Mfw I see people that unironically believe net neutrality is a good thing

$0.50 has been deposited into your AT&T shill astroturf account.

>mfw everyone ignores this because the orange retard says net neutrality is bad

Fuck NN and fuck Obama.

Attached: salt powered robot.jpg (900x859, 491K)

>people think NN is still a thing
It literally affected the internet in no way whatsoever. Why are we talking about it as if it's still a relevant topic?

>thinking government power isnt enough reason to be against something
Stalin would be proud of you user

Man, we've had this thread hundreds of times. Everything that can possibly be said about NN has already been said. There's no reason at all to still discuss this.

Attached: iWKad22.jpg (1440x1080, 90K)

Praise Allah amirite?! XDDD

Attached: Eurocuckistan.png (1104x927, 84K)

it would help fight against the Jew

Assblasted braindead propagandized burgers (and Europeans) mixed up some nice sounding words with an invasive legislation and expected that ending it would bring forth the end of the world as we knew it
Remember those posts with the social pass etc?

>would help to.fight against the jew
>backed up by every jewish multinational corp in the tech field except of ISPs
Right

how could shit get any worse than it is now?

In a myriad of ways
The US could start a war and you could be enlisted forcefully, for one

desu its a painfully bleak future
>government accepting lobbyists left and right so no matter who you side with, monopolies win
>the world is literally turning into a huge botnet
>more and more ""bad"" behavior is being outlawed in the name of security and/or "the good of society"
>everyone would rather die than work with someone with slightly different opinions for a common goal
I want off this ride

That's pretty cool, you tried to dismiss the issue by using nothing but memes. Those russian bots sure train the retards well.

>t. uninformed drone

Time to dig out the ol' copypasta...
Take a look at the legal details of net neutrality
Here's the official document: web.archive.org/web/20171126115922/https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
Let's look at page 15-16 (pic related):
>While the net neutrality rule applies to those ISPs that hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits to internet content, the converse is also true: the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway — i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.”
>Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial intervention of that kind, would fall outside the rule. The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556
>That would be true of an ISP that offers subscribers a curated experience by blocking websites lying beyond a specified field of content (e.g., family friendly websites). It would also be true of an ISP that engages in other forms of editorial intervention, such as throttling of certain applications chosen by the ISP, or filtering of content into fast (and slow) lanes based on the ISP’s commercial interests.
In summation, net neutrality was never what it says on the tin, and is an opt-in system. It made no difference, and was just a foot in the door for further internet regulation. ISPs could still throttle, selectively block and offer packages, with or without net neutrality.

Attached: Image 3.png (604x1768, 172K)

there's been 20 fucking threads of this (for some reason) over the past week and im really tired of typing up the same response without making it a pasta
TLDR: Both sides are utter shit and want to cuck you, but I find the pro-NN one shittier because it adds more laws into an already shitty system

Maybe you should visit Europe some time.

Yeah, I had to resort to creating the pasta above, because it pretty much demolishes the idea of NN.
Either way we're getting fucked, but at least without net "neutrality", the government doesn't have a foot in the door for Title III regulation, which allows the government to wiretap you, amongst other things.

Europe isnt by any means white either
Southern Europe and western Europe are done for
t. European

Slavs aren't white nigga.

mfw I've never seen a single thread about NN that didn't devolve into debating what the fundamental definition of NN is

>Yeah, I had to resort to creating the pasta above, because it pretty much demolishes the idea of NN.
How the fuck does it demolish the idea of NN? Your source is an opinion piece focusing on something that never applied to the oligopoly of ISPs that dominate the country. It's sidetracking to avoid the core issue, it does not represent what net neutrality entails and you only regurgitate it like a trained chimp because it placates that dead air between your ears.
It's embarrassing how you didn't even bother reading the information you posted and just assumed it was true because it sounded techy enough.
Now go discuss cellphone cases, that's the only subject you're equipped for.

Well no shit, the original proposal during the Obama days had to be neutered just to be passed the first time.

