Net neutrality is a classic jewish trick, here's why

You're falling right into their hands by thinking your freedom can be secured by the same people who strip freedom away. Think about it in the long term without Net Neutrality: If ISP's can throttle content they like over things they don't like, what would happen? People would get pissed off and go to a different provider if they abuse it, revealing the real unspoken problem at hand: There's no wide selection of alternative ISPs on a national level.

Why? Because the big ISPs are working with the government to make new and different ISPs incredibly hard to establish and connect. The same infested government that wants to continue "regulating" your internet to be "equal" are the same fucking people that prop up and cater to these big ISP monopolies that force you to pay out the ass for shitty internet in the first place. And (((they))) want to keep it that way.

They will never talk about the real issue behind-the-scenes nor would the people give a shit if Net Neutrality is in place. It is the cash-cow status quo for the merchants, and they are the ones who benefit from it, not the people. I'm not going to lie that while in the short-term shitposting may be harder without NN, but if artificial monopolies weren't imposed in the first place, we can finally see better, cheaper quality services for less.

Outrage is necessary for any change and fire, the force of destruction needed for creation, is needed chaos before new and superior order follows. That is how it must be done. We might even see smaller independent ISPs that support rightful causes and throttle OUR content, not run by kikes but by your fellow man. Net Neutrality was never about equality and a vague sense of freedom, it is about keeping power to those who already have them.

Other urls found in this thread:

indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Don't be a puppet and let a jew into your home because he promises to keep burglars away. Your goods will get stolen when you're not looking and he will say more security by him is needed! Net Neutrality is exactly what they want, and they will keep saying it is for your false sense of freedom, goy! Flowery names like "Net Neutrality" always hide the thorn of truth underneath them. Remember that whenever they promise anything that just sounds good, without requiring people to think about it. They don't want you to think, (((they))) want you to obey.

You've been warned of their capacity to confuse you into accepting things against your interest as something good, and the truth is clear: Net Neutrality is the enemy, and is a trick.

Here's more anti-net neutrality arguments. Don't let the government get their grubby hands on the greatest medium of free speech in existence.

Thank you.

bumping atm because this is incredibly, seriously important. They can't keep getting away with this

What exactly are they doing?
I keep hearing this fear mongering but I don't get any actual source for this.

So how's that whole "land of the free" thing goin?

They're doing what they've been doing for years now since 2015, forcing "equality" on ISPs to keep people pacified on incredibly jewish Big ISPs while ignoring alternative ISPs

Like a lot of things the government does, in principle it sounds good. The internet "should be" equal, but they've gone full affirmative-action tier and are putting these laws to make shitty companies comply so people sleep soundly on their bluepills. The result is that they can charge more because they're the only provider in the area if nobody wants to leave but put up with bullshit (else they cry to the government), and they continue to bathe in shekels.

Not to mention, the government also has an easier time monitoring the internet and your activity -- a blatant violation of privacy. It's insane one-sided everyone is thinking it's a good thing, when it's much, much, more insidious

It was going great until communists infiltrated us from within and are eating us alive as speak. No doubt they have infected your government too, aussie

Well we ought to do our best to lobby against the government harming the free market.

The government is never going to protect your privacy though, only you can do that.

Nah. Surprisingly our ISPs refuse to disclose customer information. Telstra made big waves when there was a call to out all Aussies who were piraring media but they said Customer privacy is paramount.

>People would get pissed off and go to a different provider if they abuse it,

NOPE!

It is very hard to just switch to a different provider

I have to admit I don't know a whole lot about ISP stuff, but I do know that in cases like Electricity companies, there are laws that make it OK for a company to hold a monopoly in a certain region.
This is ok because if we didn't have that then electric companies would constantly get sued for holding a monopoly and it would just be very hard to coordinate multiple power companies in one region.

There is no telling how much an internet company would abuse it for and if the effects would even be noticed by some of the customers.

>Well we ought to do our best to lobby against the government harming the free market.

It's more than that, user. You can tell people all you want about how the smaller ISPs are jewed out of the market and nobody will give a shit. People prefer the jewish big ISPs because they have fallen under the assumption that it's just the best that can be offered. It's not the best because of its product, but because it uses the government to crush opposition

Look elsewhere in the world, and realize that the US has stagnated so much when it comes to basic internet providers. And we continue to pay high premiums for this shit! People will never rally up and lobby as much as they can unless they feel like there's an explicit need, like something is wrong.

