Jow Forums does she have a point?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>companies shouldn't be able to make you pay for services they provide you
no
So with net neutrality I won't have to pay for Internet?
He is talking about charging access to their website.
With jews, you lose.
1st ammendment doesnt apply to coorporations. It applies to people.
I wish someone would post the relvant article so I could see the judges reasoning.
>kike complaining about giving up shekels
is anyone really surprised ?
GOLEM GET YE GONE
There was a time when I irrationally wanted to pound the shit out of Sarah Silverman sexually in all holes.
That was maybe 10-15 years ago.
>companies should be forced to provide you services for free
Before: User pays ISP for access, company pays ISP for access.
After: ISP chokes both connections, "But you can use our new toll road!"
A better question: Why do we allow ISPs to lobby congress to prevent cities and states from building their own Fiber or wifi networks?
Nigga I gladly pay 40 bucks/mo. if they actually include unlimited internet at 30Mbps speed
They are called internet service providers (ISPs) and they've been around for decades…
THAT SEXIST MONSTER RAPIST! REEEEEE!
Because I'd rather my tax money spent on actual, tangential infrastructure like sewerage or public transport
The difference being...?
They already can and do. It's called a paywall.
That dumb cunt is already paying with her personal data to be able to post on Twitter. Fucking tech illiterate npc kikes.
didn't only the tech giants like google, apple, facebook, netflix, etc benefit from net neutrality?
Same mate, same
1) Hosting a website is a service.
2) Proving content for a website is a service.
3) This actually already happens.
The betterest question is why we let the government restrict entry to the ISP business in the first place. You want a socialized city wide fiber network? I say let it happen. Start a fundraiser and have at it. Too bad that's illegal because fuck you stop asking questions.
Whether or not "The People" benefit from it is up to some debate, but the megacorps benefit greatly, yes.
it's a complicated issue
what ways were the megacorps reaping the benefits of it before it got repealed?
So because she decided her privacy was worth giving up to be able to tweet stupid shit, the rest of us shouldn't care about net neutrality? what a neat line of argument ,I wonder if it has a name
You live in Africa? I pay 39 euros a month and get a unlimited 1000mbit fiber connection....
ISPs wanted to charge companies with huge bandwidth demands (Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc.) extra to move all their data. As it turns out serving their content is extremely bloody expensive. The megacorps decided it was cheaper to lobby for NN and say "Sowwy that would be illegal~ UwU".
>Too bad that's illegal because fuck you stop asking questions.
>I dunno shit about law nor have the proof to back it up so stop asking or YOU'RE A FUCKING CHAUVINISTIC RAPIST PIG RESPECT MY 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Yeah
So you're saying anyone including companies should not have the right to decide if the site he makes, the domain and traffic he pays for can have a pay wall? Maybe you should go back to Jow Forumscommunism.
NY state. But yeah I live in basically little africa
They already do?
Well user if nothing is stopping you from making your beloved socialized ISP utility then why don't you?
She would probably do anal while she was asleep, or eating breakfast.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
You can't kill an out of control golem like the left just with mere words, you need to orchestrate the simultaneous rise of the right wing worldwide so the golem lose power.
this jewish whore is the gift that keeps on giving
do you mean like alot of porn sites, cuckflix and sites that requires to pay a subscription?
if google could charge for access to ther site but the people would start to using the free alternative
RWDS?
>Judge Kavanaugh believes net neutrality violates the first amendment rights of corporations.
I'm not a faggot who thinks the world is going to end because net neutrality is being removed, but what the fuck did I just read?
They're still pushing for Net Neutrality? Jesus christ. Sara Silverman of all people, too. I guess the screeching tactics didn't work. These people are absolute imbeciles.
they're NPCs who push for whatever is trendy and have no ability to make actual arguments or have any type of abstract thought. what do you expect from a bunch of brain dead hive mind zombies?
I don't think this one will be needed.
The political wars are now cultural, and gamergate of all the things built a metal gear that the left have no response to.
I'd still fuck her raw until she starts bleeding out of her asshole.
whew lad
Corporations are just groups of people. People still have rights when in groups.
Except the megacorps already paid to send their data, and you paid to receive it.
Last mile ISPs want to double dip
But that is allowed and is incredibly common already.
>i deserve to have this thing for free!
fucking socialists. bandwidth is a limited resource.
Not him, but I'm pretty sure (((Netflix))) wasn't paying a proportional amount for the bandwidth they were consuming.
They also throttled users and blamed it on ISPs
so who is jewing who?
>believing a jew
heh and who is you anyway?
What does charging people extra to use someone else's services on your infrastructure which they already pay for without having an agreement with the company whose services you're using in this scheme have anything to do with the first amendment.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh no I have to pay for a service
>Why do we allow ISPs to lobby congress to prevent cities and states from building their own Fiber or wifi networks?
This. The root of all of America's problems with ISPs is the government putting up barriers to becoming an ISP. You know shit is absolutely bonkers when (((Google))) runs in to problems navigating the bureaucracy.
This bit
>or abridging the freedom of speech
because you are denying them their right to say
>We'd like to charge people extra to use someone else's services on our infrastructure which they already pay for.
They can say that. They can't actually DO it though. That'd be like a mall owner installing a toll system in front of every shop's entrance.
>neo Jow Forums not understanding that their internet costs are going to quadruple without strong net neutrality
holy shit I want the conservatives to get out.
Why would that be a problem? People would just stop coming to his mall and businesses would stop renting the space.
Paywalls, subscriptions, etc.
The GOP has already established that corporations are people and pizza is a vegetable.
>4 replies to this that are well articulated
>no response from poster
How much does Soros pay you?
