[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dcfg / f1 / kpop / mascot / polk / s / tgcraft / waifuist ]

/n/ - News

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


8chan News Board Ring: /pn/ - Politics and News - /politics/ - Politics

File: 3de9bd8b4df532c⋯.png (788.03 KB, 484x644, 121:161, Net Neutrality Supporters ….png)

 No.541858

Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a "free and open internet," want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undo the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read "Ban Drudge," with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.

Organizers of the campaign "Protect Our Internet" are connected to PopularResistance.org, which features several members of the antifascist (antifa) campaign.

Then there's these "antifa" guys. Pro-net neutrality folks not happy — @mattfwood tells me they're fighting for opposite principles. pic.twitter.com/z8z2Sg7Z60

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) May 18, 2017

Protect Our Internet claims its mission is to "keep the internet vibrant, free and equal."

The campaign also claims net neutrality rules are "protecting our freedom to use the internet!"

A report released this week found that net neutrality regulations lead to higher internet prices for consumers and less innovation.

https://archive.fo/lyBBc

http://freebeacon.com/issues/net-neutrality-supporters-want-ban-drudge/

 No.541866

File: f9a3ecd23575b45⋯.jpg (131.98 KB, 750x867, 250:289, at&t.jpg)

>>541858

Net neutrality is good, these supporters are just retarded. Without net neutrality, the ISP can simply decide 8chan will be limited to 50 KB/s and there's nothing you can do about it.


 No.541867

i-it's just a false flag, goyim


 No.541870

>>541866

>Net neutrality is bad, these supporters are just showing their true intentions. With net neutrality, the government can simply decide 8chan will be limited to 50 KB/s and there's nothing you can do about it.


 No.541871

Obviously "net neutrality" must have been a code word for inevitable governmental control over the internet to suppress free speech.

Remember the "fairness doctrine" democrats supported in the 90s? Not too fair, was it? It was declared unconstitutional, a violation of freedom of speech, and was revoked in the courts.


 No.541872

File: 2493187266ba3af⋯.jpg (83.69 KB, 348x505, 348:505, otter_absolutely_disgustin….jpg)

The only people against net neutrality are useful idiots and corporations. Their sign might have well said "Ban #infobars #puppies!"


 No.541876

>>541870

>hurr durr I'm retarded

We currently have net neutrality, the discussion is to remove it. And the government isn't (and can't) decide to limit 8chan's speed legally, they need to abolish the current rules to do that.


 No.541877

>>541876

>And the government isn't (and can't) decide to limit 8chan's speed legally

>government

>caring about legality

retarded, shill or just naive?


 No.541879

>>541866

Why haven't ISPs had a history of doing this before net neutrality? I understand that would be completely unfair but how can we trust the government to protect us from this abuse when they themselves are just as corrupted? And remember the "fairness doctrine" fiasco back in the 90s, regarding radio broadcasts? Remember when the government used the "fairness doctrine" as an excuse to cut off thousands of conservative radio talk show hosts off the air? How do we not know the same thing will happen with net neutrality?


 No.541880

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Beware of people signaling as right wingers who are against net neutrality.

They are shills. I've been fighting for net neutrality since fucking myspace was a thing.

These companies need to fuck off. You already have a monopoly on what is essentially a natural resource, and now you want to push even farther. Motherfuckers.


 No.541882

>>541876

Why would the government throttle speed to one of its own websites?

Makes no sense to prevent people from visiting a site that you own…


 No.541885

>>541880

I have some legitimate concern though anon, see here: >>541879

If you could please address some of my questions, I'd appreciate it.


 No.541886

>>541876

>>541882

The government won't, ISPs will, in order to get you to pay for "premium packages". With net neutrality gone the internet might become like a cable service where you pay for certain sites at a reasonable speed.


 No.541887

>>541886

>The government won't

you are on /pol/ the imageboard telling me to trust ZOG?


 No.541889

>>541885

See

>>541876

Net Neutrality is already in place. It's not a new law. It's not a change. If it was fucking us over, it would currently be fucking us over.

Watch the fucking video.


 No.541891

>>541886

You assume:

1) the US government and big corporations are controlled by different entities

2) that there will be an "edgyweb package" and not just a total removal of 8chan, endchan, heck even 4chan

3) that they won't fine you for saying nigger on Reddit and still call it extremism


 No.541892

>>541889

>WHY WON'T YOU GOYIM JUST TRUST THE GOVERNMENT? WHEN HAS IT EVER TRIED TO FUCK YOU OVER?