The moment they see that their ISP is now under the mercy of their own actions and products rather than being propped up by more and more government regulation, that moment is when the real change happens and when something gets done

And it starts with net neutrality

These "arguments" are retarded

What does pricing have anything to do with this?

How does net neutrality slow infrastructure growth?

What usually happens when one company fucks up?

Yall niggas postin in a shill w/proxies thread.

>It is very hard to just switch to a different provider

That's precisely the problem! It's very hard BECAUSE of those laws, through the government. And who benefits? Big ISPs, and the government officials who get support from lying to people about regulating something that doesn't need to be

>electric companies would constantly get sued for holding a monopoly and it would just be very hard to coordinate multiple power companies in one region

This is something that can be remedied as more competing businesses get involved. As it is, no solution is needed so they keep the laws as is, they keep it complicated, in favor to cockblock others and lock in the benefits for themselves

If the issue falls on legal matters like suing, that can always be resolved with legally

Nothing. People get abused by their ISPs all the time, and there's nothing they can do about it. They can't change providers. There is no change. The law makes alternatives difficult. People are forced to suck the dick down or else they just don't get internet at all or pay extremely uncompetitive, exorbitant rates.

Why? Why does it have to be this way? They've just rigged the system, the laws, to keep it that way. Net Neutrality doesn't address the core issue that plagues ISP, it is treating a symptom, not a cure. The disease can only worsen

Those arguments are so piss-poor that only an American could find them convincing

(((Wasserman)))

Hi guy from the other thread, here's my copy+paste answer to your copy+paste question.

If I'm AT&T and I want to put in the infrastructure to reach a rural area in the US so I can tap into the market there, it has to meet the government's standard. The government's standard would be based off of something like the average speed that consumers in a densely populated area receive. Now if I want to reach this target rural area, I have to put in more expensive equipment to meet the standard.

That doesn't sound so bad for the consumer, Mr. Farmer's son can get a really good connection for downloading his WoW updates. But extra equipment costs are only the start of our expenditure journey.

The government wants to make sure that the equipment meets standards, so they have inspections at the factory to run tests. Now they want to make sure I'm actually using the equipment and am installing it right, so they put in inspections at all of my build sites. When construction's done, they want to run more tests to make sure I installed it right. They come back a couple of times each year to run more inspections.

Guess who pays for all that.

If you answered me, AT&T, you're in for a surprise! Taxes and other government fees are always split between the corporation and the consumer and with an inelastic product like rural internet connection, the consumer is paying the bulk of it.

But what if instead of AT&T, I was a small, start-up internet provider trying to tap into the rural market? Not only is there a higher cost-of-entry, I'm also trying to be forced away from the market by government regulations drafted to protect the monopolies of AT&T and Verizon.

It's not that government regulation over aspects of the market can't ever be beneficial for the consumer without screwing them and corporations over, but when it comes to the Internet's infrastructure, this is just one of multiple ways that government intervention results in a lose-lose scenario.

Thanks for the clear explanation.

An user with skill needs to make an infographic that drives the lesson home.

Then distill that into a meme.

Your logic would be flawless if the one and only choice of ISP did not own the wires leading to your home, and if you had the choice to move to comparable service elsewhere.

But the ISPs have monopolies so therefore the government is the best consumers have to protect them from predation.

Just get satellite internet then. You don't need any landlines these days.

People who use more DO pay more. Large content providers DO pay THEIR ISPs more.

Are you saying flat rate pricing which consumers have thusfar demanded is unfair?

Cable companies extorting money from the content providers their customers wish to communicate with is unfair to the cable companies customers who have already paid for service and who just want to be allowed to receive the bytes they requested over the internet they've paid to be connected to.

satellite has a lag and is bad for gaming online

Let's just move the burden of a good internet connection onto the consumer for no reason even though we all know that companies will (and legally must in some cases) take the easy way out/the most profitable way and will institute internet fast and slow lanes because it makes them the most money

>if the one and only choice of ISP did not own the wires leading to your home, and if you had the choice to move to comparable service elsewhere

And that's the problem I have been trying to nail down on -- why is only one ISP my only provider? What prohibits the alternatives from growing? I'm sure you've pieced it all together now.