Thats 100% accurate, and thats how the internet always was. As soon as the web really evolved, as soon as there were more addresses to connect to than just universities, bbss, there were private groups that you had to pay and be vetted to gain access to.
I'd rather have half of the internet paywalled then deal with ad agencies spying on people and bad adservers dishing out malware.
>company makes you pay to use their website
>everyone stops using your website because you're charging them and they go to your free competitor
It's literally no different to those fucking news outlet websites that won't let you read their articles unless you pay, just don't use them and get your news elsewhere it's their loss.
So how do you explain the rest of the existence of the internet without it not being like you're implying or that since NN was repealed that nothing has changed?
and/or someone copypastas the material somewhere else - as is done right now.
It's like these soros drones assume piracy can't and won't ever exist...
But why should this even be a debate when paywalls already exist?
It's literally just going to be "hey this website is charging people, let's make the same website but not charge them and stick ads on it for normies with no adblock its easy money!"
Internet is a right. Being charged for it takes away your freedom.
Why not both?
Being able to charge for internet is a right. Free moon dust is a right. Making up stupid rights is a right.
Shut the fuck up.
Her nose
>Making up stupid rights is a right
Try getting a good job without internet.
A good job isn't a right.
Listening to Sarah "my only regret is that I didnt lie better" Silverman about anything is about as retarded as anyone can get if we are being honest.
That being said the net neutrality thing has been talked to fucking death and it's a problem that stems from other bigger problems like what talks about, and just the general state of these sorts of base groundworks surrounding how the internet functions in general. The whole thing is fucked.
>I have the right to use someone else's electricity, someone else's physical property
lmao
Get lost, Commie.
The choice between living and dying is the illusion of choice.
>(((silverman)))
opinion discarded
Why not?
Those businesses will still make huge losses.
Choice isn't a right.
That's what they get for having a shitty business partner.
>Choice isn't a right.
Your sounding more like a commie right now brainlet.
The problem is they don't have any other choice. There are a limited amount of ISPs amd they're all double kikes.
This feds always do things better than the corps.
Because you can find another mall or store. You can't if you live in a small town where there's only one provider and it's "pay our ridiculous prices or go without any internet." Net neutrality wouldn't need to be a thing if a few isps didn't have a monopoly on the market dictating an entire countries internet privlages.
Sounding like a commie is a right. To be honest I'm just taking over the shitpost train in random conversations. Why exactly do you feel entitled to all these "rights" anyways?
They could just make a new ISP then.
Then have the disgruntled people of this small town band together and crowdfund a new ISP that isn't Jewish.
ITT: A really shitty attempt at trying to reignite Net Neutrality troll threads 3 months after NN was abolished and nothing changed.
>Sounding like a commie is a right. To be honest I'm just taking over the shitpost train in random conversations. Why exactly do you feel entitled to all these "rights" anyways?
Thanks for the (((((((you)))))))
(((silverman)))))
I wonder does Kavanagh really think/believe that or is it just a twisted jew headline to confuse people
It doesn't matter since Kavanagh doesn't have any control over telecommunications.
So a jew headline then
Come on you know that you can't just start an isp. At&t and Comcast will bury you before you can even start. These corporations have the country by the balls and can do whatever they please.
Well if AT&T and Comcast are so evil and restricting everything people should be outraged, right? Isn't there tons of support for any alternative? Didn't prices quadruple and isn't access to anything they don't approve of throttled to unusable speeds? No? Oh. Then I guess NN was pointless. Well if that does happen I'm sure there will be a lot of support for your upstart. I wonder if there's any causal relation there.
You'll have paywalls AND spyware ads behind then
Only due to your own indifference.
There are towns that have their own infrastructure now. The only reason you're paying more is some local officials are getting paid off.
Those officials waren't decided by god, nor will the live forever.
Get in there, be the one who makes the change.
somewhat, though I find his neocon pro-spying tendencies to be more concerning. Brett is no-one i would have supported for the position. it's really unfortunate how the Dems fucked up the conversation surrounding him -- instead of questioning his ideas on policy they instead went with the usual personal attacks, dragging in spurious claims of "sexual assault" dating so far back as to be impossible to confirm, then they pivoted towards being anti-alcohol and anti-emotion after that failed. in the end, they just looked like hysterical bullies to most people and are energizing the Republicans instead of demoralizing them, which i think was the intent. and now they've created a partisan monster for themselves; Brett was supposed to replace Kennedy and he sort've fit a similar middle-of-the-road swing-voting niche (though he is quite pro-gun), but now due to this utter outrage i imagine his views on the opposing side are going to be permanently colored due to the smear campaign laid against him, they have created someone who is positively partisan for the Republicans in every regard now. it's a shame. this embarassing theater could have been avoided entirely if the Democrats had anything in their skulls, but i suppose this is what happens when your party is led by corporate whores getting high off the smell of their own farts.
This. The entire situation blew up in their faces. God I fucking hate my party so much. We need a reformation so badly, the retards in charge of the Dems are so fucking stupid
The Democrats used to be the party who were unapologetic about fighting for white America. They started losing the white vote, and so they're just pandering to minority groups and fringe radical leftist groups.
Do you really think thats ever going to change? Politics is about power, they're going to pander to the people who vote for them, and they're ensure that sane white middle America will never support the Democrats again for the next 100 years.
You're stuck with the 56%ers and fake rape accusers. Thats all you're going to get.
At least it's a level playing field. You see I just shoot things. That's what I do. So I have to be a Republican because third parties don't work. Now what that means is I have to be under Trump and the MAGApedes with the Bible Thumpers and conspiracy theorists as my allies. It's quite uncomfortable.