That's because the anti-NN cambridge analytica shills and their inductees desperately try to use the tactic of muddling the subject into nonsense. This would have never been a true debate here a couple of years ago, until the election caused a flood of hillbilly mouthbreathers into the site, who just happily parrot whatever their daddy maga tells them, regardless of content or context.

They're whiter than the US.

>your source is an opinion piece
>something that never applied to the oligopoly of ISPs that dominate the country
>t. didn't read what I posted

You'd think it would be an obvious thing to know, but most anons and normalfags just see the word neutrality on the box, some buzzwords on the opinion pieces floating around about muh speed lanes and mailmen, and you have a recipe for ignorance.

I did, you clearly didn't.
> an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.”
Does not apply to any major ISPs operating today. This is a bunch of sidestepping nothing, and whoever you copied that from had to scan the entire document to even find that exception.
You're too stupid to process the information you're trying to force on other people. The fact that you're supporting anything and everything the most corrupt administration in U.S. history is currently pushing is proof of this.
Let's also not forget that Ajit Pai is currently under investigation for corruption charges and that one of his handpicked employees is serving sentence for fraud. There's also the fact that the internet has been bombed with a FUD campaign of russian bots spreading discord and disinformation about net neutrality.

Nah, I'd rather not get ran over by a shitskin in a van.

Ask your dad/brother to be careful while parking the trailer.

Attached: 1511721119952.gif (480x228, 263K)

>haha youre dumb and dont understand technology
What if its my literal job AND I understand why NN is fundamentally wrong

Attached: IMG_20180513_083418.jpg (4032x3024, 2.06M)

>haha le straw man argument
Tell your handler to send someone better.

>It literally affected the internet in no way whatsoever

that's the point dumbass

>Bookshelf of books in Greek, timestamp like 8:30am
>I'm somehow a Comcast shill
Do I get paid in euroshekels or drachmashekels?

>Does not apply to any major ISPs operating today
>This is a bunch of sidestepping nothing
It literally is not. At any time, a company could add a paragraph to their terms and conditions of use, add a disclaimer section to their service plan page, and then it would be as if net neutrality was never passed.
>whoever you copied that from had to scan the entire document to even find that exception
I'm the one who made the pasta, read through the court case, and mentioned it. I'm sure other people have as well, but I was bored on a Friday afternoon at work and decided to read through some of the net neutrality appeals that sparked the whole "repeal NN" debate. I noticed that pretty sizeable caveat, the fact that it does not matter as long as it is clear to the end user that they are not being offered an "unbiased and open access"-type service.
>The fact that you're supporting anything and everything the most corrupt administration in U.S. history is currently pushing is proof of this.
I don't support our current administration, or most things they advocate. Never have, never will.
>Let's also not forget that Ajit Pai is currently under investigation for corruption charges and that one of his handpicked employees is serving sentence for fraud.
Going to need sauce on that, because it's news to me.
>There's also the fact that the internet has been bombed with a FUD campaign of russian bots spreading discord and disinformation about net neutrality.
I don't care about Russia, or any other country other than the US, and I barely care about the US (only reason why I do is because I live here, and would rather not have it turn moreso into a socialist dictatorship). What I care about are objective facts and analysis, and my conclusion from that has been that it doesn't matter whether or not net neutrality is in place, at the end of the day, either the government or the government with the help of private businesses will fuck over my fellow citizens.

Get paid to shill in drachmashekels, pay denbts in euroshekels obviously.

It's here in the north though.

For how much longer?

>It literally is not. At any time, a company could add a paragraph to their terms and conditions of use
Name a few instances where this has happened. And what your retarded ass forgot to consider is that it would involve selling an entirely new service, or directly notifying their customers of the service change.
We're not discussing the potential vulnerabilities of the rules that were revoked, so I don't see the relevance of all the twaddle you're trying to pass as decisive evidence.

Facebook just did it

>name one instance in which a company adds something to their terms
Just how unaffiliated with technology and/or law are you

Just for how long are you going to avoid the subject? ad-hominems aren't going to help you here, boy. This isn't Jow Forums and I'm not from Alabama.

