NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[mickmoranis]

LOL CONGRATS ON ALABAMA

[Pokesan]

now amazon and google will have to pay for their bandwidth

[hyejin]

this is a horrible thing for freedom. I feel so cold

[Jarnauga]

https://i.imgur.com/C8KalcV.jpg

[mickmoranis]

The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit: the internet itself.

Already controlling much of the internet's media and all the social media platforms that propagate it, the only thing left for the globalists to control is the infrastructure itself that comprises the internet. That's why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open-Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization).

Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules they need to re-classify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as "common carriers", effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title II, ISPs need to apply for Broadcasting Licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling. The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit's outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for Broadcasting Licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because Broadcasting Licenses become the globalist's most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation.

Three judges presided over the case, two Democrats, one Republican:

Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)

David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title II classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the internet must receive a Broadcasting License. The FCC is stumped and can't really figure out what to do next... So Obama comes in to save the day. He pressures them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move is quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as... Net Neutrality. Surprise!

The public is told that they are saving the internet! But saving it from whom? Hahaha from the very people who are telling them to save it! Whether by intent or by circumstance, the globalists ended up playing both sides and winning. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v. FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape.

Now here's where the story picks up...

Net Neutrality invokes Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides internet service to register for Broadcasting Licenses from the government and regularly renew them.

Well... what if the FCC doesn't want to renew them? Ah but that's crazy talk, the FCC can't just revoke Broadcasting Licenses on a whim. It would be taken to court within seconds!

But imagine what happens when you're appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC, and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules your timeline. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it's violating federal law. Well, you'd probably say "fuck you I voted for Trump" and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together.

Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You're about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you-

"Why don't they just call it 'The InfoWars Act'?"

Your lawyer simply closes his eyes, as if with erotic satisfaction, and quickly whispers under his breath "...Bill Clinton is a rapist." You look back at the InfoWars Act to read its mission statement.

...counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department..."

That's so bizarre, you think to yourself. Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you're literally going to house it in the White House?

interagency center

Okay so it's a center, of multiple agencies. In the White House...

p. 1399 - The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President.

...that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts

Wait what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening shitposts on T_D? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined? Huh, that's strange... there's no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just... call it whatever they want. Incredible.

You look up to your lawyer, "How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?"

Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar.

"He didn't."

The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,

"He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it."

"Ohhhh shit yeah this is that fuckin propaganda thing that Obama legalized I always see it get reposted on The Donald! God, what a Kenyan pedophile thing to do, amirite?"

"So you've already read through it?"

"Oh... yeah no I'm a simple guy I just see a grey arrow and I make it orange."

"Jesus Christ." The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in pdf format).

SEC. 1287. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER.

"This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they're going to be doing."

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation

"Clandestine special operators?? That's like some Tom Clancey shit!"

"Not even Tom Clancey would write something like this. Earlier you called this a 'Kenyan' thing to do. But even Kenyans have never sent secret agents to brainwash their people. Really let that sink in."

"Yeah... Malik Obama would never do that."

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists...

"But just when it couldn't get worse... it gets way fucking worse."

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government... provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government...

"They call in their globalist friends from some "totally neutral third-party" and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who's been flagged by a third-party "fact-checker" without having to take them to court. "

"Oh fuck."

"Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term "fake news" to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of "neutral third-parties" policing online content. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google, all the tech companies, and the White House itself were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet. "

"Fuckin' Snopes."

"It's brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them."

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations...

And that's it ladies and gentlemen.

That's why passing Net Neutrality is so important.

The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.

STORY TIME IS OVER THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL

Are you imagining how real this is?

They can physically shut down your access to the internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you shitpost on The_Donald! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, The_Donald, 4chan, Voat, and any other right-wing website that pops up to replace it! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years, like they always do, so that nobody would notice until it's too late! They could've taken us down one buy one, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions!

And it was 100% legal! They passed every law they needed to do it!

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO HAVE WON THE ELECTION BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN.

AND NOW ONE FINAL QUOTE:

p.1446 - "The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

They thought she would win.

[LAUGHS IN KENYAN]

[mickmoranis]

Shout out to Washington state:

the state that is suddenly using libertariasim to manage themselves, DESPITE whatever the man in the white house says.

#libertariasm is the only form of goverment that makes any sense at all.

Funny how when it works for you, you love it. But when its a topic brought up by people who like fox news you HATE IT ITS THE DEVIL

[Xaanka]

https://i.imgur.com/C8KalcV.jpg


for context i live right next to aaa game studios and some of the biggest tech companies in the world
before net neutrality i could get something like 30-40 different isp's to service my address. now i only have one choice. thx obama good job.

oh and the tiered internet plans people are screeching about? you're already subsidizing that anyways. that's why your cable bill's $70 now and it was $30 three years ago. those tiered internet plans, if they are to exist, wouldn't start at the current price you're paying. think of it this way: you're already paying for the most expensive package, and if ISP's end up doing that shit (they won't; they didn't for two decades and can barely do so with tv even but i'll entertain the notion) it means you'll be able to opt-out of paying for your neighbor's netflix traffic.

so basically, free market handles that censorship problem you're kvetching about. if an ISP wants to censor internet access, the consumer will have other choices in providers, and the market will dictate how much censorship it wants (i don't mind child porn and malicious sites getting filtered out for example)

reddit tier people: omg the sky is falling because the internets going back to how it always was except for a 2 year period where our country's internet plans universally got worse but also more expensive TOTAL COINCIDENCE!!11 the internet needs to be more like public radio!!1

[Jarnauga]

for context i live right next to aaa game studios and some of the biggest tech companies in the world
before net neutrality i could get something like 30-40 different isp's to service my address. now i only have one choice. thx obama good job.

oh and the tiered internet plans people are screeching about? you're already subsidizing that anyways. that's why your cable bill's $70 now and it was $30 three years ago. those tiered internet plans, if they are to exist, wouldn't start at the current price you're paying. think of it this way: you're already paying for the most expensive package, and if ISP's end up doing that shit (they won't; they didn't for two decades and can barely do so with tv even but i'll entertain the notion) it means you'll be able to opt-out of paying for your neighbor's netflix traffic.

so basically, free market handles that censorship problem you're kvetching about. if an ISP wants to censor internet access, the consumer will have other choices in providers, and the market will dictate how much censorship it wants (i don't mind child porn and malicious sites getting filtered out for example)

reddit tier people: omg the sky is falling because the internets going back to how it always was except for a 2 year period where our country's internet plans universally got worse but also more expensive TOTAL COINCIDENCE!!11 the internet needs to be more like public radio!!1

yep, no need for a constitution, or laws, or any rules just let the FREE MURRKET handle our lives, durr

sometimes xankaa, when i read you or mickmoranis, i have a vertigo of emptiness.

[hyejin]

sometimes xankaa, when i read you or mickmoranis, i have a vertigo of emptiness.

marxist prose gives me nausea

[Patriam1066]

Net neutrality has no bearing on the number of internet service providers in your area. That's a function of local and state governments selling you out to the highest bidder

[Patriam1066]

Also fuck Comcast

[fash]

"net neutrality" is about big companies gaining control of BGP peering via government regulations so they can save money on bandwidth.

Funny how Google and similar companies are arguing in favor of net neutrality, yet they aren't arguing for elimination of monopolies where cities have given companies like Comcast exclusive rights in exchange for installing fiber or other networking infrastructure around the city. Google has entered similar exclusive relationships with their Google Fiber offerings. That's why there is so little choice in picking an ISP in many locations.

These companies aren't arguing in favor of free speech on the internet or for more consumer choice when they support Net Neutrality. They trying to save a few shekels on data bandwidth at the expense of a free and open internet.

Net Neutrality is about neutrality like the Patriot Act is about patriotism.

[Raavak]

Yeah, calling it "Net Neutrality" was another attempt to hide the true motives.

I need more (corrupt) government regulation like I need another hole in my head. With the number of instances in recent history of federal agencies being "weaponized" for partisan political uses I'd rather not have something else out there to be used against me.

[Frieza_Prexus]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

[Shrubwise]

Also fuck Comcast

Seconded.

Also, inb4 Beastagoog shows up to make fun of America... again.

[Patriam1066]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

Solid post by a Christian. Go with God, brother

[Frieza_Prexus]

Solid post by a Christian. Go with God, brother

VAYA CON DIOS

http://i.imgur.com/KhdQgBW.jpg

[mickmoranis]

Seconded.

Also, inb4 Beastagoog shows up to make fun of America... again.

dude at best he can get 6mbp uploads in the desert he calls an island.

not to mention the only thing he browses that isnt made by people in america is some football website where he reads about athletes rolling around on the ground crying.

[mickmoranis]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

then fix it on the state level and then everyone is happy... except Comcast who is upset, but cant afford to lobby EVERY SINGLE STATE instead of 1 governing body.

win win

there is no reason 1 governing body should be the ones that make these decisions, ergo, you get what happened today when someone you dont like is in the white house.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Look,

I'll agree that ideally congress, and not the FCC, should handle this. Not because the FCC is incapable, mind you, but because there are valid, if somewhat shaky, constitutional and procedural reasons to oppose using Title II. Using an executive order/Title II is a bit of a band-aid. A congressional solution is likeliest to be the cleanest, most defined, and most enforceable answer.

Individual state laws are not efficient here due to the scope of interstate commerce. I mean, come on, it's the freaking internet. There's a reason the constitution has the commerce clause. It's for this exact type of situation. The issue is literally broader than any given state's sovereignty.

[mickmoranis]

Individual state laws are not efficient here due to the scope of interstate commerce. I mean, come on, it's the freaking internet. There's a reason the constitution has the commerce clause. It's for this exact type of situation. The issue is literally broader than any given state's sovereignty.

this argument is crazy.

Are you saying that comcast will just up and leave california high and dry without internet because they have their own regulations LOL

naw.. sorry, this is both the way its going go go from here on out, and will work in consumers favor, as well as free Americans who do not want the government controlling their lives and things exactly like TODAY happening.

If the government made it a states right choice, this argument would not be happening at all.

I mean the nerve in saying "the government cant manage this on a state level, so one goverment agency should do it for ALL the states" is totally baffling, like how do you draw these lines of conclusions? How do you not see the irony?

[mickmoranis]

State has NN laws? internet is not changed... state has no NN laws? the internet is throttled.

What the hell you think is too hard to manage? You have to be willfully ignoring reality to say that its "impossible" for states to manage this lmao that is just pure insanity, i am sorry I dont need to be harsh, but I'm loling irl.

[skarlorn]

VAYA CON DIOS

http://i.imgur.com/KhdQgBW.jpg

fucking cool post

[AzzarTheGod]

yea totalitarian trillionaires with autonomy,

get ready for the future

they got the economy hijacked like a robbery,



you livin in poverty property with no commodity

draconian colony bringing only israeli policy

arcane symbology an omen for the future,



get ready 4 the war, like the streets of Fallujah

what you know about the USS COLE or the World trade c3nter,

We gotta bring heat, or be another Bill Cooper

[mickmoranis]

https://i.imgur.com/QaTqHG1.png

[Frieza_Prexus]

this argument is crazy.

Are you saying that comcast will just up and leave california high and dry without internet because they have their own regulations LOL

naw.. sorry, this is both the way its going go go from here on out, and will work in consumers favor, as well as free Americans who do not want the government controlling their lives and things exactly like TODAY happening.

If the government made it a states right choice, this argument would not be happening at all.

I mean the nerve in saying "the government cant manage this on a state level, so one goverment agency should do it for ALL the states" is totally baffling, like how do you draw these lines of conclusions? How do you not see the irony?

It's not that each state can't handle it. It's that each state will handle it differently and you won't know which standard applies when there's confusion because they are all co-equal sovereigns. How do you resolve a conflict of law?

It's called jurisdiction. If I try to watch a Netflix movie from a server hosted across state lines, whose laws apply? Can my local ISP which is a satellite of a national corporation follow the laws of the state it is in, but not the one it provides service in when those laws conflict? This is Government 101. Federal preemption exists because this can get convoluted quickly with no real solution.

It sounds great to shout "states rights! rabble rabble rabble" until you start to try and work out the particulars in a logical and enforceable fashion. You know, actually try to govern. It's been done before, and it's not pretty. Even if we make each ISP and service provider host a server in each individual state, this still solves nothing because they will all interact with each other. Not only is this not economically feasible, it does nothing to solve the issue. Should Californians not be able to access the Texas internet? Because with what you're saying, a total segregation of services is the only way to achieve consistency.

Secondly, I think you might be misunderstanding why so many oppose the repeal. The issues without NN is not "oh we have to pay a bit more." If it was simply that, people would grumble and move on. The issue is that no NN means that anti-competitive practices are not only allowed, but practically required.

Netflix is a textbook example. ISPs have a financial stake in other streaming services. Should they be allowed to throttle Netflix so as to be unwatchable so that consumers will have to switch to Hulu instead? it's one thing to have a competitive edge, it's another thing entirely to make it so that consumers have no real choice. This encourages the dystopia that you're so insistent the government is trying to create with NN.

[hyejin]

yea totalitarian trillionaires with autonomy,

get ready for the future

they got the economy hijacked like a robbery,



you livin in poverty property with no commodity

draconian colony bringing only israeli policy

arcane symbology an omen for the future,



get ready 4 the war, like the streets of Fallujah

what you know about the USS COLE or the World trade c3nter,

We gotta bring heat, or be another Bill Cooper


👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾

[Kaino]

looking forward to just ordering a youtube and 4chan package for less than 5$ meanwhile netflix faggots will finally be paying their 80$ a month share for raping bandwidth

[mickmoranis]

It's not that each state can't handle it. It's that each state will handle it differently and you won't know which standard applies when there's confusion because they are all co-equal sovereigns. How do you resolve a conflict of law?

what does the confusion matter to you or I or anyone except comcast?

