most of us frown heavily upon. Generally speaking, democrats seek to end racism and sexism and other -isms... while SJW's effectively bring more hate to the table and become bullies--basically antithetical to our perspective.

Further, SJW has become something of a slur. I gotta head off to bed, so let me steal something I've written about this before..

Violet_Rose said:
SnowWolf's answer is really good, but I'd also like to expand on it by pointing out a certain underlying assumption in the question. Specifically, the assumption that it'd be weird for a person to not be firmly on one side or the other. That's an idea that's gotten pushed more and more in recent years by extremists on both sides, who want to see a world where everyone is either a staunch ally or a hated enemy, no fence-sitters or questioning of the Party allowed.

Some are angry and scared, but others are doing it manipulatively to quash dissent. Either way, it's important to remember that both parties are supposed to exist for the purpose of serving and improving America, we just have different opinions about how to do that. And as such, good old fashioned values like honesty, integrity, and not being an oppressive asshole should be more important than which club you join. Even to the point of being against people on "your own side" if they're dishonest, nasty, stupid, or if hatred and beating "the enemy" is more important to them than making society better.

And don't forget the feminist.

cerberusmod_3 said:
And don't forget the feminist.

I don't know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's offtopic.

fox_whisper85 said:
Politics are always blown out of proportion, fear-mongering, I've heard it all before. Why can't people just wait and see what actually happens before losing their shit?

Have you ever heard the saying 'the damage is done?' Are you aware of the implications behind the saying? I can answer the question easily enough, but I feel like that saying captures everything you need to know to answer this question, so I thought I'd ask first.

MoonlitSoul said:
Have you ever heard the saying 'the damage is done?' Are you aware of the implications behind the saying? I can answer the question easily enough, but I feel like that saying captures everything you need to know to answer this question, so I thought I'd ask first.

However, as of the time of this reply being posted, there has been no damage done. That's the point of this thread- to prevent the damage from being done... Were you trying to imply that fox_whipser85 had meant that?

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
However, as of the time of this reply being posted, there has been no damage done. That's the point of this thread- to prevent the damage from being done... Were you trying to imply that fox_whipser85 had meant that?

No, fox_whisper85 was asking why people didn't just wait and see if things would actually be bad. My point was that letting that happen could have repercussions that couldn't be fixed overnight or indeed fixed at all.

Everyone, in case this happens, should take the time to learn as much about Sneakernet as possible. If it goes through, it might be all we have.

I might be only one person, but you gotta hit these people where it counts, in the ballot boxes and in their paychecks.

Not sure who I'll be voting for come midterms in my state, but I switched from verizon to mintsim (on tmobile) and I'm encouraging my friends and family to do the same. Phone bill going from 70 a month to 15? Sign me up.

Sure 70 bucks isn't even a blip on the radar, but if enough folks do it then maybe we can shake things up, even if it's just a bit.

savageorange said:
I don't know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure it's offtopic.

I won't say it's off-topic since feminist is like SJWs, but...

cerberusmod_3 said:
I won't say it's off-topic since feminist is like SJWs, but...

SFWs and feminists have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. While this may be a somewhat-political issue, let's try to keep our own personal biases about unrelated topics out of it.

Mdf said:
I might be only one person, but you gotta hit these people where it counts, in the ballot boxes and in their paychecks.

Not sure who I'll be voting for come midterms in my state, but I switched from verizon to mintsim (on tmobile) and I'm encouraging my friends and family to do the same. Phone bill going from 70 a month to 15? Sign me up.

Sure 70 bucks isn't even a blip on the radar, but if enough folks do it then maybe we can shake things up, even if it's just a bit.

I actually had to look that to see if it really was running on the T-Mobile network. One of the APN settings, warehouse.mmsmvno.com, is a subdomain of a website owned by T-Mobile USA, Inc, which implies that they run off the T-Mobile network

I've only had bad times with T-Mobile, but $45/3 months is a damn-decent deal. I pay $25 per month for 2gb of high-speed data from Cricket.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
SFWs and feminists have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. While this may be a somewhat-political issue, let's try to keep our own personal biases about unrelated topics out of it.

Alright.

fox_whisper85 said:
Politics are always blown out of proportion, fear-mongering, I've heard it all before. Why can't people just wait and see what actually happens before losing their shit?

