[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cute / egy / fur / kpop / polk / trap / waifuist ]

/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Politics, news, happenings, current events

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 5 per post.


Dear Fat Kimmy, there's a French Banker married to a grandma who's plotting to replace you with Yeong Ten

File: efdb9da8cce60bc⋯.gif (928.9 KB, 264x320, 33:40, screamsexternally.gif)

File: 475627bc8e8c9a4⋯.mp4 (1.35 MB, 480x480, 1:1, everybodyknowsshitsfucked.mp4)

2a5faf No.9941815

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

Why is there so little conversation here regarding this? If net neutrality goes, 8chan and any other controversial site goes with it. If Google decides they don't want to support us, why wouldn't an ISP think the same?

4ef18c No.9941824

You asked for this by exposing the jew.

Now the jew is really angry and will colonize the internet.

The only way to get rid of this is fight.


3063b0 No.9941828

File: 4d4f186debc0896⋯.png (5.15 KB, 640x400, 8:5, legend-of-the-red-dragon_8.png)

>>9941815

I'm not worried. Communication has happened with far less bandwidth than today.

If anything I'm kind of excited tbh


f475d8 No.9941876

>>9941815

>If net neutrality goes, 8chan and any other controversial site goes with it

Don't think you understand "net neutrality" or /pol/ very well at all. Maybe you should stay on /leftypol/.


8365ea No.9941878

Oh no, not "net neutrality," how will google handle all the competition? I hope they don't go after the "Patriot Act" next.


a0998e No.9941889

Think you mean (((Net Neutrality))) OP. The internet is a privilege, not a right and the last thing we want is the government to be able to fuck up our capacity to spread memes for the sake of protecting trannies feelings.


51669b No.9941891

Good. Let them all burn together.

Image boards require next to no bandwidth and youtube will only get shittier as normies populate it further.


8365ea No.9941913

>>9941889

This. It's just a ruse to enforce ((hate speech rules)) and expand government control over the internet.


2a5faf No.9941927

File: 80787fc1b28c851⋯.jpg (26.65 KB, 640x480, 4:3, why you're a shithead.jpg)

>>9941876

>>9941878

>>9941889

>>9941891

>>9941913

Are you people retarded? This isn't about "competition for Google", it's about if an ISP decides not to support "racist websites", they can slow down the site to the point where it's not usable. And since regional monopolies are enforced by the goverment, you won't be able to switch to a better company because there will only be one for your area.

ISPs are run by jews, you dumb cunts, why the fuck do you think they wouldn't fuck us over when given the chance?


a0998e No.9941941

>>9941927

It's no wonder you're confused. You linked directly to Arse Technica.

https://archive.fo/TFpPw

>The public will have until mid-August to offer comments before the FCC votes on a final plan.

>Pai wants public input on whether the FCC has the authority or should keep its "bright line" rules barring internet companies from blocking, throttling or giving "fast lanes" to some websites.

>Pai declined on Thursday to commit to retaining any rules, but said he favors an "open internet." He added he would make public a final proposal before a final vote.


2a5faf No.9941959

>>9941941

>https://archive.fo/TFpPw

Nothing listed here contridicts anything I've said, unless you're an idiot who buys completely into spin.


a0998e No.9941965

>>9941959

You're missing the point. Obama's brand of "Net Neutrality" was an internet owned and controlled and regulated by the government. Nobody here is going to say that ISP's should be able to throttle sites based on their content. You should by all means tell Pai not to let them do that.


3fb381 No.9941966

File: 071eac6eff801d6⋯.jpg (241.22 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, 96bee2312ecb059e3b4ad5cb16….jpg)

>>9941927

because there is just no way the government could just do the same

you can always trust the government

https://archive.is/lyBBc


ba4156 No.9941982

>>9941815

Oh no! Another Obama law is coming down. What will we do?


2a5faf No.9942010

>>9941966

None of those sites listed have had anything done to them. Are you really that pathetic that you can't even show me a negative effect that actually happened? Net Neutrality protects sites like 8chan, Breitbart, Infowars more than anyone else.

>>9941965

>>9941982

It's regulating ISPs. Not "the internet". It's forcing them to treat all websites equally. Going "b-but muh Obama" isn't an argument, show me that Net Neutrality is actively fucking over websites.


3625f8 No.9942029

>>9941815

Hogwash. All net neutrality does is keep your internet shitty permanently by making it unprofitable to upgrade the last mile. It takes the power and cost control and hands it to the content hosts. It would be like taking all power companies networks and handing control of them to the coal and natural gas industry, who could care less about the needs of the average customer or, god forbid, rural customers.


c045a8 No.9942038

answer me this: was any non-kosher site throttled by ISPs before net neutrality?


51669b No.9942039

>>9941927

Never let good crisis go to waste;)


3fb381 No.9942042

>>9942010

>None of those sites listed have had anything done to them

what is the slippery slope?


51669b No.9942044

>>9942029

>Hogwash. All net neutrality does is keep your internet shitty permanently by making it unprofitable to upgrade the last mile. It takes the power and cost control and hands it to the content hosts. It would be like taking all power companies networks and handing control of them to the coal and natural gas industry, who could care less about the needs of the average customer or, god forbid, rural customers.

You must be pretty dense


a0998e No.9942045

>>9942010

>show me that Net Neutrality is actively fucking over websites.

Calm down you hysterical fool. You're acting

like /leftypol/.