It's no coincidence is what I'm saying. It never is. They want you to be comfortable with shitty ISPs with more meme laws like these that ignore the real issue altogether, because they don't want you to stop paying them. With no Net Neutrality, people are forced to see the truth when the ISP's actually have to be responsible. And when they're not responsible (as they tend to be), the people can look at the mirror for once and see the outrage at having no choice is.

You're being tricked into thinking everything's ok, and that more and more laws is the solution. You're giving them more power over a problem they themselves have caused with short-term bandaids like net neutrality.

No. It's very hard because the only wires leading to peoples houses capable of providing decent level of internet service are the cable companies coax cables.

This gives the cable companies a monopoly for the same reason the phone companies did and power companies do have monopoly power over their customers that must be checked by the government regulating in their interest.

Is this less good than what a competitive market could provide? Yes. But there is not, for physical reasons, a competitive market for internet service.

If via regulation, cable internet can be made good enough that other alternatives can't compete then good. Consumers are well served.

If by lack of regulation cable companies abuse their customers to the point that they are forced to get wireless service at lower bandwidth and at higher rates ( or with strange restrictions ) then the consumers are less well served than they would have been by the regulation.

>make new and different ISPs incredibly hard to establish and connect.

It's called an internet exchange.

Net neutrality is the reason big ISP's have to treat small/new ISP's as equals.
Without it they can squeeze the balls of any smaller competitor.

Because they own the wires leading to your house.

The wires have sufficient bandwidth to serve all the houses.

So it is not in the interest of any competing company to put a second set of wires on the poles and build out redundant infrastructure to compete.

There just isn't sufficient demand to justify a redundant alternative.

So this gives the cable company monopoly power over their customers.

This must be regulated in the public interest.

Econ 101.

How come Americans never wonder how countries with excellent internet handled things?

>in b4 Moldova is super rich and not rural like us.

>net neutrality is a classic jewish trick, here's why
Net neutrality benefits consumers. Period. You pay for full speed internet from every web server, the ISP better fucking deliver it to you.

Only a jewish cuck would be AGAINST net neutrality, which is THE classic trick, now that you mention it.

No throttling to screw competition, it's anti-capitalistic. Americans want net neutrality.

Who got Jewe'd here?
indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/

I disagree, a physical reason just means it's really an issue of finance and available capital. All the more incentive to break into the market by developing more modern, cost-efficient means rather than relying on the old school kikery of dinosaur cable networks.

The problem remains that these laws and regulations, as you've said though might of carried over since the days of telephone and tv, prohibit actual viable alternatives from being developed. This is the problem nobody wants to admit, because people despite how frustrated they may be with their service, develop a sense of stockholm syndrome that this is the best that can be done.

>Without it they can squeeze the balls of any smaller competitor.

Not necessarily. It is that very inequality that makes competitors all the more attractive if the big ISPs fuck up and deliver poor service (read: right the fuck now).

The demand is there, people are just trapped and don't know any better. Maybe not a second set of wires, but certainly a more viable alternative. That is what makes competition great: innovation and creativity is rewarded rather than calling quits, and just submitting to big ISPs.

The regulation may only seem necessary in the short-term, but the long-term cannot afford much more stagnation. We're being left behind, and this is something that net neutrality and more senseless laws can fix.

based poos
not exactly which class/ caste/ age group started this, but they spotted the jew (though let a few others slip through)
having facebook control elections is essentially collective suicide

kike

More regulations while keeping existing regulations to prohibit competition is not capitalistic at all. Period.

Think in the long-term rather than the short. We're stagnating compared to the world, with few options and alternatives. Somehow everybody is just ok with this and want even more government to "fix it" instead of allowing innovation to flourish.

>2017
>Not using a VPN

Poor Indians, first the white man took their land and not they take their smoke signals.

Facebook was first designed by an Indian that KIKE stole it.

>It is that very inequality that makes competitors all the more attractive if the big ISPs fuck up and deliver poor service (read: right the fuck now).

Why would I use a small ISP when all connections to peers on big ISP's are slow as fuck?

- can't torrent
- can't play games
- can't FTP
Yeah, I totally want to join a small ISP that gets second-rated by the big boys...

>VPN
HAHAHAHAHA

Guess which services will be moved to the slow lane first?