You dont cary your laws with you when you travel, and if you get to a state that has bad internet, youll just have to suck it up that you cant watch youtube or some shit there as easily.

this isnt fricking gun laws wher epeople own a product that is illegal in one state but not in another...

Its just how water is payed for in one state vs another

do you even know how the water bill works in different counties? let alone different states?

Why doesnt this confusion keep you from sleeping at night? Because it does not matter. Thats why. So there is no confusion.

try again. Oh by the way, you may as well get over it and just say, ok states rights it is... cus thats literally the way it is now. SO its either that, or nothing for ya.. .sorry! just tyin to make you see the bright side of your very real life! :p

[AzzarTheGod]

looking forward to just ordering a youtube and 4chan package for less than 5$ meanwhile netflix faggots will finally be paying their 80$ a month share for raping bandwidth

heh...i dare you to try to just order HBO or just Showtime and cancel your basic cable channels.

[Kaino]

heh...i dare you to try to just order HBO or just Showtime and cancel your basic cable channels.

comparing youtube to HBO?

you're better then that piss poor comparison

youtube will probably just come standard so it would be better to compare it to NBC or something

[mickmoranis]

Id love to see comcast try to throttle Youtube lol

OH SHIT GOOGLE FIBER EVERYWHERE SUDDENLY

[Shrubwise]

Id love to see comcast try to throttle Youtube lol

OH SHIT GOOGLE FIBER EVERYWHERE SUDDENLY

Please babby Jesus let it be so. Save me, Google Fiber!!

[mickmoranis]

when google announces that it is going to provide un-throttled internet to 20 states, with anotehr 20 to follow:

"We are fighting back!" says the libtard

"that... that was the point" says Ajit with his palm on his face.

[hyejin]

when google announces that it is going to provide un-throttled internet to 20 states, with anotehr 20 to follow:

"We are fighting back!" says the libtard

"that... that was the point" says Ajit with his palm on his face.

google omits legitimate websites from search results for political reasons.

no, you'll get different flavors of urine plans and easily work around them because you're not cattlegoy. warring zaibatsus will bring u ever superior cybernetic implants ,vagina nipples wired into ur sensorium, nicer iphones and robotic dick sucking machines. u'll get to be a samurai gestapo with a robot eye and you'll feel really good day to day because u'll get a massive credit added to ur UBI when ur throat implant records good diet habits. let them fight and stop getting anxiety. God's light keeps shinin

[mickmoranis]

google omits legitimate websites from search results for political reasons

then the libcucks will be happy and shutup.

&

I will be here posting and reading the most woke shit on earth, under the guise of low profile gaming under the radar, with 600mbps up/down.

win win.

[Frieza_Prexus]

what does the confusion matter to you or I or anyone except comcast?

You dont cary your laws with you when you travel, and if you get to a state that has bad internet, youll just have to suck it up that you cant watch youtube or some shit there as easily.

this isnt fricking gun laws wher epeople own a product that is illegal in one state but not in another...

Its just how water is payed for in one state vs another

do you even know how the water bill works in different counties? let alone different states?

Why doesnt this confusion keep you from sleeping at night? Because it does not matter. Thats why. So there is no confusion.

try again. Oh by the way, you may as well get over it and just say, ok states rights it is... cus thats literally the way it is now. SO its either that, or nothing for ya.. .sorry! just tyin to make you see the bright side of your very real life! :p

You or I as individual consumers may not care much. But businesses, government officials, and anyone trying to start a business on the internet cares greatly. You seem to be missing the point. This is not about Joe Blow moving into a new house and going "oh nos my youtubes is throttled."

It's incredibly naieve and shortsighted of you to think that conflicting laws don't matter. They may not matter to YOU. They matter immensely to many many other interests. Also, I find it interesting you bring up water bills. You do know that in most areas the municipal water supply is a government regulated monopoly because it is considered so essential, right? It's often regulated locally because the water is drawn, used, and recycled locally. When local water use impacts a larger area, the larger governments DO get involved.

Your example is incredibly ironic because water rights laws are incredibly complicated fields involving, local, state, federal, and even international law. Thanks for helping make my point.

I suspect you're missing the point. This is not about individual consumers getting hurt (though they are). This is about very real anti-competitive practices and abuses that have already happened and will worsen without NN.

"Oh, you just opened a new store? It'd be a shame if I owned the road that led to it and blocked it off from traffic."

[AzzarTheGod]

google omits legitimate websites from search results for political reasons.

no, you'll get different flavors of urine plans and easily work around them because you're not cattlegoy. warring zaibatsus will bring u ever superior cybernetic implants ,vagina nipples wired into ur sensorium, nicer iphones and robotic dick sucking machines. u'll get to be a samurai gestapo with a robot eye. let them fight and stop getting anxiety. God's light keeps shinin

whale preach the good book, leave ur ase sore like u got fingered by captain hook

ayyyyyyyyyyyy cut that off

[mickmoranis]

You or I as individual consumers may not care much. But businesses, government officials, and anyone trying to start a business on the internet cares greatly. You seem to be missing the point. This is not about Joe Blow moving into a new house and going "oh nos my youtubes is throttled."

It's incredibly naieve and shortsighted of you to think that conflicting laws don't matter. They may not matter to YOU. They matter immensely to many many other interests. Also, I find it interesting you bring up water bills. You do know that in most areas the municipal water supply is a government regulated monopoly because it is considered so essential, right? It's often regulated locally because the water is drawn, used, and recycled locally. When local water use impacts a larger area, the larger governments DO get involved.

Your example is incredibly ironic because water rights laws are incredibly complicated fields involving, local, state, federal, and even international law. Thanks for helping make my point.

I suspect you're missing the point. This is not about individual consumers getting hurt (though they are). This is about very real anti-competitive practices and abuses that have already happened and will worsen without NN.

"Oh, you just opened a new store? It'd be a shame if I owned the road that led to it and blocked it off from traffic."



you just spout off a bunch of fantasy about what might happen lmao

heres how it will work

netflix will cost X in california and it will cost Y in florida

its not complicated lmao it may be for you but its not for corporations or businesses you're worried about.

[AzzarTheGod]

You or I as individual consumers may not care much. But businesses, government officials, and anyone trying to start a business on the internet cares greatly. You seem to be missing the point. This is not about Joe Blow moving into a new house and going "oh nos my youtubes is throttled."

It's incredibly naieve and shortsighted of you to think that conflicting laws don't matter. They may not matter to YOU. They matter immensely to many many other interests. Also, I find it interesting you bring up water bills. You do know that in most areas the municipal water supply is a government regulated monopoly because it is considered so essential, right? It's often regulated locally because the water is drawn, used, and recycled locally. When local water use impacts a larger area, the larger governments DO get involved.

Your example is incredibly ironic because water rights laws are incredibly complicated fields involving, local, state, federal, and even international law. Thanks for helping make my point.

I suspect you're missing the point. This is not about individual consumers getting hurt (though they are). This is about very real anti-competitive practices and abuses that have already happened and will worsen without NN.

"Oh, you just opened a new store? It'd be a shame if I owned the road that led to it and blocked it off from traffic."


*zooms in rapidly on OG <TMO> poster, examining its girth closely*

[mickmoranis]

I just want to be clear: anyone who thinks that suddenly comcast is going to turn into the maphia and be free from scrutiny thanks to this repeal has no clue what they are talking about.

No, new startups/buisnesses will not be met by men in suits that say "nice buisness you have here, would be a shame if nobody ever heard about it"

its just foolish to assume that is a logical direction for states regulating net neutrality instead of feds.

its just straight up foolish.

here is what is going to happen: states will regulate NN and you me and every buisnesses will go on living and probubly pay less for faster internet over time.

OR google will remove all non sjw feminist websites from teh web and take over.

iether way, im happy, cus Ill get to start killin n grillin cucks in the latter example.

[Patriam1066]

I just want to be clear: anyone who thinks that suddenly comcast is going to turn into the maphia and be free from scrutiny thanks to this repeal has no clue what they are talking about.

No, new startups/buisnesses will not be met by men in suits that say "nice buisness you have here, would be a shame if nobody ever heard about it"

its just foolish to assume that is a logical direction for states regulating net neutrality instead of feds.

its just straight up foolish.

here is what is going to happen: states will regulate NN and you me and every buisnesses will go on living and probubly pay less for faster internet over time.

OR google will remove all non sjw feminist websites from teh web and take over.

iether way, im happy, cus Ill get to start killin n grillin cucks in the latter example.

I hope they meter porn and P99 so that you have to get a job and a girlfriend. Real talk praying for you

[mickmoranis]

make sure you point yourself at mecca then

[Patriam1066]

Esfahan always

[mickmoranis]

if you think its gonna go any other direction then the two i said that you quoted then yer wrong tho. No reason to be upset anymore, this is the way it is.

[Patriam1066]

I'm not upset I just want you to know the warmth of a woman and Jesus Christ so you can take a break from posting

[mickmoranis]

I'm not upset I just want you to know the warmth of a woman and Jesus Christ so you can take a break from posting

what i feel sad for is that you are sad and you are posting. Im having a great time, but youre stuck here and youre upset.

[NachtMystium]

Can yall imagine working at an isp call center right now lmao

[skarlorn]

Actually, Patriam is having an incredibly good time mick. You just aren't Texan enough to know.

[Lojik]

Heres a good idea. Let's help subsidize the cable industry infrastructure with taxpayer dollars, then let them have monopoly privileges and then on top of that decide that we shouldn't regulate them like a utility, just let the "free market" decide.

[JurisDictum]

To grasp true Marxism -- Is to realize that the ruling class is constantly maintaining it's existence at the expense of the ruled. That's essentially the lens. The purpose of the State is to serve the ruling class.

So the FCC is corrupt. Big deal. The FCC was making sure that Comcast couldn't decide to deliver shitty service to data they didn't like. That's basically it. Google agreed that in the long run this was best. This was the real issue with NN.

Most people don't want the internet controlled. If I want to start a website about Marxist radical action -- Comcast shouldn't be able to decide I have a violent website and turn the gas off. The government should have to send police in -- with warrants -- charge me with a crime, and then shut down my website until the legal matter is settled (permanently if convicted).

I don't like the idea of Comcast making some cheap-ass package all poor people get -- and then load it with a bunch of propaganda. I know that's what their thinking. We'll let everyone see what we want them to see for practically free -- and then we will charge for true internet freedom to keep the plebs out.

The point of this rambling is, WTF about giving complete control to Comcast is in anyway better then the FCC making sure all data downloads at the same rate? You gave data control to a fucking private corporation you cretins...and waving some bullshit flag of Libertarianism.

I have a feeling there will be greater control over what goes viral now, over who sees what...otherwise the elites wouldn't let this happen. The purpose of the State is to serve the ruling class. The ruling class is no longer served by NN. Almost certainly, NN is the interest of commoners and against the interest of the rulers.

Edit: also Heres a good idea. Let's help subsidize the cable industry infrastructure with taxpayer dollars, then let them have monopoly privileges and then on top of that decide that we shouldn't regulate them like a utility, just let the "free market" decide.

was a good comment.

[Pokesan]

did you know ajit pai was appointed by obama

[Cecily]

Thanks Obama.

[AzzarTheGod]

did you know ajit pai was appointed by obama

Dunks

[skarlorn]

Mick is a great example of why Socrates despised democracy.

Enjoy trying to get a grip on that one, Mick.

[Xaanka]

https://i.imgur.com/3GtPB86.jpg

[JurisDictum]

"You will see fast lanes and slow lanes. You can’t have fast lanes without slow lanes," said Gigi Sohn, a net neutrality advocate who worked as an FCC aide when the rules were passed in 2015. "That will mean some of your websites are going to load slower, and some you like, mainly the smaller ones, may cease to exist because they can’t pay to get to customers faster."

Thursday’s move comes amid a rapidly changing media environment in which the internet is hotly contested turf. Big media companies like Disney, which just announced plans to acquire 21st Century Fox film and TV assets in a $52 billion deal, will still have the resources to negotiate deals with internet providers for preferential access to consumers — but net neutrality advocates fear that smaller competitors and innovative startups will find themselves priced out.

Oh well, holy shit. Looks like the little guy instantly gets hosed. Don't think this won't affect you. The first site that will go to shit is probably this one I might add. They don't like these kinds of cross-party pleb conversations going on. Which happens on a lot of these irrelevant hobby forums.

Fox made some BIG changes instantly though. Murdoc wants to secure his position (for his kids at this point) as the arbiter of all conservative news. Even local radio.

The clutches are getting real my friends. But as this article (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/14/how-net-neutrality-loss-change-internet-212671) points out. They will be on good behavior at first. They are just slowly lining the tip up...and then they'll kind of message it in before we get full on shafted.

[Patriam1066]

Oh well, holy shit. Looks like the little guy instantly gets hosed. Don't think this won't affect you. The first site that will go to shit is probably this one I might add. They don't like these kinds of cross-party pleb conversations going on. Which happens on a lot of these irrelevant hobby forums.

Fox made some BIG changes instantly though. Murdoc wants to secure his position (for his kids at this point) as the arbiter of all conservative news. Even local radio.

The clutches are getting real my friends. But as this article (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/14/how-net-neutrality-loss-change-internet-212671) points out. They will be on good behavior at first. They are just slowly lining the tip up...and then they'll kind of message it in before we get full on shafted.