 No.541895

>>541892

>I CANT INTO LOGIC SO IM JUST GOING TO NAZI SIGNAL SO NOBODY TAKES THE OTHER GUY SERIOUSLY

>IM NOT A SHILL I SWEAR

Get out you disingenuous fuck. The government makes laws, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

Letting your jew companies do whatever they want is the real problem.


 No.541896

>>541895

>jews don't control the government


 No.541900

>>541886

Fuck that would suck… but do you really think our corrupt-ass government would prevent them from doing this?

I'd like to give you a perfect example: "IoT" (the Internet of Things). Do you know because of new Department of Energy regulations, the IoT tech is being mandated in ALL new manufactured electronics and utilities so corporations, third parties and governments can spy on us and sell consumer data? That's right, because of "energy efficiency" regulations, corporations are FORCED by the US government to 'modernize' (read: digitize) all electronic products/utilities they manufacture (whether the consumers like it or not).

Don't believe me? Ask any local utility repair man the DOE is trying to squeeze out of business.


 No.541901

>>541896

How much do they pay you to support the removal of free speech legislation in the name of fucking political incorrectness of all things?

The mental gymnastics, jeeesus.


 No.541904

File: 6e34dfbc75a4d73⋯.jpg (11.51 KB, 255x246, 85:82, 6e34dfbc75a4d7349d1be956e1….jpg)

>>541896

You cant imagine how bad things would be.

>>541900

>but do you really think our corrupt-ass government would prevent them from doing this?

They already are you fucking moron. It's an EXISTING LAW. As in it is CURRENTLY THE LAW THAT OUR CORRUPT ASS GOVERNMENT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING THIS.

I wish I could hate you to death.


 No.541906

>>541904

>jews don't control the government

where the fuck do you think you are?


 No.541911

File: 6841f39b2074f47⋯.jpg (1010.92 KB, 3840x2160, 16:9, 1 you.jpg)

>>541906

You'd defend the removal of the first and second ammendments because "jews already control anything anyway"


 No.541912


 No.541914

>>541911

But how do you know for sure our corrupt ass jew run government would prevent us from having free speech and guns by getting rid of the first and second ammendment? Huurrrff durrrrff oh god help im retarded.


 No.541917

>>541904

Have the ISPs ever done this before net neutrality?

In one way I see what you are saying, that consumers need protection.

On the other hand, protection from our corrupt government? You do know how that typically ends for those being 'protected' right?

I suggest you research the Patriot Act, Californian Gun Control, The Fairness Doctrine (now defunct by the courts), and some of those new DOE regulations for mandating so-called "energy efficiency" (which has radically reduced consumer access to high quality electronic/mechanical products/utilities over the last 12 years, also now mandating everything being hooked up to the internet to spy on consumers too).


 No.541921

>>541912

Net neutrality is the online version of the first ammendment. Not because you'd be censored, but because they can arbitrarily make it less and less convenient to partake in free speech until people "just decided not to, we didn't force them! such a sad thing they had to be on the slow lane, but that's just how things are, goy!"


 No.541922

>>541921

In all honesty I think we are fucked either way then… On one side you have greedy corporations, on the other side you have a highly corrupted, control freak government.

My prediction is, no matter who is in control at this point, it will not end well at all.


 No.541924

>>541921

>Net neutrality is the online version of the first amendment

talk about visions of grandeur

protesters on the OP, being visited by Dem congress members, seem to disagree with you


 No.541933

>>541917

It's illegal for them to prioritize traffic. But yes, ISPs have done this before anyway

https://qz.com/688033/netflix-launched-this-handy-speed-test-so-you-can-go-shame-your-internet-provider/


 No.541935

>>541933

laws are for the little people you stupid fucking retard

they're not for corporations or the government


 No.541937

File: a98dab22b69912c⋯.jpg (146.51 KB, 1147x993, 1147:993, b4ac5a4f9505d6f138f1a99b73….jpg)

>it could never happen here


 No.541942

My guess is that since Google is putting it's foot in the ISP market, it is now "silly" to support net neutrality. Also what the fuck is with this alt left shit? Are libtards sad that they aren't hip anymore or is the government just trying to make controlled opposition easier to spot?


 No.541965

>>541858

Shut down tumblr, facebook, twitter and youtube - voila, 50% less traffic on the internet.


 No.541972

File: 8760568bf52f9eb⋯.jpg (48.81 KB, 400x320, 5:4, yay.jpg)

>>541935

Except all the times they are


 No.541981

If greedy corporations don't end up ruining the internet, government will. Rest assured.