Do you think we're this stupid and everything you attach "Jew" to makes us suddenly hate it?

bump

I like your logic.

That may be what it is in the present, but not all small ISPs can be dismissed so easily. In fact, an ISP that focuses on pure speed to throttle torrenting/gaming/ftp specifically could flourish, instead of keeping it equal to things you might not even ever use.

Net neutrality works because of the huge monopolies. If there was competition we wouldn't need it.
America has no competition anymore. It's called crony capitalism. If they break up these huge business that lock away 90% of business then we wouldn't need these laws.
inb4 >muh invisible hand

I'm confused. What's the sudden big deal about net neutrality?

>That may be what it is in the present

No, at present traffic from all ISP's have to be treated equally.

Let's say a city has 2 players:
One ISP has 90% of the market
The other ISP has 10% of the market.

A user on the small ISP wants to download a file from a friend who's on the large ISP.
Why would the large ISP give him any speed at all? the slower he makes it, the less attractive their smaller competitor becomes.
"Better switch to the big ISP like everybody else if you want to share data with each other"

>corporations censor free speech on google,youtube, twitter, facebook etc etc
>Government reigned in on affecting speech via constitution and Federal law

It sounds like there's no "safe" option, but we'd need to see the actual bill on net neutrality, before endorsing or dismissing it.

If the government forms a bill, I'm sure it will be favorable to multinational corporations, like all law, but they cannot endorse or inhibit political or religious, by constitutional law.

What we need to worry about in the immediate is the "toll road" aspect of ads playing in a milisecond of load time, while your ISP or the Zuckold says you shouldn't be able to view pages or sites that espouse ideas that would harm the profit of multinational corporations.

You don't even have to go to the (((Jews))) to see Net Neutrality is a trick.

The language of all proposed legislation contains wording that says "legal content" won't be throttled. Not only does that imply illegal content will be (goodbye torrenting and all "problematic" protocols), it raises the question of how they will know what's illegal and legal. Deep packet inspection is the only answer.

And why the should all packets be equal? How the fuck does streaming video fucking work if traffic peering is made illegal? And how will they even know if the laws aren't being followed? This will just create a space for endless, pointless lawsuits and increased internet regulation and bureaucratic micromanagement.

Net neutrality is just SOPA/PIPA in different form. Ask yourself why our elected officials want so badly to pass laws that we've never needed in the history of the internet to fix a "problem" that doesn't exist BUT TOTALLY MIGHT SOMEDAY, THE POLITICIANS SAID SO. Why do they suddenly care so much?

They don't love you. They're not looking out for you. They're selling you a pretend problem, scaring you with it, and then presenting a "solution" that their MPAA lobbyist buddies helped them create.

>If they break up these huge business that lock away 90% of business then we wouldn't need these laws

That is why not supporting net neutrality is all the more imperative! If we give in, they win. The status quo is kept, and they can continue to count shekels at the expense of continued stagnation and kikery by big ISPs. Nobody talks about breaking these businesses because they don't see a reason for it to. With net neutrality gone, maybe the conversation can actually be made, and we can enjoy more specialized throttled services in a larger market with more free choices, complete with cheaper prices to boot -- they've got to stay competitive now instead of getting guaranteed customer from cornering the market.

>How the fuck does streaming video fucking work if traffic peering is made illegal?

wat?

>And how will they even know if the laws aren't being followed?

Speedtests, duh.

no shit.
this would happen with either Hillary or trump
we can't really do anything because everything is being tracked.
>fucking sheep hurders

>we'd need to see the actual bill on net neutrality, before endorsing or dismissing it.
>If the government forms a bill,

OK Slowpoke.

Obama already passed net neutrality.

This is about Trump undoing it.

Which of the different "you say no? Here's two more!" POOPA bills was that one? I must have missed it during a terrorist attack or other controversy.

>no no see capitalism is good despite the fact that it's corrupted government into serving it and fucking over you, average t. shitposter
>now kill net neutrality and insert 50 extra dollars a month for a package that allows you to access your vietnamese cartoon board

Yes, but with no net neutrality the situation can be interpreted differently, and for the better.

The big ISP can limit connections on the small ISP, but so can the small ISP limit connections with the big one. However, this just causes problems and may be unappealing to customers.