Why can't the FCC just change the rules back? I'm asking a serious question here I don't get how this isn't regulated by congress

[JurisDictum]

Why can't the FCC just change the rules back? I'm asking a serious question here I don't get how this isn't regulated by congress

It is. Not everyone realizes -- Congress doesn't know how to do shit. They understand this any better than your average intelligent person would. So they need to hire a Agency or commission or something that actually knows WTF they are doing.

But that's like asking why we can't change anything back...usually it is easier to stop something happening then to make it happen in D.C.

This is the strategy of course. Play it cool, do almost nothing except good stuff. And then when people think NN is unnecessary -- they will start getting more bold. But as of now, the ball is in their court. Make no mistake. They can do WTF they want now. It's up to them what we can and can't see.

[Xaanka]

yep, no need for a constitution, or laws, or any rules just let the FREE MURRKET handle our lives, durr

sometimes xankaa, when i read you or mickmoranis, i have a vertigo of emptiness.

the free market handled it just fine for what like 3 decades, back before all the reddit normies like you invaded this place

versus two years with obamas law where the amount of isp's shrunk significantly connection speeds went down and sub costs went up.

real goog

why is someone who doesn't even live in the usa posting about net neutrality lol. you can go to hard prison for posting a jpg of an auschwitz memorial why would we want to take a cuck ass european who doesn't even have basic freedom of speech.

[Rader]

Oh well, holy shit. Looks like the little guy instantly gets hosed. Don't think this won't affect you. The first site that will go to shit is probably this one I might add. They don't like these kinds of cross-party pleb conversations going on. Which happens on a lot of these irrelevant hobby forums.

Fox made some BIG changes instantly though. Murdoc wants to secure his position (for his kids at this point) as the arbiter of all conservative news. Even local radio.

The clutches are getting real my friends. But as this article (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/14/how-net-neutrality-loss-change-internet-212671) points out. They will be on good behavior at first. They are just slowly lining the tip up...and then they'll kind of message it in before we get full on shafted.

Sounds like someone already self-applied the lube.

[Xaanka]

To grasp true Marxism -- Is to realize that the ruling class is constantly maintaining it's existence at the expense of the ruled. That's essentially the lens. The purpose of the State is to serve the ruling class.

So the FCC is corrupt. Big deal. The FCC was making sure that Comcast couldn't decide to deliver shitty service to data they didn't like. That's basically it. Google agreed that in the long run this was best. This was the real issue with NN.

Most people don't want the internet controlled. If I want to start a website about Marxist radical action -- Comcast shouldn't be able to decide I have a violent website and turn the gas off. The government should have to send police in -- with warrants -- charge me with a crime, and then shut down my website until the legal matter is settled (permanently if convicted).

I don't like the idea of Comcast making some cheap-ass package all poor people get -- and then load it with a bunch of propaganda. I know that's what their thinking. We'll let everyone see what we want them to see for practically free -- and then we will charge for true internet freedom to keep the plebs out.

The point of this rambling is, WTF about giving complete control to Comcast is in anyway better then the FCC making sure all data downloads at the same rate? You gave data control to a fucking private corporation you cretins...and waving some bullshit flag of Libertarianism.

I have a feeling there will be greater control over what goes viral now, over who sees what...otherwise the elites wouldn't let this happen. The purpose of the State is to serve the ruling class. The ruling class is no longer served by NN. Almost certainly, NN is the interest of commoners and against the interest of the rulers.

Edit: also

was a good comment.

its because we didn't have net neutrality for 30 years and isp's never censored anything without a court order

[Lojik]

the free market handled it just fine for what like 3 decades, back before all the reddit normies like you invaded this place

versus two years with obamas law where the amount of isp's shrunk significantly connection speeds went down and sub costs went up.

real goog

why is someone who doesn't even live in the usa posting about net neutrality lol. you can go to hard prison for posting a jpg of an auschwitz memorial why would we want to take a cuck ass european who doesn't even have basic freedom of speech.

yah lets go back to 30 years ago where doing anything over the internet was extremely rare and life was much better. Just go to blockbuster for movies. Or maybe even just 20 years ago when people actually thought that phone line internet speeds could compete with cable speeds. Wow 56k so fast. Or maybe even 10 years ago when different telecoms were throttling different services because they didn't like them. "Free market" so much better in the past wow what kinda drugs reddit normies using.

Once we undo the chains caused by net neutrality surely the ISP's like verizon and comcast are going to upgrade their networks, start competing with each other in more rural markets, and start giving us faster speeds and better service. God bless the free market.

[Sage Truthbearer]

We didn't have net neutrality for years and everything wuz fine!!!1

Because ISPs were classified, alongside other telecoms, as "common carriers", which follow net neutrality, since 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

Then Verizon sued the FCC in 2014, freeing them from this regulation, and forcing NN to be regulated more explicitly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014))

Basic research is hard.

[Xaanka]

yah lets go back to 30 years ago where doing anything over the internet was extremely rare and life was much better. Just go to blockbuster for movies. Or maybe even just 20 years ago when people actually thought that phone line internet speeds could compete with cable speeds. Wow 56k so fast. Or maybe even 10 years ago when different telecoms were throttling different services because they didn't like them. "Free market" so much better in the past wow what kinda drugs reddit normies using.

Once we undo the chains caused by net neutrality surely the ISP's like verizon and comcast are going to upgrade their networks, start competing with each other in more rural markets, and start giving us faster speeds and better service. God bless the free market.

or 3 years ago when your internet connection cost $30 instead of $70 and the telco's weren't totally monopolized

also if you think 2017 internet is better than 2007 internet you're part of the problem (reddit normie get out)

[JurisDictum]

Yea NN doesn't matter at all. That's why were going to force it though even though it is massively unpopular.

If you haven't noticed -- things have gone to shit for the MSM. They are trying to reign it in.

[Xaanka]

Because ISPs were classified, alongside other telecoms, as "common carriers", which follow net neutrality, since 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

Then Verizon sued the FCC in 2014, freeing them from this regulation, and forcing NN to be regulated more explicitly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014))

Basic research is hard.

maybe you're being ran on a treadmill with a carrot dangling infront of your face because there shouldn't be a telco monopoly to begin with? maybe what you really want is trust busting?

[Xaanka]

https://i.imgur.com/Hu09kht.jpg

[Frieza_Prexus]

its because we didn't have net neutrality for 30 years and isp's never censored anything without a court order

First, we did in a sense. There was a bit of a regulatory cold war. The short of it is that the law was somewhat ambiguous and most carriers were unwilling to skirt the line because that could trigger a court battle which would define where the line actually was. They stood to lose a lot, so the threat of the FCC's hammer coming down was generally enough to keep the status quo. There were still plenty of violations though.

As Sage mentioned, this changed majorly in 2014 with the Verizon suit.

Here's a few of the major violations of NN principles compiled courtesy of Reddit user /u/Skrattybones:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. (https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/)

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere) without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked (http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/) because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/) They actually sued the FCC over this.

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet (http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12)because it competed with their bullshit. (http://searchengineland.com/verizon-blocks-google-wallet-att-likely-to-do-the-same-103759) This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace. (https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/11/07/06/verizons-illegal-app-blocking)

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html) on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime (https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality)unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place (https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet).

So, yes, it's already happened.

maybe you're being ran on a treadmill with a carrot dangling infront of your face because there shouldn't be a telco monopoly to begin with? maybe what you really want is trust busting?

Possibly. Monopolies tend to be tolerated when they provide value and essential service. That tolerance is granted in exchange for heavy oversight given how essential the service is. The problem we have now is that ISPs are beginning to form a vertical monopoly like Standard Oil did under Rockefeller. They not only control the means of distribution, they have a stake in its production and consumption as well. This is basic economics, and these types of monopolies are incredibly dangerous to the general public.

[maskedmelon]

Because ISPs were classified, alongside other telecoms, as "common carriers", which follow net neutrality, since 1934.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

Then Verizon sued the FCC in 2014, freeing them from this regulation, and forcing NN to be regulated more explicitly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014))

Basic research is hard.

disappointed to see someone point this out so soon ^^

[Lojik]

Possibly. Monopolies tend to be tolerated when they provide value and essential service. That tolerance is granted in exchange for heavy oversight given how essential the service is. The problem we have now is that ISPs are beginning to form a vertical monopoly like Standard Oil did under Rockefeller. They not only control the means of distribution, they have a stake in its production and consumption as well. This is basic economics, and these types of monopolies are incredibly dangerous to the general public.

One difference, though, is one would assume that natural behavior for a monopoly would be to restrict output and jack up the price. This wasn't true at all with Standard oil, as output continued to grow and prices went down. Same thing happened with ALCOA.
Comcast, however, a government granted monopoly certainly is guilty of that.

[JurisDictum]

This is all basically to get us to pay $15 per Music Album or Movie again. They want to slowly get rid of youtube and netflix and any other stream site. Or at very least -- monopolize all streaming on those sites so the price jack can ensue.

This is all kinds of fucked up. I just...I don't even have the energy to get into how stupid it is to greet this development with anything but contempt. The internet is the only god damn reason the elites have started to lose their grip at all. But I can see that is all about to come to an end if people are not mobilized around this issue.

[Xaanka]

First, we did in a sense. There was a bit of a regulatory cold war. The short of it is that the law was somewhat ambiguous and most carriers were unwilling to skirt the line because that could trigger a court battle which would define where the line actually was. They stood to lose a lot, so the threat of the FCC's hammer coming down was generally enough to keep the status quo. There were still plenty of violations though.

As Sage mentioned, this changed majorly in 2014 with the Verizon suit.

Here's a few of the major violations of NN principles compiled courtesy of Reddit user /u/Skrattybones:



So, yes, it's already happened.



Possibly. Monopolies tend to be tolerated when they provide value and essential service. That tolerance is granted in exchange for heavy oversight given how essential the service is. The problem we have now is that ISPs are beginning to form a vertical monopoly like Standard Oil did under Rockefeller. They not only control the means of distribution, they have a stake in its production and consumption as well. This is basic economics, and these types of monopolies are incredibly dangerous to the general public.

yeah considering the amount of federal money comcast has taken for running fiber they never ran anywhere id say these vertical monopolies aren't good for the consumer/taxpayer/anyone so maybe you should never have to be making a decision between fcc control or 1-2 isps controlling internet in the us in the first place?

[Pokesan]

the elites started to lose control?

*points to billionaire president*

your dumb!!

[JurisDictum]

the elites started to lose control?

*points to billionaire president*

your dumb!!

I'm talking more thought control in this context. The billionaire president can be thanked for driving the point home.

[Pokesan]

I'm talking more thought control in this context. The billionaire president can be thanked for driving the point home.

you mean like bots promoting marxism on social media? that sort of thought control?

[JurisDictum]

you mean like bots promoting marxism on social media? that sort of thought control?

That's different -- it's education.

[skarlorn]

Why don't more independent ISPs start up? seriously?

[JurisDictum]

Why don't more independent ISPs start up? seriously?

I don't have any details. But its known that the regulation is kind of like a battle -- you have to buy in by bringing in deep pockets if you want to seriously challenge Comcast and Verizon.

[Raavak]

There are smaller local ISPs in my area, but not nearly as many as there once was.

[Lojik]

Why don't more independent ISPs start up? seriously?

Probably because it's expensive to put down the all the cables. Originally cable companies were subsidized to help with infrastructure, the entry costs are too high for the most part. Also whichever company is in an area will do a good job mobilizing the population to speak up against digging up to put lines down, blah blah we don't want you digging up our yard or whatever nonsense they say. Where I used to live we were going to get Fios to compete with cable but lo and behold, they never got into the neighborhood. Getting permits to put the lines down or whatever they have to do, they have to go through some bureaucracy I'm sure and if those politicians are paid off by telecom, good luck with that.

[skarlorn]

When I lived in SFO there was an independent ISP called MonkeyBrains. They had a different tech that removed the need for cables - it was a receiver put on the roof.

they truly were gr8

[Lojik]

When I lived in SFO there was an independent ISP called MonkeyBrains. They had a different tech that removed the need for cables - it was a receiver put on the roof.

they truly were gr8

Yeah hope that kind of stuff takes off. If you live in more rural areas though I'm not sure that's feasible, especially if it's hilly.

[Frieza_Prexus]

yeah considering the amount of federal money comcast has taken for running fiber they never ran anywhere id say these vertical monopolies aren't good for the consumer/taxpayer/anyone so maybe you should never have to be making a decision between fcc control or 1-2 isps controlling internet in the us in the first place?

Ideally, no, we shouldn't have to regulate a monopoly. Unfortunately, we are not in a perfect world. Some monopolies form naturally, and others form because they are purposefully allowed to form. It's all about tradeoffs and balancing the cost/benefits of the situation.

In this particular case, the ISPs were allowed to form oligopolies and duopolies in many areas because internet service was deemed essential for areas that otherwise would not be served properly. In exchange for this power, they had to make a lot of promises such as laying the cables with public money. Of course, what happened was a failure of regulators to enforce those promises due to regulatory capture where the ISPs essentially owned the regulators.

Really though, it doesn't matter how we got here so much as the reality is that we are here now. Two wrong don't make a right, I guess. We should move forward with the most efficient solution that promotes the widest public good. In this case, NN pretty well does that.

[Baler]

you fuck with the internet, you fuck with all the crazy people on the internet.
:|

[skarlorn]

https://i.imgur.com/fSHWX40.gif

[mickmoranis]

so heres what I have to ask net nutrality supporters?

1. are you going to fight for federal regulation?

2. are you going to fight for net nutrality in your state?

one is a solution the other is a hashtag

answer:

[Lojik]

so heres what I have to ask net nutrality supporters?

What is net nutrality? Jacking off to porn on the internet? Are you against that?