It's better to get run over by an incel brainlet like you.

or maybe anything remotely related to politics has a massive amount of unorganic propaganda tied to it, like the repeal of NN leading to paywalled access to facebook and Leddit.

Ok then allow me
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5632253/Facebook-change-user-terms-limiting-effect-EU-privacy-law.html
hypebot.com/hypebot/2017/07/spotify-updates-us-terms-and-conditions.html
popsci.com/gdpr-privacy-policy-update-notices
imore.com/instagram-comments-changes-terms-service-theyre-not-selling-your-photos
And theres a whole lot more

>Name a few instances where this has happened.
ISPs update their terms and conditions of use when it's needed. Just because they have not for this specific purpose, doesn't mean they will not at any point in the future. Thinking otherwise is, by definition, wishful thinking.
>And what your retarded ass forgot to consider is that it would involve selling an entirely new service, or directly notifying their customers of the service change.
I did consider this, because that's how contracts work you fucking dunce.
>We're not discussing the potential vulnerabilities of the rules that were revoked
>so I don't see the relevance of all the twaddle you're trying to pass as decisive evidence
When you pass legislation, you have to consider the legal vulnerabilities and loopholes that come with it. Net neutrality came with its own set of caveats, gotchas and loopholes, and repealing it did the same. With or without net neutrality, ISPs could selectively throttle or entirely block services, protocols, etc. at will, and could still offer tiered packages. All three of these formed the crux of the mainstream pro-net neturality argument, none of which turned out to be valid arguments in favor of passing more legislation on top of an internet that should be free and open to anyone and everyone who pays for it. We can go into specifics ad infinitum, but that's not the original point of my copypasta, and therefore is not part of this discussion, unlike what-ifs and court case specifics.

Also this article should give you a basic insight on the legal side of things
lawyer-monthly.com/2017/02/why-do-companies-continuously-update-their-terms-conditions/

Never has any of the major ISPs updated their terms and services to "provide a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.”
Of course companies update their terms and services, you incredibly stupid motherfucker. I cannot believe the level of discussion you're bringing this down to, to cover your ass for posting a completely irrelevant exception.
Go embarrass yourself somewhere else. Tell your handler to send a better one, you're done.

>ISPs update their terms and conditions of use when it's needed.
Not to "provide a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.”
Stop trying to deviate from the article you yourself posted. You're an even bigger self-defeating joke than Rudolph Giulianni.

I guess I'll just repeat what I said.
>Just because they have not for this specific purpose, doesn't mean they will not at any point in the future. Thinking otherwise is, by definition, wishful thinking.

>doesn't mean they will not at any point in the future.
Have they? Your "debunking net neutrality" is based on speculation. What a laugh, and how easily coerced you are.
Now try another argument from authority, this shit is hilarious.

>never has any of the major ISPs updated their terms for THIS specific one thing
No, but they do change their terms:
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16775495
And im sure if they had to, ie NN stayed, they would

americans don't need anything higher than a 2mb connection

pajeet san is right to completely destroy the sjw net neutrality

fuck those blue haired trannies forcing neutrality on our people

Attached: 9988E8A925B7488A967E0154C2142C69.jpg (700x470, 48K)

>No, but they do change their terms:
They do. What's your point? How were you supposed to be debunking net neutrality again?
So you change the restrictions that kept them in check for no restrictions whatsoever.
What are you even proposing here? Do you just keep replying out of inertia?
Stop spamming links from your supervisor and answer the fucking questions, drone.

>le sjw blue haired san commie xd maga shadilay lol u're a net nutrality
Fucking epik post m8, WTF I love KEK nao

Yeah fuck consumer protection. It's not like the world is moving to a more internet connected world or anything. It's not like for anything more than a mcjob you need to have access to the internet.

Fucking retard MAGA scum need to get the goddamn rope.

>hurr durr govt power is evil! praise anarchy!
Don't you have an antifa rally to attend, Mr anarchist?