The ISP that throttles for the best connection to the best services that people use them for, would then flourish. Big ISP now focuses on even connections all around as a safe general-use provider, whereas small ISP may be for throttling torrents/gamings/streaming/etc.

They can still communicate with each other and form deals as necessary so that both benefit, with one section of the market specialized to this and one specialized to that, or a general-purpose provider. Either way, cheaper rates all around than trying to be everything at once and forcing everybody to be everything at once.

Inequality is specialization, and that's something they never say or remind people of.

If you don't like the current package, you should be able to move to an alternative provider that does offer you something you like.

Oh wait! Competitors are crippled due an artificial monopoly caused by, you guessed it, laws and regulations that benefit the big ISPs exclusively. More unnecessary laws and regulations does not solve problems caused by poor laws and regulations, especially laws that just sound good but ignores the root cause. The shitty laws must be removed instead, and actually fix what's broken the right and proper away.

Yeah, that's fucking nonsense.

>The big ISP can limit connections on the small ISP, but so can the small ISP limit connections with the big one.

No, that would be suicide.
Because being small, the small ISP's users rely heavily on the data from the big ISP.

Limiting traffic between ISP's effectively cuts the internet in two parts:
One shitty part with 10% of the content.
And a slightly less shitty part with 90% of the content.

Users from both ISP's lose.
But the users from the big ISP lose far less, so they become the more attractive party.

I'd argue that just knowing people and how they use internet, they'll settle for the giants because the giants have repuatation of trustworthy according to normies who don't browse more than facebook.

They will not switch to better alternative and we'll see more globalist jews buying the rights to censor anything conservative and right-wing. And that would be the end for the white civilization.

How so?

If these big ISPs have nothing to fear then, then why insist on net neutrality to begin with?

I've no doubt that there would be a few big ones remaining, and there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, however, is limiting the pool of choice artificially so the big ISP gets all the benefits, good or bad, regardless of how it might perform -- all at the expense of the people that are essentially given no other choice if they wish to have internet.

Without net neutrality, the possibility of smaller ISPs to take advantage of a fault a big ISP might have becomes all the more incentivized, especially as further deregulations allow for the small ISP's development. The element of choice is just there, rather than expecting a single entity to do it all and then if it doesn't deliver, tough luck, there's no other option, just "deal with it". These are real problems with possible solutions, that just get dismissed while people continue to suffer from shitty services if and when it inevitability occurs. These are ISPs we're talking about.

> wat?
Streaming video only works because video packets are given priority over other, less time-sensitive packets. Net neutrality would make that illegal because MUH EQUAL PACKETS.
The ancient, elected mummies we have advocating for this shit obviously don't know how the internet works. We have nothing but proof of that. Why do we want them writing internet regulations into law again?
> Speedtests, duh.
Notoriously unreliable. Not something you want lawsuits to hinge on.
Net neutrality is effectively regulation of the internet. And like all regulation, it will be harder on the small ISPs, which we have too few of in the U.S. as it is. What a great idea!
And all because some tech illiterate spergs are afraid traffic shaping might make him a few milliseconds late to post on his Bavarian knitting forum or go raiding with his guild.

>is not capitalistic at all. Period.
Why would a consumer care about whether or not something is capitalist if it fuck over him.

>Think in the long-term rather than the short.
ISP will limit access to website that don't pay them. Long term effect means webstie I like will dies out.

>. Somehow everybody is just ok with this and want even more government to "fix it" i
There is nothing to "fix". It's ISP who want to change and "fix" what is working well right now.

Well, yeah, but what about MUH EQUALITY? Equality is good, right? Don't you want a gooder, more equal internet?
Fucking retards buying into this shit.

pic related

>But the ISPs have monopolies so therefore the government is the best consumers have to protect them from predation.

>Let's end the current monopoly by handing control over to the world's largest, most powerful monopoly: The US government!

If you want good service, you need an efficient free market.
If you want an efficient free market, you need to get rid of existing monopolies.
If you want to get rid of existing monopolies, you DON'T hand control over to a government who will only further empower the monopoly, you provide legislation that will enable competition in the market place.
"Net Neutrality" is not legislation that will encourage competition.