[mickmoranis]

When I lived in SFO there was an independent ISP called MonkeyBrains. They had a different tech that removed the need for cables - it was a receiver put on the roof.

they truly were gr8

You lived in an airport?

[skarlorn]

Airport codes have become common terminology when referring to certain areas of the world. PDX and SFO in particular. Sorry I have to explain this to you like you're a child.

[Pokesan]

aren't state restrictions DOA? commerce clause or something

[mickmoranis]

Airport codes have become common terminology when referring to certain areas of the world. PDX and SFO in particular. Sorry I have to explain this to you like you're a child.

id be mad too if I had to live in an airpor.

[Frieza_Prexus]

aren't state restrictions DOA? commerce clause or something

States will try to have their own laws through various means and legislative tricks, but most will probably fail because of federal preemption. The FCC likely will be ruled as supreme over the issue and state rules will be considered null and void.

There'll be a long court battle that inevitably ends up saying "FCC's word is law, no statewide NN rules." The justification will be the commerce clause of the constitution which says the feds get to control interstate commerce. Because the internet is the frigging internet, there's no way to rebut the fact that its interstate.

[AzzarTheGod]

Airport codes have become common terminology when referring to certain areas of the world. PDX and SFO in particular. Sorry I have to explain this to you like you're a child.

Mick u better get hip and wise to us real real fast pal. act like u know


https://i.imgur.com/aKnwb0f.gif



https://i.imgur.com/XLjj2j6.gif

[mickmoranis]

I dont know everything, i can admit it, im not a libtard.

[Baler]

haha fun
mess with people's internet
he said
- he was
haha fun

I don't encourage violence and I hope no one is being violent against the person(s) trying to take away your internet.

[Baler]

https://i.imgur.com/tiCf6qH.gif

[chadtwoke]

just gimme the blacked.com package and i wont give a fuck.

[mickmoranis]

just gimme the blacked.com package and i wont give a fuck.

this guy h3h3's

[chadtwoke]

this guy h3h3's

i acutally think h3h3 is a dumb cuck now but i second his call to not have blacked.com throttled. (some his vidyas r still funni)

[AzzarTheGod]

fash said he wanted to fight,

pokes said catch me at the light (no hands),

he shoulda looked left,

he looked right,

tell em goodnight

[AzzarTheGod]

few will understand the no hands reference due to pale skin

[mickmoranis]

i acutally think h3h3 is a dumb cuck now but i second his call to not have blacked.com throttled. (some his vidyas r still funni)

I mean hes definitely been compromised by the goy, so I cant argue.

[fash]

https://i.imgur.com/Ydl4Tyg.jpg

[AzzarTheGod]

https://i.imgur.com/Ydl4Tyg.jpg

lmao solid dunks

[Pokesan]

https://i.imgur.com/Ydl4Tyg.jpg

the video was pretty funny in an absurb way and i dont get why people freaked

[Smedy]

absolutely disgusting turn of events

hope you can repeal it again, why are they not listening to the people of america? what kind of democracy are you running overthere?

[AzzarTheGod]

absolutely disgusting turn of events

hope you can repeal it again, why are they not listening to the people of america? what kind of democracy are you running overthere?

the only democracy capitalism can offer is a corporate one.

Japan knew this a long time ago (30-40 years now) and at least called it like it is and didn't try to conceal and obfuscate the true nature of capitalism. I can respect that. At least in Japan with corporate welfare and their version of the department of justice, they just help the corporation without making up reasons because the people of Japan know the corporation is more important than the populace because of its value. You saw this where Japanese chem houses caused thousands of American injuries and deaths and the Japanese government said "well, shit happens" and despite locating the source of the outbreak, they didn't fine or impede the business of the chem house or even lie to the USA and say "yaw we'll fuck a corporation up because the USA said so." They didn't even go there.

Everyone knew a Japanese corp would never get touched by its own government.

The USA, on the other hand, does so much propaganda and so much lying, its just intolerable. Sure you have dirtbag refugees and other social causes you have to deal with in Sweden, but at least the corruption isn't ha-ha in-your-face-bitch tier stuff right?

[Smedy]

the only democracy capitalism can offer is a corporate one.

Japan knew this a long time ago (30-40 years now) and at least called it like it is and didn't try to conceal and obfuscate the true nature of capitalism. I can respect that. At least in Japan with corporate welfare and their version of the department of justice, they just help the corporation without making up reasons because the people of Japan know the corporation is more important than the populace because of its value. You saw this where Japanese chem houses caused thousands of American injuries and deaths and the Japanese government said "well, shit happens" and despite locating the source of the outbreak, they didn't fine or impede the business of the chem house or even lie to the USA and say "yaw we'll fuck a corporation up because the USA said so." They didn't even go there.

Everyone knew a Japanese corp would never get touched by its own government.

The USA, on the other hand, does so much propaganda and so much lying, its just intolerable. Sure you have dirtbag refugees and other social causes you have to deal with in Sweden, but at least the corruption isn't ha-ha in-your-face-bitch tier stuff right?

The issues with sweden are pretty serious at this point, we have a bunch of old people who have lived lives with zero war or intrigue and in their first world bubble all people are great people... slowly but surely after taking the second place in gangrape statistics worldwide (yes sweden is running right behind south africa in fucking gangrapes) the politicans and older generation are finally coming to terms that the people you import from these fucking countries are not interested in being integrated, they are economic migrants that are set in their ways, they just wanted to improve their lives and a few very unlucky swedish girls have experienced their improvement first hand.

Hopefully soon enough we'll get our shit together but just in case we don't i'm ready to get the fuck out of here cause shits creeping really close these days and i am pretty well off, the bad areas are crazy and criminals are pretty much conducting their business untouched... starting to look more and more like south america where the government cannot control criminality anymore.

Oh welp, atleast we have free internets i guess :P

[mickmoranis]

ATTN: why net neutrality was a BAD DEAL

1. Do you not like that trump repealed the NN deal last week?

2. IF SOMEONE WORSE GOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE EXACTLY SAME THING AND START BANNING WEBSITES THAT DISAGREE WITH THE STATUS QUO.

the FCC had the same power to unilaterally, with out public consent, start banning websites exactly the same way as they had the power to unilaterally, without public consent, change the NN laws.

So.... you dont like trump, imagine someone even worse getting elected. Imagine a democrat who wants to limit free speech gets in there and uses the FCC to start going all CHINA on our websites?

Imagine if corporate lobbyists start hitting the FCC and got them to unilaterally shut down websites that compete with BING

You dont have to imagine that it might be possible, the vote that happened on the 14th proved that it WAS possible... it just hadn't happened yet.

THERE IS A SIMPLE solution for net neutrality repeal.

States can individually enforce net neutrality laws. There is ZERO obstacles to this. There is nothing that prevents this.

[Lhancelot]

So.... you dont like trump, imagine someone even worse getting elected.

Like who? Someone worse? You propose pure conjecture and the debate can go on forever without actually experiencing someone else in the WH.

Trump is the least intelligent, worst president we have ever had in the WH in our lifetime, just admit it. The man is a walking meme for all the wrong reasons.

He's a total muppet doing exactly as he is instructed by "advisors" because honestly he doesn't know shit about world economics, social problems in the USA or other countries, honestly he knows nothing.

The man knows how to troll the internet and makes for great reality TV with his bombastic personality. His skills never qualified him for the present job he has. Trump is out of his element and that is clear in how ridiculous he comes off during any press meeting or public presentation when he isn't reading from a teleprompter.

Trump is a narcissistic TV personality, nothing more and cares nothing/knows nothing about the USA and how to make it better for the citizens that live in this country.

Basically we have to have faith in whoever is directing him/advising him but chances are those entities care nothing for the citizens of the USA either.

God bless the USA.

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[Patriam1066]

Like who? Someone worse? You propose pure conjecture and the debate can go on forever without actually experiencing someone else in the WH.

Trump is the least intelligent, worst president we have ever had in the WH in our lifetime, just admit it. The man is a walking meme for all the wrong reasons.

He's a total muppet doing exactly as he is instructed by "advisors" because honestly he doesn't know shit about world economics, social problems in the USA or other countries, honestly he knows nothing.

The man knows how to troll the internet and makes for great reality TV with his bombastic personality. His skills never qualified him for the present job he has. Trump is out of his element and that is clear in how ridiculous he comes off during any press meeting or public presentation when he isn't reading from a teleprompter.

Trump is a narcissistic TV personality, nothing more and cares nothing/knows nothing about the USA and how to make it better for the citizens that live in this country.

Basically we have to have faith in whoever is directing him/advising him but chances are those entities care nothing for the citizens of the USA either.

God bless the USA.

Until we start another war, bush is still worse

Iraq was the dumbest shit possible

[JurisDictum]

Until we start another war, bush is still worse

Iraq was the dumbest shit possible

I have to agree. There's nothing that really compares. I mean even if Trump goes to war, its unlikely to be as bad.

[mickmoranis]

Like who? Someone worse? You propose pure conjecture and the debate can go on forever without actually experiencing someone else in the WH.

Trump is the least intelligent, worst president we have ever had in the WH in our lifetime, just admit it. The man is a walking meme for all the wrong reasons.

He's a total muppet doing exactly as he is instructed by "advisors" because honestly he doesn't know shit about world economics, social problems in the USA or other countries, honestly he knows nothing.

The man knows how to troll the internet and makes for great reality TV with his bombastic personality. His skills never qualified him for the present job he has. Trump is out of his element and that is clear in how ridiculous he comes off during any press meeting or public presentation when he isn't reading from a teleprompter.

Trump is a narcissistic TV personality, nothing more and cares nothing/knows nothing about the USA and how to make it better for the citizens that live in this country.

Basically we have to have faith in whoever is directing him/advising him but chances are those entities care nothing for the citizens of the USA either.

God bless the USA.

imagine if a social justice warrior got in the white hosue who thought hate speech should be banned and started banning websites via the FCC that used hate speech?

that is a totally believable scenario. It would also be totally legal for them to do that thanks to NN

I hope you folks who support NN can at least understand WHY the other side doesnt. Instead of just insisting that NN is great and there is nothing the other side could possibly have to justify their stance.

https://i.imgur.com/sumbSUa.jpg

[Lhancelot]

Until we start another war, bush is still worse

Iraq was the dumbest shit possible

That was extremely bad. But the results of our actions of desert storm and the Iraqi dismantling isn't alone in the past 20 years. We have done the same to Somalia, Libya, and many other countries. The blue print is cut and clear. Dismantle weaker countries government and infrastructure to then exploit that countries natural resources and/or need for "rebuilding" after we have totally destroyed it. All Bush did was use open warfare to achieve this result. It still filled the pockets of arms manufacturers with billions and also created the largest "rebuilding" operations of all time which filled more pockets full of billions when private contractors were given the task to "rebuild" Iraq.

Whether a war is mounted as Bush did, or secret operations are put in place to dismantle a weaker country's government I see no difference. Obama was POTUS when Gaddafi was ripped from power in Libya and this was no meer overthrow of a ruthless evil dictator by his people this was a power move by the US government to destabilize Libya for exploit.

The USA has been doing this since the creation of the CIA when they managed to destroy Mosaddegh who was DEMOCRATICALLY elected BY HIS PEOPLE. All because Mosaddegh refused to let his country be mined for oil by the UK and booted the Englishmen who were running this racket that was basically paying Iran 1% of the profits while the English were milking the 99% of profits from that oil. Churchill was upset and eventually convinced the USA to help him destroy Mosaddegh.

Anyway, point is, the USA has many different ways to destabilize and remove the leaders/governments of other countries for it's profit and does so when it wants.

I don't view Bush any worse than Obama or any other POTUS that goes along with this policy tbh. It's fucked up that the USA does this, and even more fucked up that our tax money is used for such endeavors as well as our US soldiers lives when wars are pushed for these types of agendas. We truly are system slaves and anyone that argues otherwise lives in darkness imo.

[Pokesan]

imagine if a social justice warrior got in the white hosue who thought hate speech should be banned and started banning websites via the FCC that used hate speech?

that is a totally believable scenario. It would also be totally legal for them to do that thanks to NN

I hope you folks who support NN can at least understand WHY the other side doesnt. Instead of just insisting that NN is great and there is nothing the other side could possibly have to justify their stance.

https://i.imgur.com/sumbSUa.jpg

we'd be in pretty deep shit if leprechauns invaded too

[mickmoranis]

we'd be in pretty deep shit if leprechauns invaded too

right now all the leading politicians on the left are actually trying to enact limits to free speech, even bernie sanders.

not to mention, isnt the entire reason you want NN to exist is because the potential for corporate leprechauns to start charging you for using facebook? :confused:

cuck is cucked. :cool:

[skarlorn]

Imagine if ur president banned the words "evidence-based" then you melted down about hypothetical free speech restrictions

[Pokesan]

right now all the leading politicians on the left are actually trying to enact limits to free speech, even bernie sanders.

not to mention, isnt the entire reason you want NN to exist is because the potential for corporate leprechauns to start charging you for using facebook? :confused:

cuck is cucked. :cool:

i'm all for pay-to-use facebook, it would kill the disease

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[mickmoranis]

its a shame im the only one who doesnt have lulz on ignore or folks would notice corporations have blocked his posts.

[Frieza_Prexus]

ATTN: why net neutrality was a BAD DEAL

1. Do you not like that trump repealed the NN deal last week?

2. IF SOMEONE WORSE GOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE EXACTLY SAME THING AND START BANNING WEBSITES THAT DISAGREE WITH THE STATUS QUO.

the FCC had the same power to unilaterally, with out public consent, start banning websites exactly the same way as they had the power to unilaterally, without public consent, change the NN laws.