Heres a tldr article from 2015 https://archive.fo/JW1Ft

>The current iteration of the net-neutrality debate is not really about an “Open Internet” or free speech or even apple pie; it’s about whether government should be permitted to expand its power and encroach on private actors’ due process protections. At stake, in other words, is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the law — especially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda.

Essentially government was taking over the internet, and you know damn well that the government would have controlled content if they got away with it. Fortunately they didn't. Always remember, when a leftist says one thing, you can be sure they intend to do the opposite.


ba4156 No.9942046

>>9942010

Likewise, you can't just say "b-but muh net neutrality." As >>9941965 was saying, it's not really net neutrality. It's being called that, sure, but the law implemented in the name of net neutrality is not the same as the concept of net neutrality itself.


d081e4 No.9942052

>>9942029

Shoo shoo Yiddish shill!


a0df05 No.9942058

>Why is there so little conversation here regarding this

Because it makes Trump and his based street shiter look bad


2a5faf No.9942066

File: c97b21231171cfc⋯.jpg (22.41 KB, 400x273, 400:273, LetMeTellYouSomething.jpg)

>>9942038

Yes, Comcast v FCC is all about how Comcast was throttling P2P sites and software, this case is ultimately what lead up to net neutrality rules being officially implemented.


3fb381 No.9942071

>>9942066

because if there's one thing the government cares about deeply it's P2P sites


16c0ee No.9942084

Ok Im getting super mixed signals here, are we for this shit or what?

And what do the jews hate more here?


3625f8 No.9942085

>>9942052

Not shilling, just trying to educate you. Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship. It is 100% about fucking over the telecoms in favor of Google/Netflix/Amazon/HollyJews. By shilling in favor of this crap you are supporting the kikes who are ACTUALLY doing the censoring and content control. Non-professionals should simply stop engaging on this topic, as it is beyond the comprehension of 80% of the population, which yes, includes you.


f76e6d No.9942086

>>9942071

You got that right, at least the American and Japanese ones.


a0998e No.9942095

>>9942071

Oh they'll keep P2P sites running to keep the good goys distracted, they'll even use P2P sites as the standard for sites that must be protected while they down 8chan and other bad goy sites.


84d2c5 No.9942096

>>9941927

You’re fucking retarded. That’s what’s in power NOW. We’re REPEALING that.


84d2c5 No.9942099

>>9942010

>It’s forcing them to treat all websites equally.

Literally the exact opposite is happening.


3fb381 No.9942101


f76e6d No.9942107

>>9942095

>they'll even use P2P sites as the standard for sites that must be protected

Is that why trackers keep getting shy down.


a0998e No.9942109

>>9942084

I'm for net neutrality which means a free and open internet, not (((Net Neutrality))) which is Jewish controlled.


3fb381 No.9942123

>>9942109

when the government gets their hands on something it never ends there

it would get subverted just like everything else


f76e6d No.9942131

>>9942123

Then why sage


a0998e No.9942141

>>9942084

>And what do the jews hate more here?

As always, the Jews have positioned a trap for us. On one side are the ISP's, on the other is the ZOG. The ZOG bill that's being repealed will reopen a vacuum that the ISP's might try to fill. There is a middle ground here, and it's what you can contact the FCC about. See >>9941941


2a5faf No.9942144

>>9942042

A fallacy unless there is a direct pattern shown. He needs to prove that the goverment has used NN to throttle right-wing sites. I don't give a fuck about if some antifa faggot wants the government to, because that's not the claim that was made.

>>9942045

Except nothing in that 2017 article says anything regarding regulating "the internet". In fact, it's proving me right even moreso. It solely has to deal with regulating ISPs (or BSPs as the article puts it)

>>9942046

Great, then show it. How is the net neutrality in effect not the same?

>>9942096

>>9942099

Really? Who is getting throttled currently? Who is getting more bandwidth because of net neutrality?


a0998e No.9942159

>>9942144

Again, you aren't seeing the bigger picture here. (((Net Neutrality))) was the first step towards Chinese style censorship that was rolled out on sites like Faceberg.


3fb381 No.9942165

File: aaa020a2e3824c9⋯.png (204.12 KB, 750x3200, 15:64, Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-C….png)

>>9942144

>A fallacy unless there is a direct pattern shown

inb4 b-but that's completely different

same government


48af03 No.9942170

File: b2aa00b5e880a0b⋯.png (294.23 KB, 980x740, 49:37, tmp_22077-southpark-cable1….png)

Time to invest in Comcast.


48af03 No.9942189

File: 393a57b8d8eb052⋯.gif (2.18 MB, 250x250, 1:1, tmp_2661-Merchant Revealed….gif)


2a5faf No.9942204

>>9942165

See, the slippery slope is real in regards to the gun control. However it does not exist in regards to NN because no sites have been throttled by the goverment and seem to be protected by the goverment instead, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Goverment has any plans to do so with this topic. The FCC has absolutely no relationship with any gun controlling group.

>>9942159

You mean the completely corporate censorship? Uncle Sam didn't force them to do that shit, they did it all on their own. If you remove Net Neutrality, then you're gonna see that style of censorship multiply.


3fb381 No.9942228

>>9942204

>government did it on one thing but it's impossible it could happen to something else in the future because I said so

>also, government always remains the same and always tell everything their working on to the people before they do anything


422945 No.9942232

>>9942204

In b4 NN gets removed and a few SJWs complain to Comcast about a site like this that hurts their feel-feels and causes them to block the site for PR.


a5d6c6 No.9942236

What a shitshow of a thread. Fucking morons think because the kikes named something "neutrality" it's a good thing. Some of you are absolutely fucking dense. Instead of sperging out why don't you go read the details of what (((Net Neutrality))) actually entailed. Fucking mongs.