>Are you saying flat rate pricing which consumers have thusfar demanded is unfair?
There is nothing inherently "fair" or "unfair" about a product's pricing. The ISPs have said that throttling connections won't affect the majority of users since the typical user doesn't draw enough bandwidth for them to justify putting them in a higher price range. They may be lying through their teeth, but if they are, then they'll only be allowing the opportunity for a competitor to break into their markets and take away consumers by offering the flat-rate pricing that the consumers want.

>This gives the cable companies a monopoly for the same reason the phone companies did and power companies do have monopoly power over their customers that must be checked by the government regulating in their interest.

And aren't our government-enforced energy monopolies just fantastic at providing us with cheap, top-of-the-line energy infrastructures to power our old, wired phone companies? Oh, that's right, states across the nation are moving to break up energy monopolies and deregulation of the phone companies paved the way for our modern cellar services.

But I'm sure we would still have smartphones if the government just stayed in charge.

>Don't let the government get their grubby hands on the greatest medium of free speech in existence.
Congratulation, idiot, this is not what Ne Neutrality do.

>Like a lot of things the government does, in principle it sounds good. The internet "should be" equal, but they've gone full affirmative-action tier and are putting these laws to make shitty companies comply so people sleep soundly on their bluepills.
Holly shit, I hop you are a comcast Shill or a troll, because so much stupidity hurt.

Ne Neutrality ensure that all websites get the same bandwidth speed.

There is zero fucking affirmative action in that.

What pic?

>If you want to get rid of existing monopolies, you DON'T hand control over to a government who will only further empower the monopoly
Except this is not what Net Neutrality do. Net Neutrality actually ensure small start up can emerge.
>And aren't our government-enforced energy monopolies just fantastic at providing us with cheap, top-of-the-line energy infrastructures to power our old, wired phone companies?
Irrelevent. So far, Net Neutrality has ensured it a good quality of internet.

these are shit
you literally used
>muh free market
>muh regulations are bad

and FUCKING DATA CAPS

Fuck you Comcast shill

>ISP will limit access to website that don't pay them. Long term effect means webstie I like will dies out.

This means you move to a provider that actually provides a service you enjoy. A single person leaving their service doesn't sound bad, but when tons of people do it because of piss poor service they will suddenly care as it hurts their bottom line. Regardless if whether or not that other website pays them or not, it might just be more productive to keep things open in general to retain customers.

As it is, the option to "move out and switch" if the ISP's fuck up just isn't there in the US. The artificial monopoly is real and people are trapped, whether they know it or not. Net neutrality doesn't address this, it just tells them everything is ok and to continue paying the one ISP that's locked up the market in their local region, for better or worse, nothing to see here, goyim.

>keep the government off our internet!
>By giving control of it to multinational (((corporations)))!
So this... is the power... of Americunt logic.... woah

...

Shill thread. Op is a total faggot

You're streaming video doesn't work at all right now because it is currently illegal

Also the free market is working so well that no small ISPs exist. Hmmm

I did not say it was affirmative action, only hinted that it was an attempt at equality for equality's sake, damning actual practicalities.

All websites get the same bandwidth speed, yes, but that is done by law and is unnecessary. A big ISP can still make bandwidth speeds even all around you know, or a make some things faster and slower. Don't like that particular ISP if it makes what you like slower and what you don't like faster? Change to one that makes what you actually use faster. what you actually want faster. Play it to your strength. This is why choice is important, and the choice just isn't there.

At the same time with more competing ISP's, there would just be cheaper prices as they try to get more people to sign up for them, instead of people flocking to the default big ISP. These default big ISPs force people to submit to whatever the hell prices the can get away with, they've got the market, they've got the law on their side by lobbying, they're unstoppable unless people realize how much they're being jewed.

Who says people are forced to give to multinational corporations?

How am I a shill for seeking less control from them, cheaper prices from competition, and more quality internet in the long-term all at the same time?

fucking dammit
Sup Forums ruins everything for me
i admit, i liked last week tonight at first. i was still a blue pilled normie back then but even now i used to look back at that time and still laugh about the well written humour and great bantz of that show before it got stale because of him constantly talking about trump and the whole election thing, support for hillary and so on. at least i had fond memories of the past
and now i come to Sup Forums and i read this fucking bit of text and it makes so much fucking sense, every fucking word of it. and now i look back at the past and all i see is wasted time...
sincerely, fuck you


>also checked