So.... you dont like trump, imagine someone even worse getting elected. Imagine a democrat who wants to limit free speech gets in there and uses the FCC to start going all CHINA on our websites?

Imagine if corporate lobbyists start hitting the FCC and got them to unilaterally shut down websites that compete with BING

You dont have to imagine that it might be possible, the vote that happened on the 14th proved that it WAS possible... it just hadn't happened yet.

THERE IS A SIMPLE solution for net neutrality repeal.

States can individually enforce net neutrality laws. There is ZERO obstacles to this. There is nothing that prevents this.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

At this points, states can, and should, attempt local NN regulations, but they are likely to be brought down via Federal preemption lawsuits.

The FCC cannot ban random websites. That is utterly absurd. The 1st amendment lawsuits would be filed so fast that they'd break the light barrier. The FCC was granted the power to enact or repeal NN regulations because it was an administrative agency that was duly invested with power by both the Executive and Legislative branches. They cannot shut down websites merely because they disagree with them. Please cite the legislation or administrative rule allowing that action.

Are you a paid troll? Seriously, pay attention your points have been refuted several times now.

[mickmoranis]

At this points, states can, and should, attempt local NN regulations, but they are likely to be brought down via Federal preemption lawsuits.

The FCC cannot ban random websites. That is utterly absurd. The 1st amendment lawsuits would be filed so fast that they'd break the light barrier.

1. that is not true all it takes is for a state to say no like california does to trump all the time, learn how your country works. California has a TON of regulation that prevents google from putting up fiber, that is not federal and so google went to kansas, where they do not have that regulation. You really should learn how things work.

2. yes they can do whatever they want, just like they did shooting down Net Nutrality, they can ban websites exactly the same way and there is nothing you could have done about it.

you could try taking it to a higher court but, like the ending of NN youll see that if the powers that be are in agrement with the FCC then you, the voter, will be shit out of luck when you complain.

I am not a payed troll, but you are clearly a reddit devouring moran that is victim to internet conspiracy and paranoid liberal weed smoke.

also I dont need to be a payed troll, cus we shut down NN and your opionion doesnt mean squat. Just like it wouldnt if the goverment decided to ban all usenet websites.

[Frieza_Prexus]

1. that is not true all it takes is for a state to say no like california does to trump all the time, learn how your country works. California has a TON of regulation that prevents google from putting up fiber, that is not federal and so google went to kansas, where they do not have that regulation. You really should learn how things work.

2. yes they can do whatever they want, just like they did shooting down Net Nutrality, they can ban websites exactly the same way and there is nothing you could have done about it.

you could try taking it to a higher court but, like the ending of NN youll see that if the powers that be are in agrement with the FCC then you, the voter, will be shit out of luck when you complain.

I am not a payed troll, but you are clearly a reddit devouring moran that is victim to internet conspiracy and paranoid liberal weed smoke.

also I dont need to be a payed troll, cus we shut down NN and your opionion doesnt mean squat. Just like it wouldnt if they decided to ban all usenet websites.

You have no idea how government works, do you?

1) The FCC cannot ban random sites. The FCC was granted the power to enact or repeal NN regulations because it is an administrative agency that was duly invested with power by both the Executive and Legislative branches. They cannot shut down websites merely because they disagree with them. Please cite the legislation or administrative rule allowing that action.

2) Do you understand what federal preemption is? Can you explain it to me? If the FCC is hostile to NN as a concept, it can, and likely will, challenge any locality's NN regulations under the preemption doctrine.

[mickmoranis]

You have no idea how government works, do you?

1) The FCC cannot ban random sites. The FCC was granted the power to enact or repeal NN regulations because it is an administrative agency that was duly invested with power by both the Executive and Legislative branches. They cannot shut down websites merely because they disagree with them. Please cite the legislation or administrative rule allowing that action.

2) Do you understand what federal preemption is? Can you explain it to me? If the FCC is hostile to NN as a concept, it can, and likely will, challenge any locality's NN regulations under the preemption doctrine.

1. the fcc CAN do exactly what they did on the 14th with various websites they have the exact power as the oversight apointed commity to do exactly that.

the very fact that they got rid of NN is a literal example of their power to do exactly that.

2. Explain to me why google put fiber in kansas and not california first. And these states enacting their own regulation on internet is your last fucking hope you stupid loser libcuck, so you better figure out how to succeed at enacting it quick. Or leprechauns are going to charge you 5.99 to browse twitter.

[maskedmelon]

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

At this points, states can, and should, attempt local NN regulations, but they are likely to be brought down via Federal preemption lawsuits.

The FCC cannot ban random websites. That is utterly absurd. The 1st amendment lawsuits would be filed so fast that they'd break the light barrier. The FCC was granted the power to enact or repeal NN regulations because it was an administrative agency that was duly invested with power by both the Executive and Legislative branches. They cannot shut down websites merely because they disagree with them. Please cite the legislation or administrative rule allowing that action.

Are you a paid troll? Seriously, pay attention your points have been refuted several times now.

look pal, i dunno where you been the last 8 years, but mick knows what he talking about. you suddenly waltzin in with large paragraphs, hate speech and a unfriendly attitude don't all a sudden make you the smarest forums poster o(｀ω´ )o

[mickmoranis]

look pal, i dunno where you been the last 8 years, but mick knows what he talking about. you suddenly waltzin in with large paragraphs, hate speech and a unfriendly attitude don't all a sudden make you the smarest forums poster o(｀ω´ )o

I mean seriously, there is no difference between the goverment allowing corperations to throttle a website and throttling a website the government doesn't want you to have access to.

So as little luck as this poster is going to have with his "filed first amendment lawsuits" over NN he would have trying to unban utorrent and usenet websites.

Id love to see the public outreach when these libs would be trying to unban pirate websites and porno websites... you couldnt even convince america to get down with NN how could you convince them that you deserve to pirate movies video games and watch porn? lolz

[skarlorn]

1. the fcc CAN do exactly what they did on the 14th with various websites they have the exact power as the oversight apointed commity to do exactly that.

the very fact that they got rid of NN is a literal example of their power to do exactly that.

2. Explain to me why google put fiber in kansas and not california first. And these states enacting their own regulation on internet is your last fucking hope you stupid loser libcuck, so you better figure out how to succeed at enacting it quick. Or leprechauns are going to charge you 5.99 to browse twitter.

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you pro-state NN measures? or are you just being sarcastic?

I wish mick could post with a little more class and a little less hyperaggressive alt-right edge.

[mickmoranis]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Are you pro-state NN measures? or are you just being sarcastic?

I wish mick could post with a little more class and a little less hyperaggressive alt-right edge.

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

[JurisDictum]

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

How about just no censorship rather than state to state?

And lets not pretend like the FCC is at all competent enough to prevent people looking up whatever they damn well please. Private corporations however, can do quite a lot with the profit motive.

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[skarlorn]

and that's how Pai is getting his slice of the "pie" ;)

damn lulz. dropping some srs woke bombs. I actually did not know that and will go read your recommended literature on this topic. Thanks for the post!

[Pokesan]

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

no the supremacy clause exists. AT dude is correct.

[Frieza_Prexus]

1. the fcc CAN do exactly what they did on the 14th with various websites they have the exact power as the oversight apointed commity to do exactly that.

the very fact that they got rid of NN is a literal example of their power to do exactly that.

No. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

The FCC has the power to enact rules on HOW an ISP delivers its content, not rules on WHAT content may be delivered. Telling people that all cars must travel no greater than 65 MPH on the freeway is not the same as banning all Honda Accords.

Please cite a law, ruling, or administrative memo detailing this power. Don't worry, I've got all day.


2. Explain to me why google put fiber in kansas and not california first. And these states enacting their own regulation on internet is your last fucking hope you stupid loser libcuck, so you better figure out how to succeed at enacting it quick. Or leprechauns are going to charge you 5.99 to browse twitter.

Because Kansas fit the model they needed to experiment with urban fiber, and the city governments were willing to indemnify Google against property damage with the installation of the lines. What does this have to do with anything?

Secondly, I'm a conservative, I just don't worship your god emperor.

Third, have you seen a doctor for your ADHD? For like the 6th time now, the states can launch their own NN regulations, but they will likely fail in Federal court. I know that planning ahead is an alien concept to you, but it's something that grownups like to do because they have responsibilities.

I mean seriously, there is no difference between the goverment allowing corperations to throttle a website and throttling a website the government doesn't want you to have access to.

Except this thing called the Constitution. You know, the little part they amended first to say that the Government cannot restrict your free speech?

And, no corporations shouldn't be allowed to throttle either. If we were in a perfect setting of monopolistic competition, NN wouldn't be needed; you could just buy service from a competing ISP who didn't throttle. Except we're not. At best, most markets are an oligopoly, but typically they are duopolies and monopolies. This means that it's a matter of "when" and not "if" they'll abuse consumers to the detriment of the general welfare of the nation.

I know 4th grade is exciting now, but just wait until you have Economics 101 in about 15 years.

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

It does not prevent them yet, because there's been no preemption lawsuit yet. You do understand that NN was eliminated because the FCC is hostile to the idea, right? There is a strong chance that because of this hostility that they will challenge individual state's NN laws. Because they have a problem with NN as a concept, not because they simply don't want to handle it.

[mickmoranis]

How about just no censorship rather than state to state?

And lets not pretend like the FCC is at all competent enough to prevent people looking up whatever they damn well please. Private corporations however, can do quite a lot with the profit motive.

if the nn law simply said nobody can regulate the internet, it wouldn't have been shut down.

but it was sloppily put under title II which, allows the FCC to make unilateral decisions about stuff like can it be throttled without public consent.

So in this case you had a government (with an authoritarian demigod as a leader mind you, LOL guess the left was wrong about that) that luckily decided that it wouldn't use this power to take away your freedom, but they could have just as easily banned fake news if they wanted to. Left you alone with the trump news channel and fox news.

So it was just one of many bad, ill prepared, not thought out actions of the Obama administration.

[mickmoranis]

No. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

The FCC has the power to enact rules on HOW an ISP delivers its content, not rules on WHAT content may be delivered. Telling people that all cars must travel no greater than 65 MPH on the freeway is not the same as banning all Honda Accords.

Please cite a law, ruling, or administrative memo detailing this power. Don't worry, I've got all day.

you are done

"using usnet or torrents allows for piracy so all websites that use this type of data are now banned"

thats all you had to do.

BAM

no freedom

you're done.

[Frieza_Prexus]

you are done

"using usnet or torrents allows for piracy so all websites that use this type of data are now banned"

thats all you had to do.

BAM

no freedom

you're done.

How interesting. Can you please link the statute, ruling, or memorandum that is the basis for the FCC's power to ban this type of speech? I'm very interested to see this since you're such a scholar on the topic.

[mickmoranis]

One week ago they made a ruling about how the internet works, despite public concent. The exact same gorup of people have the power to make the ruling that we will from henceforth not allow any websits that support usenet or torrenting.

Here is all the info you need to know how the FCC works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

The FCC has a ton of power, 1934 was a terrible year for Americans.

[Frieza_Prexus]

One week ago they made a ruling about how the internet works, despite public concent. The exact same gorup of people have the power to make the ruling that we will from henceforth not allow any websits that support usenet or torrenting.

Here is all the info you need to know how the FCC works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934

The FCC has a ton of power, 1934 was a terrible year for Americans.

So, you can't cite it. Got it.

I can say that I own the moon, but it doesn't make it true. I know this is more nuanced than Red Fish Blue Fish, so please tell me if I lose you.

NN supporters are not stating that a Title II classification is the best solution. There are some valid (if not weaker) arguments against it from a Constitutional perspective. Nor are we opposed to statewide regulations if they are allowed to stand against preemption. Most NN supports feel that the best solution is direct congressional legislation that all data must be treated equally.

But, you're not seeing that. You're just jacking off about "NN = CENSORSHIP" without even understanding how or why it works.

"Because I said so" isn't how the law works. I know that's what your dad says when you need to eat your vegetables or when its Goofy Time, but that doesn't fly for civil authority.

If you're going to tell me that NN, as it was enacted, allows the Federal government carte blanche to censor websites, you'll need to cite the exact rule or law that allows it to do so.

And until you do that: Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

[maskedmelon]

every time I see someone going hard at a puppet, I assume they the same. nevertheless I am haunted by the possibility they are not.

[Frieza_Prexus]

every time I see someone going hard at a puppet, I assume they the same. nevertheless I am haunted by the possibility they are not.

https://i.imgur.com/WNrga01.gif

[Patriam1066]

So, you can't cite it. Got it.

I can say that I own the moon, but it doesn't make it true. I know this is more nuanced than Red Fish Blue Fish, so please tell me if I lose you.

NN supporters are not stating that a Title II classification is the best solution. There are some valid (if not weaker) arguments against it from a Constitutional perspective. Nor are we opposed to statewide regulations if they are allowed to stand against preemption. Most NN supports feel that the best solution is direct congressional legislation that all data must be treated equally.

But, you're not seeing that. You're just jacking off about "NN = CENSORSHIP" without even understanding how or why it works.

"Because I said so" isn't how the law works. I know that's what your dad says when you need to eat your vegetables or when its Goofy Time, but that doesn't fly for civil authority.

If you're going to tell me that NN, as it was enacted, allows the Federal government carte blanche to censor websites, you'll need to cite the exact rule or law that allows it to do so.

And until you do that: Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

Don't respond seriously to mick. He's unemployed

[mickmoranis]

So, you can't cite it. Got it.