The problem is that the really noticeable effects of the repeal of NN may not happen until years down the road. When it’s really too late to do much about it.

Is there a lot of fear mongering going on about NN right now? Yes there is. However, it’s not always a bad thing. Not always a good thing either.

Crazyc011 said:
The problem is that the really noticeable effects of the repeal of NN may not happen until years down the road. When it’s really too late to do much about it.

Is there a lot of fear mongering going on about NN right now? Yes there is. However, it’s not always a bad thing. Not always a good thing either.

What do you mean it's not a bad thing, but not a good thing?

Y'know, I'm don't know if I'm politically neutral, but I don't takes side with the democrats or the republicans.

cerberusmod_3 said:
What do you mean it's not a bad thing, but not a good thing?

Y'know, I'm don't know if I'm politically neutral, but I don't takes side with the democrats or the republicans.

Well I just think it could be both. Fear mongering can be a good tool to make people see how bad something could potentially be.

Like if an actual communist or fascist tried to take over America and was looking successful. Fear mongering against them could be a good thing to prevent them.

It could also work against you. You can’t tell the future, and fear mongering something could prevent something better from emerging all because you made people afraid of something imaginary or something.

If that makes sense?

Crazyc011 said:
Well I just think it could be both. Fear mongering can be a good tool to make people see how bad something could potentially be.

Like if an actual communist or fascist tried to take over America and was looking successful. Fear mongering against them could be a good thing to prevent them.

It could also work against you. You can’t tell the future, and fear mongering something could prevent something better from emerging all because you made people afraid of something imaginary or something.

If that makes sense?

Of course. I've experienced it long ago in the Internet.

Crazyc011 said:
Like if an actual communist or fascist tried to take over America and was looking successful. Fear mongering against them could be a good thing to prevent them.

Because that totally worked last time (Hollywood Blacklist).

kamimatsu said:
Everyone, in case this happens, should take the time to learn as much about Sneakernet as possible. If it goes through, it might be all we have.

This. I have so many things backed up on multiple drives.

Everything on my cloud, everything on my devices, and everything I've ever saved from a website I have kept and backed up in case things go south.

IndigoHeat said:
This. I have so many things backed up on multiple drives.

Everything on my cloud, everything on my devices, and everything I've ever saved from a website I have kept and backed up in case things go south.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a bicycle with a basket of usb sticks either. If things go south I'm gonna try to figure out ways to get it to other people. I'll use snail mail if I have to. And also if I don't.

kamimatsu said:
Everyone, in case this happens, should take the time to learn as much about Sneakernet as possible. If it goes through, it might be all we have.

I'll rather shoot myself.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I'll rather shoot myself.

Then the people repealing it win. One less vote going to their opponents.

kamimatsu said:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a bicycle with a basket of usb sticks either. If things go south I'm gonna try to figure out ways to get it to other people. I'll use snail mail if I have to. And also if I don't.

That's one way to tackle obesity.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I'll rather shoot myself.

Please don't, or they'll repeal the 2nd amendment, too.
("handguns cause suicide")

BlueDingo said:
That's one way to tackle obesity.

I have the opposite problem actually. Metabolism issue. Good news is peer-to-peer sneakernet is the opposite of the Internet in another regard. The more people use it, the more available resources are. So I wouldn't have to do it myself, and once I'd get it started, it would basically fuel itself. No replacement for Internet, but I'm hoping to get it started anyway. If NN gets repealed, I'm personally going to try setting up some form of sneakernet just in case I can get it to spread.

Munkelzahn said:
Please don't, or they'll repeal the 2nd amendment, too.
("handguns cause suicide")

Why? If the Net Neutrality gets repealed, what will happened to most website? They will be gone forever, and don't ever tell me that nothing will be lost! Sneaker-net isn't the answer in my opinion! Will you guys give it to me? No, because I don't live in the US (it's a secret), and I don't own a handgun! What shall I do after this! I would hang myself if things gets worse.

I just want to save every stuff on some websites I like, but it's too late. They are too many, and it's Thursday today!

cerberusmod_3 said:
Why? If the Net Neutrality gets repealed, what will happened to most website? They will be gone forever, and don't ever tell me that nothing will be lost! Sneaker-net isn't the answer in my opinion! Will you guys give it to me? No, because I don't live in the US (it's a secret), and I don't own a handgun! What shall I do after this! I would hang myself if things gets worse.