3625f8 No.9942238

>>9942096

If you mean the Google/Netflix/Amazon cabal are the ones currently in power based on the Obama FCC ruling, then we agree. They were handed the power by the "net neutrality" ruling that Trump's FCC is trying to repeal, restoring some sense of fairness and corporate responsibility to the market. When your GigE fiber link becomes available at your house, it will be largely because this "neutrality" ruling was defeated.


a0998e No.9942240

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>9942204

Government is a corporation too and it has its own interests. Also

>not knowing Zuckergerg is part of an international conspiracy to control the world


6472b6 No.9942251

>>9941927

So we just keep making racist websites over and over again forever if we have to, the people aren't going to go away and complete decentralization isn't far away either. Hell that situation would only push the envelope.


84d2c5 No.9942255

>>9942238

>When your GigE fiber link becomes available at your house

The problem is that Google’s the only one even IMPROVING their infrastructure, but I refuse to let those kikes know every single website I visit. Never mind that I couldn’t afford their shit anyway.


2a5faf No.9942261

File: bcb142c20036305⋯.jpg (25.24 KB, 600x375, 8:5, 555-COME-ON-NOW.jpg)

>>9942228

>goverment did it in this one unrelated topic, therefore goverment will always ban everything i like because they're evul

>gun rights are the same as ISPs throttling the internet

>i'm retarded

Good to know.

>>9942232

See, this is a guy with a fucking brain.


422945 No.9942264

>>9942251

Except decentralization is P2P, and ISPs have already gotten in trouble for throttling P2P networks.


3625f8 No.9942270

>>9942236

This. Pay attention to this guy. Net neutrality has always been high kikery designed to obscure the anti-competitive activities of (((content owners))). It is one of the most brilliant pieces of realpolitik perpetrated in the past few decades, so respect the enemy for he is a crafty fuck. Convincing edgy script kiddie tier nerd to shill for (((them))) was nothing short of genius.


2a5faf No.9942297

>>9942236

>>9942270

You mean the regulation affecting (((ISPs))) with companies like (((Comcast))) and (((Verizon))), protecting the content providers such as 8ch.

Of course, putting parentheses around nouns and claiming that all content providers are jews (rather than the jewish run ISPs) is a lot easier than actually providing some evidence for your claims.


6472b6 No.9942299

>>9942264

Unless they straight up pull a north korea on us, there are always going to be ways to outwit the incompetent bureaucracies of the world to have a free flow of information online.


3fb381 No.9942303

File: 4ea7e6cb42621f5⋯.png (245.04 KB, 540x303, 180:101, image001-1-540x303.png)

>Democratic lawmakers joined alt-left protesters who want to ban conservative news websites at a protest outside of the Federal Communications Commission, Thursday.

>Rep. Barbara Lee (D. Calif.) told the crowd of protesters and antifa members to "stay woke" in fighting against FCC chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back Obama era net neutrality rules.

>Politico Pro reported that four Democrats joined the protest, which included members of the alt-left groups who have targeted Pai and held protests in his neighborhood. Politico did not mention protesters wearing masks and identifying themselves as part of the antifa movement. They held signs advocating to ban news websites such as the Drudge Report and Breitbart.

>"We must stay vigilant," Lee said. "We must insist that our freedom of speech is preserved."

https://archive.is/X3cs9


422945 No.9942318

>>9942299

There are always ways around it, but have you ever been in a country where they block sites and you end up having to use a VPN/proxy/TOR? When you have half the country using VPN's they tend to get slow, have connection issues and the whole experience is shit. The way it is in the US now is pretty good, don't take it for granted.


71468c No.9942321

>>9942303

It's like they don't notice the irony.


1a6278 No.9942338

>>9942321

>irony

nah, this is just typical commie lies. "freedom of speech" means "nobody is allowed to disagree with me"


6472b6 No.9942343

>>9942318

Believe me, I'm not and its absolutely a fight worth fighting. Protecting the net is every bit as important as protecting free speech and gun rights. I'm just not going to get nihilistic over it because even in places like China the smart people get around all that bullshit anyway.


48af03 No.9942366

>>9942338

My speech is free, yours? Two shekels. L'CHAIM!


2f8f01 No.9942370

File: b23f7c3cfc49a53⋯.jpg (84.04 KB, 744x507, 248:169, Websites like cable.jpg)

File: 1290fd6fc9df19c⋯.png (443.04 KB, 460x1024, 115:256, Websites like cable2.png)

>>9941815

>Why is there so little conversation here regarding this?

I think normies don't really give a shit. They'll accept literally anything after the 4th or 5th time their asked. A that point they just don't want to be bothered.

Weak Wiemarian wastes.

>If net neutrality goes, 8chan and any other controversial site goes with it.

Is that so? I was under the impression that there wasn't net neutrality laws either way. right?

>>9942066

I think the new net neutrality laws give the government the ability to regulate ISPs the same way they regulate phone and cable lines.

Either way, if John Oliver is for Net Neutrality, that makes me suspicious. Still, I don't want pic related to become a reality nor do I want ISPs given the ability to censor shit.


8365ea No.9942378

>>9942370

>John Oliver is for Net Neutrality

>Obama

>Soros

>democunts

This is all you need to know. The shit is rightly dead in the water.