I can say that I own the moon, but it doesn't make it true.

lmao your entire premise for needing NN is because some evil corporation *mmiiiight* try to throttle websites.

if you spent half your energy trying to make sure your state had healthy regulation, instead of trying to convince me that you're right about a decision that a) has already been made b) didnt care what you or I thought about it anyway, you might have a protected internet.

But instead you'd rather just kick rocks.

[Patriam1066]

Remember when only people with property could vote? Ah, simpler times!

[maskedmelon]

https://i.imgur.com/WNrga01.gif

Oh, I know. im sure I'll feel it when you do (o^^o)

[mickmoranis]

Remember when only people with property could vote? Ah, simpler times!

you do realize republicans own more land than democrats and you're arguing with me.

[Patriam1066]

you do realize republicans own more land than democrats and you're arguing with me.

I own land and you don't is my point

My good chum!

[maskedmelon]

Remember when only people with property could vote? Ah, simpler times!

not a bad place to start. Not great, but not awful neither. homeless should have no vote. neither should anyone with a negative or neutral tax burden. Couple with a 90% inherritence tax on estates greater than the 90th wealth percentile and we be good.

[Patriam1066]

not a bad place to start. Not great, but not awful neither. homeless should have no vote. neither should anyone with a negative or neutral tax burden. Couple with a 90% inherritence tax on estates greater than the 90th wealth percentile and we be good.

I'll be passing 100% of my wealth on and anyone who says otherwise can speak to my friends Smith and Wesson

[mickmoranis]

I own land and you don't is my point

My good chum!

even if your pathetic attempt at ad hominem were true, that wouldn't effect any element of the fact that my argument is 100% correct and net neutrality would be dead and gone.

hell I didnt even vote for trump dumbass.

[Frieza_Prexus]

if you spent half your energy trying to make sure your state had healthy regulation, instead of trying to convince me that you're right about a decision that a) has already been made b) didnt care what you or I thought about it anyway, you might have a protected internet.

But instead you'd rather just kick rocks.

I know I'm not going to change your opinion. It's the average reader whose opinion I'm concerned with. The same reason you brought your desperate trolling from /r/The_Donald to this place. And it doesn't take a lot of energy to take apart your posts, so I consider it a pretty small investment to take two minutes to do it.

I know this is an elfquest message board, so there's not a lot that matters here, but there's no such thing as an unimportant forum when we're having a debate as a society. You view shitposting as a civic duty, so, I guess this is the non-special needs equivalent I'm doing.

lmao your entire premise for needing NN is because some evil corporation *mmiiiight* try to throttle websites.

I know you're not illiterate, so stop pretending. This has already been posted. (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2623830&postcount=69)

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. They actually sued the FCC over this.

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace.

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

[skarlorn]

Remember when only people with property could vote? Ah, simpler times!

did that include ppl whose family owned property, but it was a generation above them?

[maskedmelon]

I'll be passing 100% of my wealth on and anyone who says otherwise can speak to my friends Smith and Wesson

yeah, I should have said 99th, didn't realize how low 90th is. even 99 is pretty damn low.

[mickmoranis]

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. They actually sued the FCC over this.

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace.

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

Am I saying that the FCC is inherently evil? no.

Am I saying they ahve the power to be evil? yes.

Am I saying they have been evil? In some ways, i disagree with some choices they make, but they havent been yet.

Are you saying they are evil because they got rid of NN? yes.

Am I saying they have the potential to be evil? yes.

Do you get the fucking connection between what happened and what I am saying CAN happen? Apparently not, yet and its been like 9 pages.

PS call your state and ask for state legislation if you care about any of this nonsense.

[AzzarTheGod]

yeah, I should have said 99th, didn't realize how low 90th is. even 99 is pretty damn low.

/beatdown on Melon

try 99.999 ?

The 1% is mostly struggling and/or poor with a good size family. If you want to calculate it I'd bet you are referring to the 0.001 percentile that you want to tax. The Paris Hilton's of the world.

Contrary to popular belief the super rich dont contribute to the economy they mostly just enrich themselves through the black hole known as Hedge Funds. None of that money is ever realized or seen in the economy ever again.

[Patriam1066]

hell I didnt even vote for trump dumbass.

Libcuck

[Patriam1066]

did that include ppl whose family owned property, but it was a generation above them?

Don't take this personally I just want mick to be legally deprived of the vote and a keyboard

[skarlorn]

/beatdown on Melon

try 99.999 ?

The 1% is mostly struggling and/or poor with a good size family. If you want to calculate it I'd bet you are referring to the 0.001 percentile that you want to tax. The Paris Hilton's of the world.

Contrary to popular belief the super rich dont contribute to the economy they mostly just enrich themselves through the black hole known as Hedge Funds. None of that money is ever realized or seen in the economy ever again.

This is on point to my main line of inquisition right now. How much of the military industrial empire is supporting that 1% and how much is it supporting the tiny oligarchy

[mickmoranis]

Don't take this personally I just want mick to be legally deprived of the vote and a keyboard

I know you're my #1 fan and you want me to let you suck my dick but I dont let jihady muslim lips around my cock. ;)

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[mickmoranis]

I mean Im a huge lulz fan but im sure a bunch of the community is loving what the 14th changed in this particular case :o

[Patriam1066]

I know you're my #1 fan and you want me to let you suck my dick but I dont let jihady muslim lips around my cock. ;)

That's haram, pass

[mickmoranis]

if only they would censor hate speech to turn my posts into [Dianne Finestine has removed this post as it may harm the ears of some of our readers]

[maskedmelon]

/beatdown on Melon

try 99.999 ?

The 1% is mostly struggling and/or poor with a good size family. If you want to calculate it I'd bet you are referring to the 0.001 percentile that you want to tax. The Paris Hilton's of the world.

Contrary to popular belief the super rich dont contribute to the economy they mostly just enrich themselves through the black hole known as Hedge Funds. None of that money is ever realized or seen in the economy ever again.

yeah, I know :c but, thing is, if they can't make it work with $11 million (the about amount exempt at 99%), then society don't really benefit from them much more than the guy beneath a overpass counting pennies to his next beer. both are sources of undue misery and there something deeply disturbing about a society who allow people to dilute the mean liek that :c

[maskedmelon]

when did Pats become Muslim? Thought you was Baha'itian？

[Patriam1066]

when did Pats become Muslim? Thought you was Baha'itian？

I'm Baha'i but I'll play Muslim if it makes mick feel better about being braindead

[mickmoranis]

I'm Baha'i but I'll play Muslim if it makes mick feel better about being braindead

no i just think you're a childish runt who lives in a big state with big dicks and you make yourself feel better by trying to pretend you're a big dog and I Like to remind you that you are, and always will be less than the rest of us.

[skarlorn]

and always will be less than the rest of us.

sorry mick, your application has been denied. you are hereby disallowed from using the pronoun 'us' or 'we.'

*nods at Patriam thru the window of the Member's only club*

[Pokesan]

I Like to remind you that you are, and always will be less than the rest of us.

dude

[Pokesan]

not cool mick

[Lhancelot]

Imagine if ur president banned the words "evidence-based" then you melted down about hypothetical free speech restrictions

I found this the best in thread so far tbh.

[maskedmelon]

not cool mick

yeah, not lieking this turn in the script. that type of attack just ain't cool even if you were berating your own puppet :c

[skarlorn]

u really gonna stand for these people restricting your free speech, mick?

jk you're actually a piece of shit :o

[mickmoranis]

I’m just mad at Patrim from r all the adhominem he dolls out and I’ve tried everything and he’s a brick wall so I’m going with insulting his heritage. Sorry boys, if everyone is really upset I’ll not apologize

Gotem!

[skarlorn]

have you tried being nice? patriam is actually a very positive person

[Pokesan]

i like patriam now since he adopted some of my idioms. it's very charming.

plus he's pretty reasonable, but that's second.

[mickmoranis]

you should know im one of the nicest persons but I am a layer of a million beutiful things and a blunt alt righter is one of them.

come on man dont truly turn into a pajama boy

[mickmoranis]

btw im gonna call it quits for the night because obviously i have let my emotions confuse you all. but if you have to keep explaining the same things over and over to folks it can frustrate anyone.

but mainly cus it sounds like we turned this into a "this is how i feels" forum at the moment and i cant stand that disgusting libcuckery

I hope you all wake up refreshed and ready to fight tommorow gn

[Patriam1066]

i like patriam now since he adopted some of my idioms. it's very charming.

plus he's pretty reasonable, but that's second.

I told someone "hope this helps!" in an email at work a week or two ago. It was satisfying

Oh and mick I forgive you pussy, you're allowed to post again tonight since I know it's killing you

[skarlorn]

I take responsibility for the crushing defeat of poster mickmoranis championed by my work in official politics thread where I achieved the initial yellow text which set up the alley oop gang bang executed here

[Ahldagor]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/ce772870a93e1304927858ed522a9be4/tenor.gif?itemid=5963709

[Topdog]

gonna be real nice when u have to call your service provider to get that bangbros + interwebs package knawimsayin

[jakerees]

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

Though net neutrality rules were voted on and put in place in 2015

[Patriam1066]

I take responsibility for the crushing defeat of poster mickmoranis championed by my work in official politics thread where I achieved the initial yellow text which set up the alley oop gang bang executed here

Lol

[Frieza_Prexus]

Though net neutrality rules were voted on and put in place in 2015

No, the Open Internet Executive Order was put in place in 2010, but NN as a principle existed well before then.

Al Gore and several Academics first brought up a push for the idea in 1994, but it wasn't until 2004 when the FCC adopted a set of proto-NN principles. This was the Madison River case where a phone company was blocking VoIP. However, the case was settled and no jurisprudence was created.

As I mentioned near the beginning of the thread, the FCC had theoretical power to enforce NN regulations, but no ISP was brave enough to try fighting them (outside of the list I posted earlier of NN violations (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2623830&postcount=69)). It was a cold war because ISPs didn't want to push the issue and possibly risk a court decision that restricted them even more than the status quo.

In 2014, Verizon had enough and sued. They won, and subsequently the FCC's power to enforce NN was narrowed. This is why the FCC reclassified the ISPs as Title II common carriers. The Verizon court ruling had limited their authority in a particular way, so they had to find a creative solution to achieve the same result in a different way.

So, no, NN has not only been in place since 2015. It's actually been around for quite a long time.

[mickmoranis]

pras that forumyt skarlorn you earned it well.

I am nothing if not honorable and humble and modest and you deserve credit for a well executed execution.

[Ahldagor]

No, the Open Internet Executive Order was put in place in 2010, but NN as a principle existed well before then.

Al Gore and several Academics first brought up a push for the idea in 1994, but it wasn't until 2004 when the FCC adopted a set of proto-NN principles. This was the Madison River case where a phone company was blocking VoIP. However, the case was settled and no jurisprudence was created.

As I mentioned near the beginning of the thread, the FCC had theoretical power to enforce NN regulations, but no ISP was brave enough to try fighting them (outside of the list I posted earlier of NN violations (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2623830&postcount=69)). It was a cold war because ISPs didn't want to push the issue and possibly risk a court decision that restricted them even more than the status quo.

In 2014, Verizon had enough and sued. They won, and subsequently the FCC's power to enforce NN was narrowed. This is why the FCC reclassified the ISPs as Title II common carriers. The Verizon court ruling had limited their authority in a particular way, so they had to find a creative solution to achieve the same result in a different way.

So, no, NN has not only been in place since 2015. It's actually been around for quite a long time.

Thank you for citing examples. Most people have no clue about the legal wrangling that's been happening the past 20 years to ensure isp, telecoms, and like businesses can fuck over consumers. Sadly, they'll win because the country is being sold off to multinational companies at an alarming rate. Like the rats are abandoning the ship levels.

[Smedy]

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics/

TLDR - Indian poor people rejected free internet from Zuckerberg because it did not have porn options. As long as service providers keep the porn flowing the unwashed masses will not riot. Soon as you start screwing with the porn, expect riots (not joking).

wow thats both disgusting (zuckerberg is a fucking demon) as well as hilarious, props to the poor fucks of india... facebook is literally a plague that needs to be eradicated from internet

[JurisDictum]

Thank you for citing examples. Most people have no clue about the legal wrangling that's been happening the past 20 years to ensure isp, telecoms, and like businesses can fuck over consumers. Sadly, they'll win because the country is being sold off to multinational companies at an alarming rate. Like the rats are abandoning the ship levels.

They think we are too stupid to care. I'm starting to think they might be right. People just don't get it. They think business controlling the internet is some kind of conspiracy theory rather than their plan of action.

[mickmoranis]

No, the Open Internet Executive Order was put in place in 2010, but NN as a principle existed well before then.

Al Gore and several Academics first brought up a push for the idea in 1994, but it wasn't until 2004 when the FCC adopted a set of proto-NN principles. This was the Madison River case where a phone company was blocking VoIP. However, the case was settled and no jurisprudence was created.

As I mentioned near the beginning of the thread, the FCC had theoretical power to enforce NN regulations, but no ISP was brave enough to try fighting them (outside of the list I posted earlier of NN violations (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2623830&postcount=69)). It was a cold war because ISPs didn't want to push the issue and possibly risk a court decision that restricted them even more than the status quo.

In 2014, Verizon had enough and sued. They won, and subsequently the FCC's power to enforce NN was narrowed. This is why the FCC reclassified the ISPs as Title II common carriers. The Verizon court ruling had limited their authority in a particular way, so they had to find a creative solution to achieve the same result in a different way.

So, no, NN has not only been in place since 2015. It's actually been around for quite a long time.

what most of the libcucks dont know is that before internet moved to cable, from DSL it was considered telecom and fell under the same regulations that the telecome industry has, which is.. wait for it... title II!