I just want to save every stuff on some websites I like, but it's too late. They are too many, and it's Thursday today!

If you don’t live in the US, it’s not your problem. This is a US-only issue right now.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Sneaker-net isn't the answer in my opinion! Will you guys give it to me? No, because I don't live in the US (it's a secret)

Do you...know what Sneakernet is?

JoeX said:
If you don’t live in the US, it’s not your problem. This is a US-only issue right now.

What I'm worried about is that most websites (like DeviantArt) are US-based. If Net Neutrality is gone in the US, then said websites will be slowed down or blocked by the ISPs!

kamimatsu said:
Do you...know what Sneakernet is?

I know, but in my country, nobody cares. You guys are outside my country, so it's impossible to bring all your stuff to us- I mean, me- I mean, ugh... Whatever.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Why? If the Net Neutrality gets repealed, what will happened to most website? They will be gone forever, and don't ever tell me that nothing will be lost!... I just want to save every stuff on some websites I like, but it's too late. They are too many, and it's Thursday today!

Okay.

Hon.

Chill.

Even if it is repealed, it's not going to be like a lightswitch clicking off. it's not going to change things right away. Websites are not going to be turned off the instant it happens.

There will probably be a period of time before things are officially put into place.
ISPs will not decide, on the date of enaction, to close off access to all websites but a few. IF they did that, the backlash would be hard and fast. any censoring would be slow, and steady.
there are a lot of horror stories about what COULD happen, but none of them are instant doom.

It is a very bad thing. But it's more like climate change--a slow, steady change that can be disastrous over time, rather than a storm--quick, harsh and violent. It's very bad, but the world doesn't end tomorrow.

So save what you want to save. Even if we lose tommorow, it won't end then.

SnowWolf said:
Okay.

Hon.

Chill.

Even if it is repealed, it's not going to be like a lightswitch clicking off. it's not going to change things right away. Websites are not going to be turned off the instant it happens.

There will probably be a period of time before things are officially put into place.
ISPs will not decide, on the date of enaction, to close off access to all websites but a few. IF they did that, the backlash would be hard and fast. any censoring would be slow, and steady.
there are a lot of horror stories about what COULD happen, but none of them are instant doom.

It is a very bad thing. But it's more like climate change--a slow, steady change that can be disastrous over time, rather than a storm--quick, harsh and violent. It's very bad, but the world doesn't end tomorrow.

So save what you want to save. Even if we lose tommorow, it won't end then.

Damn.

*Shoots himself with the tranquilizer gun*

SnowWolf said:
Okay.

Hon.

Chill.

Even if it is repealed, it's not going to be like a lightswitch clicking off. it's not going to change things right away. Websites are not going to be turned off the instant it happens.

There will probably be a period of time before things are officially put into place.
ISPs will not decide, on the date of enaction, to close off access to all websites but a few. IF they did that, the backlash would be hard and fast. any censoring would be slow, and steady.
there are a lot of horror stories about what COULD happen, but none of them are instant doom.

It is a very bad thing. But it's more like climate change--a slow, steady change that can be disastrous over time, rather than a storm--quick, harsh and violent. It's very bad, but the world doesn't end tomorrow.

So save what you want to save. Even if we lose tommorow, it won't end then.

This may not even happen at all. We have no idea how the other two Republican FCC commissioners decide to vote. On top of that, there’s going to be a court case if the repeal goes through. The FCC thinks we’re just going to forget about the repeal if it goes through, but they’re stupid to believe that. Whether Pai likes it or not, we have more power than he knows. We will win somehow.

JoeX said:
This may not even happen at all. We have no idea how the other two Republican FCC commissioners decide to vote. On top of that, there’s going to be a court case if the repeal goes through. The FCC thinks we’re just going to forget about the repeal if it goes through, but they’re stupid to believe that. Whether Pai likes it or not, we have more power than he knows. We will win somehow.

Oh I completely agree, but the gentleman was freaking out like websites would be shutting down tomorrow, instantly. WHich they won't. so if he wants to back things up, he has plenty of time to do it, so he should get started if he wants to. :)