69a431 No.9942399

File: 3aa6ad66a48e373⋯.gif (1.03 MB, 680x551, 680:551, 1458233577067.gif)

>>9942370

>f John Oliver is for Net Neutrality, that makes me suspicious

I've never seen the point in being a contrarian unless I actually have a reason to disagree. I agree with net neutrality, I don't think the government is the best organization to handle such a thing though. When the dems talk about NN, they aren't talking about making a free and open web, they're talking about controlling the whole thing.

the way I see it though, if the ISPs haven't been suicidal enough to charge for individual site use, why would they shoot themselves now? It's pretty hard to put do the throttling crap after you've given everyone unlimited access, especially at a time when everyone is suspicious of the government.


422945 No.9942415

>>9942378

>>9942370

>John Oliver

I know, and I hate the fact that he jumped on the bandwagon for it, but the whole situation is something that doesn't need to be dismissed because he agrees with it.

ISPs are a service, and that's what it should be. We don't need them to have packages, and get into the same crap that satellite and cable TV get into with their contract disputes which only hurt the consumer. It has nothing to do with the ability for them to make the connections faster.

>>9942399

>It's pretty hard to put do the throttling crap after you've given everyone unlimited access

I would agree, but cell phone companies had no problem doing that when they switched from unlimited to throttled ~2010


69a431 No.9942430

>>9942415

the only companies that do phone throttling are prepaid companies, all the contract phone providers give unlimited access since it's just bad business to do it. Besides, phone companies only throttle your overall internet speed, not an app by app basis.

the prepaids throttle because their networks are simply too small to do unlimited access. It's hard for a network that targets rural areas to compete.


3fb381 No.9942446

>>9942399

>I've never seen the point in being a contrarian unless I actually have a reason to disagree

ALWAYS. DO. OPPOSITE. OF. WHAT. JEWS. SAY.


422945 No.9942460

>>9942430

The prepaid networks use the same network as the three major networks, but my point is around that time, they began phasing out unlimited data plans, which stopped people from watching videos, and streaming music from their phones when not on Wi-Fi. Because they all got rid of unlimited around the same time, there weren't too many options to switch to. I really think ISPs could get away with something similar.


1bc321 No.9942475

>>9941927

Net Neutrality has only been in place since 2015. Where were all the ISPs throttling internet access before then? They weren't there, but suddenly I'm supposed to believe that this law will be repealed and they'll bend consumers over a barrel when they could have done so anytime prior to 2015?


bb4995 No.9942493

>>9941815

>we will no longer have the ability to converse anonymously

Honestly that may be a good thing. I dont know about you lads but if I cant talk here its not going to make me stop talking its just gonna make me less reluctant to talk without anonymity. Im too far down the rabbit hole for such a tactic to silence me.


422945 No.9942498

>>9942475

https://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs#United_States_of_America

This list started a long time before NN started, and shows all the ones that throttled P2P traffic specifically.


1bc321 No.9942510

>>9942498

Did any of this change after net neutrality was passed?


8365ea No.9942513

>>9942510

Shhhh.

LISTEN AND BELIEVE GOYIM


c85f2b No.9942518

File: a9f805dc85bd053⋯.jpg (38.84 KB, 487x500, 487:500, ShamJew.jpg)

OP (who is clearly not from here) makes this thread every few weeks, and every time people point all the reasons why this is meaningless.

I don't feel like doing this again. Take your disingenuous sky-is-fallling sperging back to leftypol.


adfb94 No.9942556

>>9941927

8ch isn't based in the US.


422945 No.9942565

>>9942510

I have one of the providers on the list and as of after NN, there appears to be no blocking.

I know of at least two lawsuits for it. Chin Vs. RCN (which resulted in a payout and the stopping of throttling)

and the comcast class action (which resulted in payout and the stopping of throttling)


19f207 No.9943018

>>9942446

>jew tells you to do the opposite of what he wants you to do

>???

>get jewed

Dumbass.


a6c0c6 No.9943058

File: 1d4da49803a741f⋯.gif (1.46 MB, 285x242, 285:242, laughter maniac.gif)

>>9941965

Oh dude, you should ask for an updated version of your playbook, since it's plain fucking obvious that you don't even know how the internet work,s let alone what all those confusing words that you keep on throwing around actually mean.


ba4156 No.9943067

>>9943058

Nah, I'm going to call you the shill, given those guidelines.


f3ef93 No.9943110

>>9942297

>edgy script kiddie tier nerd identifies himself

No major telecom provider has ever been proven to filter or throttle based on content. They are not smart enough to do it without fucking it up even if they wanted to. Cable operators have done it because they operate as FCC protected monopolies and have no competitors to eviscerate them. Verizon/AT&T etc have no interest in content filtering and do not have monopoly power anywhere in the US.

Content owners Like Jewgle, Kikebook, Goyflix etc filter based on content and traffic type every day and have managed to get morons to shill for them as though they are Free Speech inc.

It would be funny if it were not fucking over so many customers.


396d23 No.9943113

>muh based king nigger internet regulations

Go back to reddit


7e4655 No.9943139

>>9941927

>Are you people retarded? This isn't about "competition for Google"

Most of /pol/ can only think from a conservative perspective (muh company freedoms), rather than a right to internet privacy, or thinking of the internet as a public utility. Trump would glady sell both.

Honestly not sure of a solution. Any ideas? There was also a crackdown on YouTube, so there is a clear war going on lately.