 No.541990

File: 2bd4fd73a4b64a1⋯.jpg (61.57 KB, 850x400, 17:8, Edward Bernays.jpg)

>Net Neutrality is bad because these bad people support it!

>You wouldn't want to support the JEW, would you goy- I mean, uh, anon!?

>WHY WON'T YOU PAY ATTENTION TO MY NON-SEQUITURS AND WANNABE-/POL/ BUZZWORDS!?

Man the shills here are thicker than trees in a forest. Uncle Adolf would be deeply disappointed in your illogical narratives.


 No.541991

>net jewtrality


 No.541993

>>541991

Going to elaborate, or will you proceed to fellate a dozen cocks for the rest of the thread?


 No.542003

Threadly reminder that net neutrality is just a "foot in the door" strategy for getting in government regulation on the internet.


 No.542006

File: a945a977c4f5e20⋯.gif (7.69 KB, 500x180, 25:9, 1373614315924.gif)

>>541877

>government doesn't care about legality

Then net neutrality wouldn't matter either way.


 No.542008

>>541872

Furfag spotted

>/leftypol/


 No.542009

Because they're not for a free and open internet.


 No.542011

>>541990

There are just as many logical reasons to support Net Neutrality as there are reasons to be concerned about governmental abuse of their regulatory authority.

Think about it. You have a choice between trusting rich greedy corporate pigs or trusting easily corrupted bureaucratic control freaks (which could end up exempting the rich greedy corporate pigs from this very law).

It's like we are the sheep deciding which pack of wolves should eat their next meal. In the end, will it really matter?


 No.542012


 No.542013


 No.542014

>lemme do this strawman

>that'll cover for daddys totalitarianism

Kys trumpcucks


 No.542017

>>542012

Yah… this whole thing seems pretty shady to me. You can't tell me without me rolling my eyes back that there is not some kind of nefarious deal going on between the major networks and the FCC. Something is very, very fishy about all this.

It seems to echo the same propaganda as "The Fairness Doctrine" (◄ SEE! IT SOUNDS GOOD GOYIM!) Just look how that turned out, after thousands of radio shows across the US were kicked off the airwaves.


 No.542019

Does anybody remember how the law changed after the first time they tried this shit? Because I remember them rewriting it to have it stay "the same" while slipping in some bullshit. Another law change would just be another chance to get more crap in and slip in a few "and the NSA gets something" bits.


 No.542033

>>542011

This is some seriously fucking pathetic logic. Please go back to your cuckshed and cry about nihilism - your (shilling) cowardice solves nothing.


 No.542037

>>541866

That's what Net Neutrality was. The name was hijacked by leftists to give the government control of the internet.


 No.542041

>>542033

>pathetic logic

No amount of logic is ever "pathetic." I would say its a disturbing conclusion though if accurate.


 No.542049

>>541879

Before net neutrality the internet was still in an infantile state compared to what it is now. You shouldn't make that comparison without taking that into consideration.


 No.542053

>>542019

This is a legitimate concern. But we shouldn't write off net neutrality just because of it. This kind of corruption is spread across all aspects of government and the law.


 No.542069

>>542049

> before net neutrality

> before

We've always had net neutrality, retard. The bill is about removing it.


 No.542080

legit news bump


 No.542088

>>542041

Says you and every other concern troll. It's so easy for pseudo-intellects to put on their black hats and cry all day without offering anything constructive.

Your semantic bullshit is an even better indicator of that. If "nothing matters and everything is fucked," then shut up and go away. That's the "logical" conclusion to your stance.


 No.542089

>>542088

You certainly have provided no solutions.


 No.542103

>>541858

Typical antifa leeches, hitching themselves onto a real issue to push their conflicting, hypocritical ideology.


 No.542148

>>541886

>The government won't, ISPs will, in order to get you to pay for "premium packages"

Then you and everybody else who cares will switch to the ISP that wont throttle anything because they want to make out like bandits on all the dissatisfied former customers of the ISP's that thought throttling wouldn't loose them customers.

And then Capitalism wins again :^)


 No.542155

>>542069

Net neutrality, as we know it in regard to the internet, wasn't really very applicable until the early 2000s, when the internet shifted from being a commercial service into a public infrastructure. And it wasn't clearly established until a 2004 ruling, which really established the rules that we identify with net neutrality. But the internet certainly existed before then.


 No.542176

>>541858

The difference is we're saying that they should be shut down, not putting it into fucking law like the left.

Freedom of speech.


 No.542270

legit news bump




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / dcfg / f1 / kpop / mascot / polk / s / tgcraft / waifuist ]