>Antifa
I dont mind fascists as long as they dont attack me or my private property

>what are you proposing
The complete and utter repeal of every single law in existence, except of the right to private property and the defence of it
Also the complete stripping of power from the government
Neither of which is supported by either side, but the NN side adds a law and opens a door to even more regulation so fuck that
Clear yet?

Clearly you don't know what fascism is my dude :^)

Attached: Screenshot_20180513-094640.png (1080x1920, 704K)

I'm sad about the fact people are arguing about NN, I really am. I'm actually a libertarian but I still think NN should stand the same way free speech should. It's to keep up the voice of the little man, and to fight the increasing shift to central powers like facebook and google.
When all smaller sites will be paywalled, and ISPs can effectively throttle anything they don't like, the whole world will be that much less democratic.
It's tragic. Lobbying should be illegal. It is blatantly against the interest of the country and the people.

Attached: 1430974433134.png (920x396, 297K)

Antifa is named after a group of socialists and communists in Germany in the 1920s. Antifaschiste. They famously attempted a violent coup in Berlin wherein at least 4,000 people were killed or injured before authorities shut them down. Further activities by Antifa in destabilized Germany eventually led to popularization of the Nazi party as a reaction to Antifa upsetting the local population seeking an end to their communist bullshit.
Also, anarchists are either anarchy-communist, a stupid hypocritical oxymoron, and belong in Antifa and support things like NN, or they are ancaps, which are diametrically opposes to Antifa.
So. You’re not very smart are you? Also...
Aren’t you the one missing a Antifa meeting?

Oh so you're feigning insanity now. That's rich.

i'm a fat and proud redneck and at least this time i'm on the site of the brown pajeet

if the guy end this NN bullshit america will be great again

>keep the voice of the little man
This HAS to be bullshit
Especially if youre a libertarian, which I doubt, you should know that making all companies' bandwidth equal means that your shit site is considered the exact same as google in the eyes if the ISP
And since they cant throttle speeds, ISPs will have to raise their fees leaving your small site unable to cope in the market and create a monopoly of multinational corporations
You are clearly deceited if you think either side has the individual or the little guy in mind

>i'm todally on u're side comrades, that's why I suppord self-destruction
Fuck off, shill.

>hurr durr your political views are different so youre insane
Well, look where your political views of democracy over individualism have brought us lad

I don't know if you've noticed, but all of the things you're supporting are empowered by net neutrality. They did such a scrub job on you, they managed to get your concepts backwards.
It's fucking hysterical.

found the lefty/pol/

No, but when confronted about this article of yours that proves nothing and is of no relevance whatsoever, you just deflected by pretending to be a complete radical. It's kind of a miserable way to weasel out of an argument.

He’s an anarchy capitalist, retard. The problem isn’t net neutrality being needed. The problem is that your market is over regulated and the ISPs have monopolies on the industry. You don’t have alternative providers. We do, here in Canada, and we don’t need NN and have never had it. We have competition in ISP market instead.
I’m sorry you’re retarded.

>all the things youre supporting
so little to no government power, less regulation, and a free market are helped by a regulation on an everbecoming less free market that gives more power to government bodies?
Are you just trolling at this point?

>pretending
user...I...

Attached: IMG_20180513_095436.jpg (4032x3024, 2.04M)

>anarcho capitalists don’t exist
>libertarians don’t exist
>they definitely don’t exist on Jow Forums
God you’re fucking stupid

What do you suppose any ISP charges anyone for hosting a site? Do you really think it's that expensive now (or will be in the future), to pay for ISP privileges to host a site?

Attached: 1433859721898.jpg (960x720, 91K)

Also, how do you think small sites exist now, and who will stop ISPs from abusing their throttling privileges (which they were trying for many times in the past)?

Internet Service Providers don't host sites. You don't need ISP privileges to host a site.