825f35 No.9943143

File: 93fb2fb5dc113bb⋯.jpg (12.29 KB, 355x142, 5:2, league of faggots.jpg)

>>9941828

>tfw that game looks more fun than modern shit


ad81f9 No.9943169

>>9943139

>muh company freedoms

What are you talking about anon? Most people here fucking hate corporations.


178c93 No.9943185

>>9942475

>Where were all the ISPs throttling internet access before then?

Kill yourself newfag

https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

I remember AT&T and Charter blocking 4chan multiple times


7e4655 No.9943196

>>9942446

>ALWAYS. DO. OPPOSITE. OF. WHAT. JEWS. SAY

Jews say to drink water daily. Good luck.

>>9943169

Dude, lots of /pol/ buys into the BS info companies put out to sell us on shit. People are fooled into thinking it's for "freedom", when they want to fuck us over.


cf09f5 No.9943218

File: 4a200e0ccb735f4⋯.jpg (175.42 KB, 1262x854, 631:427, You think this is a fuckin….jpg)

>>9942165

Anti-gunners are the closest to an actual trigger for me because it reminds me of how unbearable NJ's gun laws are.


8365ea No.9943232

>>9943196

>lots of /pol/ buys into the BS info companies put out to sell us on shit

Yeah fellow /poll/ock, we should do what slimey limey tells the timey and king nigger want instead.


178c93 No.9943243

>>9943232

see

>>9943185

>>Where were all the ISPs throttling internet access before then?

>Kill yourself newfag

>https://techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

>I remember AT&T and Charter blocking 4chan multiple times


7e7371 No.9943270

>>9942261

>gun rights are the same as ISPs throttling the internet

Freudian slip much kike?


7e4655 No.9943345

What are the names of the two Republicans who voted yes, in the 2-1 vote to end it?

Do we complain to them or something? I still don't understand what were supposed to do.


8365ea No.9943354

>>9943243

>>9943232

> we should do what slimey limey tells the timey and king nigger want instead


a25e9f No.9943379

File: 3e494a3e17ff6e9⋯.jpg (44.42 KB, 413x565, 413:565, olympic why.jpg)

>>9941815

>raw (((arstechnica))) link

OP should be banned just for this


9f04c1 No.9943434

>afraid of jewish corporations screwing over people based on the sites they visit

>better defer that power to the most powerful jewish corporation with the absolute monopoly over this nation

NN was always a made up issue that served as a trojan horse for federal control over the internet.


1bc321 No.9943439

>>9943185

>AT&T blocks two boards for a couple of days because of anontalk pedo spam

>the situation is resolved and they don't do it again

>better give the government the ability to do the same thing without being liable to their customers

Nice argument, nigger.


10d92b No.9943482

File: d57966923f5546d⋯.png (108.49 KB, 445x403, 445:403, 04_18_17 @1_01_41.png)

https://www.attpublicpolicy.com/fcc/net-neutrality-and-modern-memory/

>Let me re-cap this for everyone. There is no paid prioritization like Free Press identified on the Internet today. No one has any plan or intent to introduce such paid prioritization practices. ISPs have all posted policies that prohibit them. And the FCC can act against anyone who might nonetheless try to do that. In short, the Internet today is totally safe from fast lanes and slow lanes.


a5d6c6 No.9943497

File: 0e7f5db7101201d⋯.png (66.99 KB, 336x282, 56:47, PAYATTENTION.png)


5107fa No.9943511

>>9941927

ISPs do not want to get into the content regulating business. That costs money and potentially exposes them to liability if something slips through (if you say you're filtering adult content and someone's kid manages to find a way to get to porn nonetheless, you could end up getting sued). Eliminating net neutrality might lead to services like Netflix that use lots of bandwidth having to pay ISPs to not be throttled. It might lead to ISPs like Comcast that are associated with media companies throttling their competitors' services or giving their own preferential treatment. It would not lead to crimethink sites being throttled, because no one at an ISP wants to pay people to build that list and keep it up to date. It probably wouldn't even affect torrenting, given how much that's declined in favor of streaming among normalfags.


babf8a No.9943759

Too bad. Der 8. Kanal out of reach from Germany when?

This is bad. This is worse than a ban, because the virulent "muh works for me" in the tech community will kill sites who can't pay.


babf8a No.9943768

>>9943511

>ISPs do not want to get into the content regulating business. That costs money and potentially exposes them to liability if something slips through (if you say you're filtering adult content and someone's kid manages to find a way to get to porn nonetheless, you could end up getting sued)

Not in Europe. Not in Africa. Not in Asia. Not everywhere else than Murrica. And when Kikebook takes the filter in their hands, you can always say to the judge "but muh best engineers did everything they could" and nothing happens. State of the art means no shekels for claiming party.


5107fa No.9943944

>>9943768

>And when Kikebook takes the filter in their hands

Kikebook is not an ISP. Net neutrality means absolutely nothing to them.


433135 No.9943952

666 dimensional chess everyone, and if you disagree you're shareblue and should kys.


c3d801 No.9944140

>>9943944

This kike gets it. Why should ISPs be regulated when facebook and google aren't? Net nuetrality is fucking stupid.


2a5faf No.9944253

>>9944140

Because you can start an alternative website extremely easy, but you cannot start an alternate ISP. How retarded do you have to be to not understand this simple concept?