However the fact that it was under tittle II is what allows apointed gov employees in the FCC to do what they want with it, and in this case, they chose to make it so appointed gov employees do not have that power. However in doing so they left it up to the free market to do whatever they wanted with it.

Was it corperate money that made them ensure the FCC cannot change the internet? or was it libertariansm or constitutionalsim? That's up to you to decide, but its a mute point anyway.

So when you list off all these answers to when people ask "well NN is only a couple years old and the internet worked fine without it" the correct response is, once the standard was moved from DSL to Cable it went from being protected under tittle II to not being protected under title II and net nutrality brought it back under that protection.

Either they did it to protect our freedom or they did it because corperations want the control for the internet more than they do the phones, it doesnt change the fact that appointed gov employees could do what they wanted with it (as you saw on the 14th)

as far as freedom goes as most libs like to point out "its never happened really before, the government trying to take our freedom, so why worry about it" however you leave out the fact that you think a literal nazi is in the white house and if a 'literal nazi' can get in the white house in 2017 imagine hwo fucked up shit will get in 2117, by then yall might not have any freedom at all, so long as you give the gov the outlet to do what they did on the 14th.

All in all, it was an Oblunder, he should have just said, "nobody" has the right to regulate the internet, rather than "corporations cannot, but the fcc has the power to change the rules"

obama had a tendency to be mostly talk though, and this is what you get when you support candidates that are mostly talk that want to change the world. :cool:

[Frieza_Prexus]

what most of the libcucks dont know is that before internet moved to cable, from DSL it was considered telecom and fell under the same regulations that the telecome industry has, which is.. wait for it... title II!

Cable (or the equivalent technology at the time) fell under Title II starting officially in 1996 under the Telecommunications Act.

Cable was only put under Title I in 2002 because the initial data services they offered were argued to be part of "enhanced packages" which were not meant to carry other's data. The main mover of data at that time was still the phone lines the cable companies argued. These "enhanced packages" were actually pay services where you can get sports scores or stock prices. Because the cable companies themselves were providing this service and the content, they were not considered Title II common carriers by congressional command. Looking back, the Title I classification was a short sighted move because the whole enhanced package thing was a bamboozle. Not only were the packages ultimately not the primary product, they were a dog and pony show to convince Congress to not classify them as such which is what happened when they overrode the 1996 Telecommunications Act.


However the fact that it was under tittle II is what allows apointed gov employees in the FCC to do what they want with it, and in this case, they chose to make it so appointed gov employees do not have that power. However in doing so they left it up to the free market to do whatever they wanted with it.

This. Is. Wrong. Stop Lying. The FCC cannot do "what they want" with the internet just because of the classification. Title II is a standard that common carriers meet by not messing with the messages they have been paid to transmit. They are merely enforcing a standard of service. Like saying that all surgeries must be performed by a doctor.

A common carrier, which has been around as a concept since the dark ages, is a party that is paid to deliver other people's messages or content. There is a philosophical, legal, and ethical duty upon that carrier to deliver said message even if they disagree with yet. Yes, Net Neutrality has been around for many hundreds of years.

All in all, it was an Oblunder, he should have just said, "nobody" has the right to regulate the internet, rather than "corporations cannot, but the fcc has the power to change the rules"

No one is regulating "the internet." NO ONE IS DETERMINING WHAT CONTENT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP UNDER TITLE II.

Title II simply says if you are paid to transmit a 3rd party's messages, you CANNOT discriminate against the content of the message. You agreed to deliver it, so deliver it like all the others.

[mickmoranis]

dude i dont read your posts cus all you do is stomp your feet about how you think something is wrong and yet here you are crying about NN being repealed by the apointed staff in the FCC.. so you tell me im wrong, yet here you are yelling about it, cus of exactly what you say im wrong about.

They have every power to do exactly the same thing about torrents or bitcoin if they wanted to.

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

youre welcome.

[Frieza_Prexus]

dude i dont read your posts cus all you do is stomp your feet about how you think something is wrong and yet here you are crying about NN being repealed by the apointed staff in the FCC.. so you tell me im wrong, yet here you are yelling about it, cus of exactly what you say im wrong about.

They have every power to do exactly the same thing about torrents or bitcoin if they wanted to.

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

youre welcome.

You don't read my posts because you don't know how to answer them, and /r/The_Donald can't give you answers either because they're just as shallow as you are acting here.

Look, you seem like you want to be taken seriously on some level, but this isn't the way to do it.

I used to troll people too. It's funny, I get it, but there'll come a time when you realize that politics and real life isn't about lulz. It's about engaging each other because you want to make your nation a better place. When you feel it for the first time, there's a real sense of ownership and accomplishment. I honestly hope you have that epiphany because I know you're not really this dense and unaware. I know you're not here because you believe deeply in repealing NN, but because you enjoy the reaction that an obviously hot button issue creates. I know that there's a person with real thoughts underneath that Skankhunt42 avatar; I just wish he'd come out to participate because that's how we make our world better.

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

In law, we call this having the "power to do so, but not the right."

If I have a gun I can kill anyone I can point it at. I have the power over life and death. But I do not have the right. Yes, you are correct that at any point the President could declare himself Grand high Potentate. All Presidents have the power to do so. But, they do not have the right. Our society functions because we have faith that the right (or lack thereof) to do or not do something will be respected.

Certainly we should be prepared for what happens if the government were to go rogue. That's why we have the Second Amendment. But, while we should be prepared for this, we shouldn't live our lives like this. You don't make progress that way. Living like that just creates an atmosphere is mistrust and suspicion. When you come here and tell everyone that we're days away from martial law and that the FCC will eat your children, you're directly contributing to that.

This isn't how we should live our lives, and I know you know that.

[mickmoranis]

there is a fucking wall of text that is whining and crying that I just.. cant... slog through.

Let me explain:

1. FCC had a vote to change the way YOUR internet works.
2. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT TO SHUT DOWN BIT TORRENT OR PORN IF THEY WANTED TO.
3. thanks to the vote on dec 14th now they cannot.
4. Hail Trump.

[AzzarTheGod]

wazap net neutrality

[skarlorn]

wazap net nutrality

[Frieza_Prexus]

there is a fucking wall of text that is whining and crying that I just.. cant... slog through.

Remember this moment the next time you're lying awake at night wondering why your life and relationships have fallen apart so badly.

[fash]

https://i.imgur.com/q24aKiP.jpg

[AzzarTheGod]

smilin hard. which 1's Mick n is that pokes or skarlorn the enlightened.... no....

loramin and mick fighting over the affections of the aforementioned forum masters

[mickmoranis]

Remember this moment the next time you're lying awake at night wondering why your life and relationships have fallen apart so badly.

this is a great post

but i want you to remember that your safe space internet is ruined :cool: good luck sleeping through your outrage.

[skarlorn]

ALL I SEE WITH MY THIRD EYE IS A FROGLOK IDEALIST WEARING A MAGA CAP FURIOUSLY WRITING ABOUT THE END OF NET NUTRALITY AND AS HIS FROGLOK FINGERS TAP FASTER, MUCOUS AGGRESSIVELY POURS OFF HIS BODY FFFROOOAAAAAAK YOUR SAFE SPACE INTERNET IS RUINED FRROOAAAAK

[mickmoranis]

You’ve regulated your own lands! You’ll not regulate mine!

[Rader]

Remember this moment the next time you're lying awake at night wondering why your life and relationships have fallen apart so badly.

Any one who thinks NN will make one iota of difference in their lives is a special kind of stupid.

[AzzarTheGod]

Any one who thinks NN will make one iota of difference in their lives is a special kind of stupid.

solid dunks

[skarlorn]

Just smilin at how app pro pro raders avatar whom is

[Ahldagor]

You’ve regulated your own lands! You’ll not regulate mine!

What about a regulation forbidding localised monopolies?

[Patriam1066]

wazap net nutrality

[Frieza_Prexus]

Any one who thinks NN will make one iota of difference in their lives is a special kind of stupid.

I said it because he's acting like an asshole, not because he's against NN for no real reason.

Anyways, back to beating my head against the wall:

Let me explain:

1. FCC had a vote to change the way YOUR internet works.
2. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT TO SHUT DOWN BIT TORRENT OR PORN IF THEY WANTED TO.

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of how the FCC works and what powers they actually have. The vote on the 14th was the FCC saying "we do not believe we have the power to enforce NN, therefore we disavow any actions to do so." That's it.

Just because the FCC can rule on one aspect on the internet that doesn't mean they can control all of it. If a county sets the highway speed limit at 65, does that mean they can now ban red Honda Accords, too? I know you read this, despite pretending not to, so drop the act. It's been explained too many times for you not to get it by now.

I know there's a grownup in there somewhere, so listen, and maybe, just maybe, you might learn something here.

[mickmoranis]

I said it because he's acting like an asshole, not because he's against NN for no real reason.

Anyways, back to beating my head against the wall:



You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of how the FCC works and what powers they actually have. The vote on the 14th was the FCC saying "we do not believe we have the power to enforce NN, therefore we disavow any actions to do so." That's it.

Just because the FCC can rule on one aspect on the internet that doesn't mean they can control all of it. If a county sets the highway speed limit at 65, does that mean they can now ban red Honda Accords, too? I know you read this, despite pretending not to, so drop the act. It's been explained too many times for you not to get it by now.

I know there's a grownup in there somewhere, so listen, and maybe, just maybe, you might learn something here.

you seem to be seriously brainwashed.

they have every right to do what I said you just have such a basic understanding of how your government works it sounds like you learned it all from The View.

Basically they voted on less government regulation. In the future this may bite us in the ass but I feel it will be when we are all very very old.

well to be fair, the de regulation of things will make us suffer less when we are old, after all the tumblrina neo fascist antifa mellennials are adults trying to limit free speech and take away our rights and individuality.

The whole point of constitutionalism is to protect us from that slow, long road we walk down where the people elect fascists and put them into power under the false ideology that they are trying to make the world better for workers.

It has happened to every single country since the beginning of mankind, except ours, thanks to the deregulation of government.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I have not read all/any of the posts here but just from the little I have read there seems to be confusion on what the NN repeal means. All that it means is ATT/Verizon/Comcast are no longer regulated by the FCC in the way they were previously.

Free market conditions will prevent anything too drastic from happening to our internet because there is competition for services. It is true that regional monopolies exist for cable companies but I find it really hard to believe they would do anything too drastic because satellite tech is getting pretty dang good (even though AT&T now own Dish Network and Direct TV).

Basically they voted on less government regulation. In the future this may bite us in the ass but I feel it will be when we are all very very old.

The flip side to this is the cable companies may decide that they are going to turbo boost the most used websites and the average consumer will see a large quality of life increase. I guess if you operate in the dark web this might be bad for you but for everyday Americans it will probably speed up our most used sites.

I don't see why a cooking website should have the same bandwidth as pornhub - speed pornhub up and slow down cooking.com IMO - everyone wins

Because we've already seen a lot of instances where ISPs will extract profit while engaging in anti-competitive practices. In a completely free market with no monopoly influence, I'd agree with you, but this does not exist here right now.

ISPs are achieving both horizontal and vertical monopolies in various cases, and they are also the gatekeepers to the marketplace. If Walmart owned the streets, it'd be rather difficult to drive to a store not named Walmart, wouldn't it?

Here's a quick list of anti-competitive practices we've already seen WITH NN in effect.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. They actually sued the FCC over this.

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace.

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

they have every right to do what I said you just have such a basic understanding of how your government works it sounds like you learned it all from The View.

You keep repeating this like if you wish hard enough for something, it'll be true. If that worked, then your parents would have loved you by now.

Since you know so much about this, tell me exactly where and how the FCC is legally empowered and which statute/EO gives it its authority to do what you're saying. The short answer is that you can't, because you have absolutely no concept of how government works beyond TERKING YER JOBZ RABBLE RABBLE.

The FCC has no authority to censor the internet. They have statutory authority to regulate companies that provide services. It's the same way the FDA can tell restaurants not to let rat shit get into the food, but they can't tell them to how to sprinkle pepper onto your tendies.

[mickmoranis]

Same right they had to just chuck obamas policy they have to just chuck ISP's right to display various websites etc

Remember the FCC alone voted to repeal net neutrality, appointed members of that commission alone chose what to do with the internet. They have the right to do that under tittle II thanks to the 1934 communications act.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Same right they had to just chuck obamas policy they have to just chuck ISP's right to display various websites etc

Remember the FCC alone voted to repeal net neutrality, appointed members of that commission alone chose what to do with the internet. They have the right to do that under tittle II thanks to the 1934 communications act.

The FCC is an administrative agency invested with both executive and legislative authority. They were able to repeal the regulations because the President and Congress explicitly allowed them to do so. They act at the behest of the President in this case. If Obama were still in office, they wouldn't have repealed it because he would not have allowed it. Administrative agencies are pretty much high-ranking secretaries whose boss allows them a bit of authority so the boss doesn't have to deal with trivial things.

If either branch had a problem with this, they could issue Executive Orders or Laws changing each thing respectively. What you're forgetting is that our government is built in a hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is clear censorship which is in violation of the 1st amendment. You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law..."


Now that I think about it, do you believe that the President can ban websites if he wanted to? Last I checked we shed the monarchy back in 1776. You don't seem to understand how governmental authority is derived.

[mickmoranis]

The FCC is an administrative agency invested with both executive and legislative authority. They were able to repeal the regulations because the President and Congress explicitly allowed them to do so. They act at the behest of the President in this case. If Obama were still in office, they wouldn't have repealed it because he would not have allowed it. Administrative agencies are pretty much high-ranking secretaries whose boss allows them a bit of authority so the boss doesn't have to deal with trivial things.