I propose that costs vary according to market prices and QoS
Its not really expensive now (for me at least) and yes I do believe that if net neutrality were to pass, the prices would go up, as companies like google etc wouldnt have to pay more for streaming 4k youtube videos or whatnot
Small sites exist because they dont really use bandwidth and the costs mainly come from the owner's pocket (ie brettygood is a /tv/ favorite)
You cant stop an ISP from abusing their power, but the ISP also cant stop his users leaving to another ISP that doesnt abuse his power, and the 2nd ISP would net a larger gain by accepting all of 1st ISP's users instead of throttling his own too.
This is economics game theory.
Even if all ISPs were to agree somehow that they wanted to close the market and create an oligarchy so to speak and throttle everyone altogether, if the market is free and unregulated, a non-throttling ISP could always open up and take everyone's customers

>suppose as propose
see What you really pay for is the bandwidth you use
If you dont need a lot of upload, then you're ok, but have to pay more with NN, as ISPs won't just decide to lose revenue
If you do, with NN you're ok, without it you have to pay more as the little guys pay less

Exactly. This is why
>ISPs will have to raise their fees
is not a very good argument.

>ISP also cant stop his users leaving to another ISP
Except in the many cases of regional monopoly in the US, Which isn't theory but reality.

>Even if all ISPs were to agree...
Or they might just throttle their competitors' services (which they have done in the past) to restrict them.
The whole argument behind the free market is that it creates competition and lowers prices and increases QoL. But when ISPs restrict customers' capabilities to fuck with their competitors, the whole thing has gone to shit. This is not what the free market should be about.

Attached: 1443255264957.gif (265x260, 1023K)

>regional monopoly
Indeed an issue, but most ISPs bank on larger cities anyways where multiple ISPs exist
A density of population map of the US crossed with an ISP map should easily prove that
>they might throttle...
See I am completely against that, and I agree totally with you there
ISPs have lobbied for years, decades even and have passed laws that shaped the current market in something that's a far cry from a free market
Getting into the ISP market was always expensive, but now its near impossible, so competition virtually doesnt exist
The solution to that imo is not to add another regulation to cancel out the aftereffects from previous regulations that the ISPs lobbied for (which is an obvious case of Keynesian economics at work), rather to repeal the regulations on the market that the ISPs themselves forced via lobbying
Take this a long way and it leads here

>rather to repeal the regulations on the market that the ISPs themselves forced via lobbying
Yeah, but that would be a lot harder to do than keeping NN would have been. Fuck me, if we're thinking that grandiose, why not just overthrow the govt with a fairer one filled with honest, honorable people, who keep their constituents' interest before their own?
You have to find the balance between idealism and realism, and I don't think this is realistic.

Attached: 1477968430763.jpg (1600x1400, 329K)

Quite reasonable, and obviously each person thinks differently and acts differently, I just cant betray my ideals so to speak, for better or worse
It's not like I dont recognise that its near impossible, but if you just let everything slide, what stops you from becoming a beaureocratic hell at some point in the near future?
Also government controlled markets have never been proven to work, mostly the opposite, and imo NN was/is merely a gateway to more regulation
But again, to each their own

Imagine forcing FedEx to charge a flat rate for all products shipped. DVD? Furniture? Box of marbles? Refrigerator? Sorry FedEx, you have to charge the same price to ship all of these! Shipping Neutrality is in effect!

That sounds like a much better solution though

Uhoh, someone doesn't know how the internet works. Also, might I add that you don't pay fedex a monthly subscription price.

The problem is heavier regulations favoring corporate rent-seeking are in the interest of both companies (higher profits) and politicians (bribes/lobby money). That is an extreme adverse current, and things like these will only be repealed when the bread and/or circus is affected.

Attached: 1436771002224.png (624x352, 310K)

Terrible false equivalence. We already have “shipping neutrality” in that all shipping companies are regulated as common carriers. They’re allowed to discriminate by weight and size, but two packages of the same weight and size traveling the same route will cost the same to ship, regardless of if one contains a refrigerator and the other one contains furniture.

We already have data caps in the US. What Comcast and these other companies are trying to do is convince retards like you that 1MB of Netflix is somehow more taxing on the network than 1MB of of text, which is bullshit.