5ca72a No.9944345

>redditfags and /tech/tards continue to be retarded and think (((net neutrality))) is the same as the real never-passed net neutrality and that removing obongo's law is in any way bad

>redditards and /tech/fags continue to spout the exact equivalent "argument" leftists and communists spout about MUH UNIVERSAR HEARFCARE.


c85f2b No.9944350

>>9944253

You can't start a new ISP? How fucking stupid of a cum guzzling shit felcher do you have to be to believe this? We need a better class of shills.


b02ea3 No.9944360

>>9943768

Wow, it's almost like America actually fucking enforces its laws and standards, instead of being lazy niggers for anything that isn't "hate speech" related.


75190f No.9944751

The same kikes that run the ISPs run the government. If they wanted the internet shut down, it would be. They're not going to risk angering the docile goyim


069933 No.9944845

Without it what's to stop ISPs from divvying the Internet into packages like cable channels?

Want a video package of Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube? it's gonna cost extra.

Want a news package of CNN, MSNBC and CNBC?

that's also extra.

Can anyone explain the benefits of getting rid of net neutrality?

inb4 competition. ISPs deliberately do not compete to keep prices high.


069933 No.9944880

The claims that bandwidth costs ISPs money is a crock of shit.

it costs next to nothing. it's simply passing on a copy of data along.

They want to charge video services out of greed.

Does it cost you a fortune to transfer a file on your home network to another computer on your own network?

fuck no.


c52175 No.9944904

File: 1839c62d5ca5efb⋯.jpg (72.42 KB, 500x346, 250:173, shit aint logical.jpg)

>All of these faggots defending ISPs in this thread

>literally trusting statements from ISPs

If you ever needed proof of this board being shill co-opted here it is


f858c9 No.9945059

>>9944904

Odd isn’t it. I really do hope they are shills. There are zero potential ways that this legislation could be used positively and endless ways it could (and given the track record of the players involved will) be implemented to the detriment of all Internet users.

It is like handing a serial killer an axe because he has said he won’t kill anyone.


f858c9 No.9945066

>>9945059

It is like handing a serial killer an axe because he has said he won’t kill anyone inspite of the fact the Goverment has just granted him total immunity if he does so*


699236 No.9945075

>>9941815

Good. "Net neutrality" is a scam supported by joogle and George Soros. It gives further control of the internet to the FCC, i.e. ZOG. These leftists support it because they know it will allow them to institute censorship in the future more easily.


699236 No.9945082

>>9944904

>trusting the FCC more

>the same organization that makes sure only kosher opinions are allowed on TV and radio


f858c9 No.9945106

>>9945075

You HAVE to be a shill. These has nothing at all to do with the Governments direct control over the Internet, they are no less or more able to directly censor sites with or without it. They and cooperate interests will however be able to covertly censor the Internet with a layer of deniability if it becomes legislation.

Idiot.


f858c9 No.9945108


c52175 No.9945112

>>9945082

I don't trust either one, but the fact is that ISPs have already been proven to restrict content, ideally the act would be revised and net neutrality would be handled by an independent 3rd party unrelated to either ISPs or the federal gov composed of technocrats


c1efa0 No.9945125

>>9944904

I think it's mostly just people knee-jerking over a complex issue; shills are usually way more intense and argumentative.


e17ffe No.9945209

>>9941815

>>9941927

>reads Arse Technica unironically

>links to Arse Technica unironically

>believes /pol/ will take him seriously

>no, you goyim are dumb'erer

It's no wonder you're retarded.

>kang passes (((neutrality))) law for the next kike puppet

>soon-to-be quan threatens to shutdown "hate" sites on internet

>everything goes wrong

>bad goyim fight back and change election outcome

>nigger becomes ex-kang and failed quan is put on suicide watch

>law still in place for future puppet to utilize

>queue shills when their mechanism is threatened


699236 No.9945328

>>9945106

>You HAVE to be a shill.

Why would you believe that? Shills are paid to promote net neutrality. It is supported by all the most powerful people and organizations in the world, and they pumps tons of money into shilling for it. Soros, joogle, Zuckerberg, microshit all support title II net neutrality. You think this is because they care about "open internet" when every one of these is currently attempting to censor the internet right now? No, it's because they know it allows even easier censorship. Title II is part of the reason TV and radio are pure shit.

>These has nothing at all to do with the Governments direct control over the Internet, they are no less or more able to directly censor sites with or without it

False.


ad81f9 No.9945426

Let the free market decide shit; fuck net neutrality


178c93 No.9945472

>>9945426

>Free market when the ISP market is already monopolized

>when the major ISPs actively block small startup ISPs from competing

http://kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/measures/documents/sb304_00_0000.pdf

there are plenty of other examples as well


178c93 No.9945491

>>9945472

another link

http://cjonline.com/legislature-state/2014-02-05/wire-cut-senate-bill-banning-municipal-broadband-networks

There is no real free market for ISPs when the major companies sue and try to halt any startup or municipal ISPs in order to block competition


7e4655 No.9946911

It never ends. Stop it ALL now before it's to late…

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html?amp


6b5803 No.9947080

I've used the internet since like 1998. As I remember, the internet was just fine without the feds enforcing net neutrality. I'm not concerned with this issue. Give me compelling evidence as to why I should care. I don't give two fucks about ISPs throttling Kazaa or Limewire or Frostwire or whatever P2P service they supposedly went after. I used those programs during their existence, and never noticed.


e352da No.9947190

File: da5c81d1868971c⋯.png (38.66 KB, 1098x755, 1098:755, Screenshot from 2017-05-16….png)


40a873 No.9947571

>>9942010

>8chan breitbart infowars

One of these doesn't belong. You faggots have ruined this website so fucking quickly. If you really think this place is in the same category or fighting the same fight as fucking infowars you're either a shill or youre a 16 year old Mexican with a 70 iq. Please to all the cuckchan and Reddit refugees please go back where you came from. You don't realize what you're destroying. You have no business here. I haven't seen a single intelligent thread or one decent piece of oc since you fucking faggots all showed up here. Honestly fuck you. Drag your cum filled asses back to cuckchan and spend your time discussing the new Paul Joseph Watson video. Not to mention you don't understand net neutrality at all. It was created to stifle free market competition. Make no mistake you are our useful idiots. Stop making the mistake of thinking you can just step into a mans world and you'll automatically become one of us. The chain of command is broken. This was the final straw. This place is dead. One day you'll realize what youve done.