If either branch had a problem with this, they could issue Executive Orders or Laws changing each thing respectively. What you're forgetting is that our government is built in a hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is clear censorship which is in violation of the 1st amendment. You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law..."


Now that I think about it, do you believe that the President can ban websites if he wanted to? Last I checked we shed the monarchy back in 1776. You don't seem to understand how governmental authority is derived.

please type less i dont care about your opinion enough to read this much, so this is the end of our conversation unless you clean up your act

work on it

[Frieza_Prexus]

please type less i dont care about your opinion enough to read this much, so this is the end of our conversation unless you clean up your act

work on it

I accept your surrender.

[JurisDictum]

They should have put this off topic debate on CNN -- I feel like we actually addressed the issue a lot better.

[skarlorn]

CNN isn't about facts, reason, or meaningful discourse

[JurisDictum]

CNN isn't about facts, reason, or meaningful discourse

I'm going to kind of miss it -- the circus of it all. They really had everyone going for awhile.

I watched the movie Wag the Dog awhile back...I kind of think what we are seeing is the death of that era. Where the press gets a good 60%+ of the population going about whatever it wants.

The press is still the gatekeeper of information. But they are no longer in complete control of the story. They have to negotiate what the story will be with the public. That is, if they don't fuck us on the back end with NN -- which they will. So it's a question of whether or not we will fuck back.

[skarlorn]

Basically, we just need the last of the Boomers to die before the charade ends. Right-wing boomers are currently decrying fake liberal media while lapping up their fake right wing media. Left wing boomers think Trump's a lying idiot (he's only half of those at any point in time, never both) so they flat out reject the idea that their main news feeds are sensationalist pisswater designed fire up their self-righteous sides and then gobble up the liberal fakenews media and actually BELIEVE trump is 100% evil psychotic but also a retard.

I am hoping we see a proliferation of more news sources that are independently owned in the next 20 years.

PROBABLY WE'LL ALL BE CUCKED AND HAVE OUR BRAINS MELTED INTO PUDDING BY RFID IMPLANTS AND ANTI CHINESE PROPAGANDA BY THEN

[mickmoranis]

all we really need to solve our problems is a world war and 1-2/3rd the pop of the earth to be erradicated in the process.

were just entering the age of caligula in america and we need to make life about work rather than handouts or we'll land square in the center of caligula.

.....then its melted pudding rfid implants and chinese propaganda for everyone.

the culling and making life hard work again is the only way.

life aint worth living unless you work for it and liberalism takes the work out of life and the proof is tumblr facebook and twitter. That's what you get in utopia. Video games and social media and no education.

why educate if you dont need one cus you dont even need to work? Why not just lay down and relax.

Suddenly:

https://i.imgur.com/03lQnar.png

[Raavak]

PROBABLY WE'LL ALL BE CUCKED AND HAVE OUR BRAINS MELTED INTO PUDDING BY RFID IMPLANTS AND ANTI CHINESE PROPAGANDA BY THENOr worshipping Mao pictures

[Lhancelot]

Conservatives are currently decrying fake liberal media while lapping up their fake right wing media.

Fixed for you. ^

[mickmoranis]

everyone is currently decrying fake media while lapping up their fake media.

no. now its fixed.

the culling.

the only way.

[Lhancelot]

no. now its fixed.

the culling.

the only way.

I concede, you right about that.

[skarlorn]

Just make sure you only cull people who I disagree with based on personal bias and my own prejudice.

[Lhancelot]

Just make sure you only cull people who I disagree with based on personal bias and my own prejudice.

That's the human way.

[mickmoranis]

Just make sure you only cull people who I disagree with based on personal bias and my own prejudice.

im totally fine with everyone struggling through a hellish war and whoever survives that being the winners.

lib or con, its the life journy of hellish struggle that makes humans better.

eating doritoz and watching a 19th starwars film while the government pays you because robots do all your work, is not.

[skarlorn]

i agree that there will probably be a mass culling due to the future of automatons.

I ,, however,,, will be immune to death by then because I will hvae finally sailed to Valinor and conquered the Valar and achieved immortality

[mickmoranis]

I always thought our generation was the best but then when I hit around 52 or 53 years of age I realized playing with tinker toys whenever I wanted was maybe not as much of an achievement as I thought it was.

[Ahldagor]

i agree that there will probably be a mass culling due to the future of automatons.

I ,, however,,, will be immune to death by then because I will hvae finally sailed to Valinor and conquered the Valar and achieved immortality

Hold up. You got a silmaril?

[demonith]

So i rarely post, but i enjoy killing time at work. I have read many rants and flames posts because the are often times the gold medal races at the special Olympics.

But you mickmoranis...... You are some magical level of ignorant stupidity. You divert, you dodge, and you flat out shout out blatant bullshit to protect your "stance". In many of the posts i have silently read every response, and all i see from you is some garbled grammar regurgitated bullshit that is consistently refuted. Every time you keep screaming the "Simpsons did it" mantra. People present facts or precedents that support their stance and you scream....... Fuck I don't know, magic?

Anyway, thank you to the informed debaters in derailing the massive wave of absolute bullshit MM posts, you are having an effect.

MM, in the rare stance you state something that does make sense. when i feel like i agree with you. I feel dirty and have a natural distaste of sharing an opinion with a mongoloid.

OK there is my yearly post! bye now!

[Darkatar]

https://i.imgur.com/FFCVRTO.gif

[zodium]

So i rarely post, but i enjoy killing time at work. I have read many rants and flames posts because the are often times the gold medal races at the special Olympics.

But you mickmoranis...... You are some magical level of ignorant stupidity. You divert, you dodge, and you flat out shout out blatant bullshit to protect your "stance". In many of the posts i have silently read every response, and all i see from you is some garbled grammar regurgitated bullshit that is consistently refuted. Every time you keep screaming the "Simpsons did it" mantra. People present facts or precedents that support their stance and you scream....... Fuck I don't know, magic?

Anyway, thank you to the informed debaters in derailing the massive wave of absolute bullshit MM posts, you are having an effect.

MM, in the rare stance you state something that does make sense. when i feel like i agree with you. I feel dirty and have a natural distaste of sharing an opinion with a mongoloid.

OK there is my yearly post! bye now!

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

[mickmoranis]

So i rarely post, but i enjoy killing time at work. I have read many rants and flames posts because the are often times the gold medal races at the special Olympics.

But you mickmoranis...... You are some magical level of ignorant stupidity. You divert, you dodge, and you flat out shout out blatant bullshit to protect your "stance". In many of the posts i have silently read every response, and all i see from you is some garbled grammar regurgitated bullshit that is consistently refuted. Every time you keep screaming the "Simpsons did it" mantra. People present facts or precedents that support their stance and you scream....... Fuck I don't know, magic?

Anyway, thank you to the informed debaters in derailing the massive wave of absolute bullshit MM posts, you are having an effect.

MM, in the rare stance you state something that does make sense. when i feel like i agree with you. I feel dirty and have a natural distaste of sharing an opinion with a mongoloid.

OK there is my yearly post! bye now!

press this real fast and it simulates me reading this post.

https://www.myinstants.com/instant/everquest-level-up-ding/

[chadtwoke]

lol, dat sig tho

[Ahldagor]

See, we're united in understanding the history of Grobb. Let's build upon this.

[skarlorn]

Ahlgador your two posts on this page of the read have earned your place on the ship which we will sail to claim our rightful immortality from the elven overlords

[AzzarTheGod]

Basically, we just need the last of the Boomers to die before the charade ends. Right-wing boomers are currently decrying fake liberal media while lapping up their fake right wing media. Left wing boomers think Trump's a lying idiot (he's only half of those at any point in time, never both) so they flat out reject the idea that their main news feeds are sensationalist pisswater designed fire up their self-righteous sides and then gobble up the liberal fakenews media and actually BELIEVE trump is 100% evil psychotic but also a retard.

I am hoping we see a proliferation of more news sources that are independently owned in the next 20 years.

PROBABLY WE'LL ALL BE CUCKED AND HAVE OUR BRAINS MELTED INTO PUDDING BY RFID IMPLANTS AND ANTI CHINESE PROPAGANDA BY THEN

Woke

[maskedmelon]

So i rarely post, but i enjoy killing time at work. I have read many rants and flames posts because the are often times the gold medal races at the special Olympics.

But you mickmoranis...... You are some magical level of ignorant stupidity. You divert, you dodge, and you flat out shout out blatant bullshit to protect your "stance". In many of the posts i have silently read every response, and all i see from you is some garbled grammar regurgitated bullshit that is consistently refuted. Every time you keep screaming the "Simpsons did it" mantra. People present facts or precedents that support their stance and you scream....... Fuck I don't know, magic?

mick is a puppet and you a goof if you think seriously believes the majority of what he posts.

Anyway, thank you to the informed debaters in derailing the massive wave of absolute bullshit MM posts, you are having an effect.

MM, in the rare stance you state something that does make sense. when i feel like i agree with you. I feel dirty and have a natural distaste of sharing an opinion with a mongoloid.

OK there is my yearly post! bye now!

I don't blame you for feeling this way about things i say. I am not happy about many of my conclusions. unfortunately that does not make them wrong :c

very sorry you are angry and happy New year ^^

[maskedmelon]

Oh!! MM = MickMoranis. everyone calls me MM, so thought you was referring to me in second part, but then was confused because I don't post massive and then realized what you meant ^^

[AzzarTheGod]

Steve Harvey was so pissed off and angry in times square. luv that guy for keeping it real. he had the whole "what in gods name is going on" steez going the whole time from the cold.

jesus fuck that freezer burn is real. -20 tonight with windchill. fucking hard on the lungs

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Platinum™ account holders]

[Kaino]

frankly if you need to be propogated to be anti-chinese then you haven't been paying attention

[JurisDictum]

Do you think people in this country will realize that Libertarianism isn't going to work as well as centrally-planned economies once China becomes the dominate super-power?

I think they will still claim we lost our status because we weren't Libertarian enough. If we just did less, than we would still be the dominate super power.

The reason this country is falling from power is because of the myth big business sold our conservative citizens. That there was some Miracle in Philadelphia 1787 -- where our a saint-like founding fathers outlined a perfect constitution...

None of this had anything to do with why we pulled ahead after World War II. That was simply due to our resources and industrial potential combined with a weakening of greater powers. It was precisely because we were behaving more like a centrally-planned economy that we were able to achieve what we did during the war and post-war years.

And in comes this Libertarian hogwash with Reagan. And our country has declined ever since. Should have listened to president bummer during his abominable speech.

[mickmoranis]

only brainwashed cuck socialists who think libertariansm means anarchy thinks lbertariansm doesnt work. learn a thing.

[mickmoranis]

Lol welp here you go, repealing NN already succeeding https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/

[Xaanka]

its still really funny to me how many liberals, normies, and reddit reading retards have strong opinions on net neutrality because a couple corporate entities bot-netted posts about it to the reddit frontpage.

holy shit imagine being dumb enough to read the reddit frontpage in 2018. imagine being so dumb that you haven't figured out its 40% bots and 20% shills on the news and frontpage subs as you scream your opinions into the abyss and get shadowbanned.

imagine relegating yourself to an internet ghetto. imagine having your thoughts and opinions bought so easily.


muh pornhub

muh netflix

muh google

muh youtube

muh twitter

muh facebook

[Frieza_Prexus]

Lol welp here you go, repealing NN already succeeding https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/colorado-city-to-build-fiber-broadband-network-with-net-neutrality/

And here's the FCC saying they'll ram the long dildo of the Federal Government down any state's throat that tries to get around it this way: FCC Announces Total Preemption of State NN Laws (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/)

Like I said earlier, of course this will happen. It will go to the Supreme Court, and it will likely fail. You're not showing anyone anything new. We already knew this would happen.

The only state effort that I think has any real chance of succeeding is New York's refusal to contract with ISP's that don't observe NN. Which can be circumvented by simply setting up sub corporations. One to contract with the government, and one to contract with civilians. It's almost like I know what I'm talking about, isn't it?

[mickmoranis]

yeah i cant wait to see the FCC try to deregulate states (which they cannot do) after they deregulated the federal goverment to give states more power :rolleyes:

you see you nieve #metoo #resist clone bot, there are two people in control of the republican party right now, one that hates federal regulationk and the old guard that loves it (jeff sessions) if you had any brains at all, youd focus on convincing trump that jeff is a nardido that wants to manipulate trump and control him. So trump will release his power of domination on that man and you'll lose the head of the old guard.

but instead, you wan to cry about glorified blog articles that have nothing to do with anything but the immediate present without having any critical thinking about the future.

I mean seriously Frieza, I dont get you at all. Literally all you do is cry, you offer nothing but pessimism, sadness, and a complete lack of hope in anything. Its really sad, Obama deep dicked you so hard you are just a shell of a human being. Like most lefties are these days.

sad.

[Frieza_Prexus]

yeah i cant wait to see the FCC try to deregulate states (which they cannot do) after they deregulated the federal goverment to give states more power :rolleyes:

You failed civics in high school, didn't you? You have absolutely no idea how government works or how authority is derived and applied; stop embarrassing yourself. The FCC will petition the federal courts to declare that the states do not have the power to regulate on this topic due to the interstate nature of the internet. This power is derived from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which the Federal courts are empowered to interpret (See Marbury v. Madison.)

but instead, you wan to cry about glorified blog articles that have nothing to do with anything but the immediate present without having any critical thinking about the future.

You do know I linked an article that's on the exact same site you linked and cited to one post earlier, right? Shit man, what's it like to have ADD so bad you can't keep even the most basic facts straight?

Like most lefties are these days.


I'm a conservative, but thanks for playing.