178c93 No.9947608

>>9947571

> It was created to stifle free market competition.

You had a point right until this

see

>>9945472

>>9945491

The major ISPs were already preventing competition before net neutrality, it actually has little effect on new ISPs

also see

>>9945112

>I don't trust either one, but the fact is that ISPs have already been proven to restrict content, ideally the act would be revised and net neutrality would be handled by an independent 3rd party unrelated to either ISPs or the federal gov composed of technocrats


5d94c9 No.9947752

File: aefefc294ac9b52⋯.jpg (26.26 KB, 400x400, 1:1, matrix-morpheus-what-if-i-….jpg)

>>9945472

>>9945491

>>9947608

https://archive.fo/sxXql


178c93 No.9947787

>>9947752

>https://archive.fo/sxXql

From your own article

>So What About Google Fiber?

But the story changes when ISPs have enough leverage.

>In Kansas City and Austin, local governments wanted Google Fiber more than they wanted kickbacks. So they expedited the permitting process, gave Google rights-of-way access for little to no cost, and allowed Google to build-out selectively — i.e., in neighborhoods where consumers actually expressed demand.

>It also helped that these local governments had less leverage because the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Texas had streamlined video franchising laws so a provider need only get one license for the entire state. “[I]t’s clear that investment flows into areas that are less affected by regulation than areas that are dominated by it,” observed Milo Medin, Google’s Vice President of Access Services, in summarizing the lessons of Google’s Kansas City experience in Congressional testimony.

Nothing in this disproves anything i have said.

>Furthermore, by granting open access to their rights-of-way, local governments can drive competition and innovation in broadband infrastructure overall. After Google announced their plans for Austin, AT&T promised to follow suit — but only if they got “the same terms and conditions as Google on issues such as geographic scope of offerings, rights of way, permitting, state licenses and any investment incentives.”

>Some called that hypocritical, but the fact remains that we, they, and other broadband providers do need tech-neutral deregulation. Because broadband providers have repeatedly tried to deploy network infrastructure, but gave up when cities and states demanded excessive rights-of-way fees or slowed the approval process to a crawl. Even when ISPs succeeded in building new networks, they were often delayed by lengthy lawsuits.

This article blames both cities and major ISPs, even citing the case i mentioned earlier as a reference, this further proves my point that there is no free market when major ISPs in conjunction with local governments prevent startups


5d94c9 No.9947864

>>9947787

>Nothing in this disproves anything i have said.

Except that it also makes a good case for that bill you didn't like.


178c93 No.9947879

>>9947864

> for that bill you didn't like.

Point out to what part of my comments you are referencing

Not arguing for or against the current net neutrality bill, but my point is that neither the cable companies or FCC should be trusted and while the current bill isn't ideal there should be a independent committee to either make a new bill or oversee ISPs.


30c2e9 No.9947905

>>9942303

If these cunts are for this, you know it's bad for us.


165dba No.9947911

>>9941815

LMAO as if an ISP would take the effort beyond their default DNS server crap.

Reconfigure your DNS to OpenNIC servers, get DNSCrypt and Unbound, get VPNs as backups, switch to nonprofit ISPs, laugh at people who vote for corporate ISPs to buttfuck them and finger the politicians who enable such behavior. There are loads of options.


178c93 No.9947932

>>9947911

>switch to nonprofit ISPs

Not a choice, where i live there are only 2 ISPs, AT&T or Comcast

Both have data caps and a history of censorship


165dba No.9947935

https://www.4gcommunity.org/

https://www.calyxinstitute.org/

Cripes it's like you fuckers don't do research or something.


5d94c9 No.9947942

>>9947879

here

>>9945472

>http://kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/measures/documents/sb304_00_0000.pdf

The purpose of the bill is not, as you imply, an attempt by ISPs to block competition. As my article made a case for, it would be to prevent local governments from keeping new entrants out of the market.


178c93 No.9947953

>>9947935

>https://www.calyxinstitute.org/

> * We are giving away these really unique year-long 4G / LTE data plans, along with a Netgear Fuse Mobile Hotspot to Calyx members who join at the $500 ("Contributor") level or higher.

So its using Spring internet and its DNS systems but it costs more to buy an access point/hotspot than actual service from Sprint or Internet through another ISP

>>9947942

>As my article made a case for, it would be to prevent local governments from keeping new entrants out of the market.

Your article explicitly gave examples of both, nor does it change the fact that there still isn't going to be any new ISPs if either the city or major ISPs are trying to block competition, removing net neutrality isn't going to change this either


165dba No.9947963

>>9947953

I mean, if you're gonna kvetch, you might as well not look at 4G's plans which cost at least 50% less, not to mention you don't have to have some crappy package and are free of traffic management. Also, the plan's cost goes down after the first year, not up.


178c93 No.9947985

>>9947963

> you might as well not look at 4G's plans which cost at least 50% less, not to mention you don't have to have some crappy package and are free of traffic management. Also, the plan's cost goes down after the first year, not up.

For that matter i can already use my phone as a 4G hotspot and do the same thing without having to pay $500 and still get unlimited data by changing the APN/proxy whenever it hits a cap

What i want is an actual landline/fiber ISP with better speeds than 4G to compete with fucking shitty Comcast/ATT and unfortunately there is none, i don't see how removing net neutrality is going to help this and there is no real free market when both the City and major ISPs want to prevent competition

Really Comcast needs to be considered a monopoly and forcibly broken apart like Bell labs/AT&T was at one point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System


5d94c9 No.9947991

>>9947953

>Your article explicitly gave examples of both

Then I don't think you read it right.

And your earlier posts only gave examples of one… or unsubstantiated claims of one based on your misunderstanding of interactions between governments and businesses.

>major ISPs are trying to block competition

You haven't shown that.

>removing net neutrality isn't going to change this either

Yeah. We diverged from OP's topic a bit. Welcome to imageboards.


178c93 No.9948016

>>9947991

>>major ISPs are trying to block competition

>You haven't shown that.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170509/05290137322/comcast-charter-join-forces-wireless-agree-not-to-compete.shtml

Here is an example of Comcast and Charter agreeing not to compete or cross each others designated service areas

https://www.recode.net/2015/4/23/11561844/blocking-comcast-is-a-start-but-if-we-want-better-broadband-we-need

>There’s no way we’d settle for a monopoly or duopoly for wireless service, but somehow we’ve become so used to the situation that there’s almost no complaint about it for broadband. It’s also why it initially seemed like Comcast’s bid would get approved: The company argued, correctly, that if it bought Time Warner Cable it wouldn’t be reducing competition for broadband — because there wasn’t any competition to begin with.

Comcast is arguing that by buying up ISPs that were a single provider in areas it didn't previously control, likely due to agreements like the one above, is not trying to block competition


5ca72a No.9948054

File: e0aeca391cc1e35⋯.jpg (195.03 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, FO3_loading_capitalpost01.jpg)

>>9944904

>REEEEEEEEEEEE BOARD IS COMPROMISE BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE REDDIT FAGGOTRY

Fuck off faggot.

>>9945106

Wrong. Listen here, you stupid fucking reddit/ /tech/ nigger. The "net neutrality" passed under Obongo is NOT the net neutrality you faggots masturbated over and campaigned for. Obongo played the name game, and named the bill that gave the GOVERNMENT control of the internet the same name as the proposed bill that would illegalize jewish handling of internet traffic. Wake the fuck up and realize what reality is. Reddit and the words of obese pedophile jew (((Richard Stallman))) and his followers are nothing but lies.


5d94c9 No.9948072

>>9948016

An agreement between Comcast and Charter isn't great but it can't really prevent anyone else from competing. Local governments have taken care of much threat of competition anyway.

Even your second article states that Comcast's argument is correct. And, again, the lack of competition is, as always, due to government interference.


5d94c9 No.9948101

File: 163329a25a448a8⋯.webm (325.87 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, truth.webm)

>>9948054

>(((Stallman)))

He's not ALWAYS wrong.


7395e0 No.9949354

>>9941828

I loved that game, but yours has far better graphics than I recall the bbs having


e409c9 No.9949394

>>9948054

>The "net neutrality" passed under Obongo is NOT the net neutrality you faggots masturbated over and campaigned for.

Why is the EFF giving mixed signals over this thing? They're one of the ones who was big on spreading awareness for a lot of (((government overreach initiatives))) and now they're only sort of bothered by this.


1bddae No.9955184

>the amount of anti-NN shilling in this thread

Try to comprehend stripping NN gives customers zero benefits in an already corrupted ISP monopoly. there is no "free internet" or (((free market))) solution that will come of this. Notice the only arguments for removing it are >CORPORATIONS ARE YOUR FRIENDS GOY :^), ITS AN EBIL OBAMA LAW TO CENSOR US! NEVERMIND WE'VE BEEN FEARMONGERING THIS FOR YEARS!

Ponder this, I want you shills to pay attention. If net neutrality is bad why didn't the government overstep their authority during the election to censor our redpilling and wikileaks? could it be because they don't actually have that authority through NN and served its purpose to protect smaller sites and treat traffic equally? now imagine at the beginning of the election net neutrality didn't exist. ISPs would have complete authority to throttle 4chan, 8chan, throttle-cap our speeds unless paid a ((((reasonable price)))), alternative media would be censored and wikileaks blocked from access leaving the majority of political opinion to be shifted back to legacy media like it was pre social media era. Clinton would win in a landslide, it would've been 2008 all over again.

Facebook, twitter, google, the mainstream legacy TV media etc ALL censored pro-trump content… and for whatever reason some of you are gullible enough to trust comcast? lol. inb4 20 replies of cuck/kike/>>>LP, sorry shills but your charade is exposed.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet


f8d25c No.9955206

>>9955184

> could it be because they don't actually have that authority through NN and served its purpose to protect smaller sites and treat traffic equally?

Could it be unrelated? The main battlegrounds were faceberg and twatter that weren't controlled by NN. Go home reddit, you're drunk.


e313bb No.9955274

>>9941815

>If Google decides they don't want to support us.

Google doesn't support us now. They don't index this site.


17610c No.9955286

>>9941828

Go to inn, flirt with Violet. That woman is such a whore.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / cute / egy / fur / kpop / polk / trap / waifuist ]