The revived Net Neutrality controversy is contrived to attack Trump in a way media outlets know is effective

The revived Net Neutrality controversy is contrived to attack Trump in a way media outlets know is effective

>Russia narrative flops
>support for Trump hasn't budged
>he hasn't done anything egregious, despite blowing up minor decisions to appeal terrible
>so Net Neutrality was honed in on again
>something that has been proven to be controversial and cause immense public involvement

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a/Russian-American-lobbyist-says-he-was-in-Trump-son's-meeting
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The problem with this

>it's very effective: normalfag drones who use nothing but Facebook and Reddit hate the thought of net neutrality being abolished (which they barely understand)
>it's disingenuous: companies who attempted to throttle or restrict access to sites/data/whatever were deemed criminal BEFORE net neutrality existed as a law
>it's a power play: they know full well republicans, especially trump-licans, will not actually do anything if the government has more control over the internet via net neutrality, but if the democrats get in...
>it's easy to pin on Trump: net neutrality has been something that has been threatened to be abolished every year since 2015, yet nobody remembers because people (especially the internet) has a short memory so it's associated with Trump rather than Obama
>it's supported by Zuckerberg and many people who cooperate with the government to get what they want; made doubly bad because nobody (but them) can read the bill for net neutrality

This
>SOPA and TPP were Obama's pet projects
>Websites are almost virtually silent
>Net neutrality bullshit arises
>Twitch, Twitter and Jewbook join forces to inform everyone about it.
Something is odd.

So what the fuck do you do?

>realistically there is nothing you can do, as both sides have the potential to fuck you
>ISPs have tried but it was found criminal, the government has not tried yet and isn't going to put itself on trial
>emphasize the REAL big issue is territorial monopolies and the difficulty of startup competing ISPs (something net neutrality USED TO discuss but it mysteriously vanished from future drafts...)
>emphasize it's going to be pinned in Trump to try and lower support for him

tl;dr = Democrats want you to get riled up and angry at Trump using something they know you (especially Sup Forums) gets angry and riled up at, all while preparing to neuter the internet with government regulation and remove power from ISPs (who can be called out when they fuck up.)

That's long for a tl;dr... but you get what I mean

wtf i hate being able to access Sup Forums now

>Support hasn't budged
If anything it has strengthened it. Although if he keeps appeasing the neocon shills for attacks in Syria he could start seeing a shake again.

>thinking companies will block or throttle a controversial yet highly popular site, allowing customers to flock to other branches of the monopoly

>Sup Forums will ignore this

that's already the case dumbfuck. Sup Forums is banned on most public wifi (airports, restaurants etc).

No it's not. You can browse it, but floods of users have ensured it is banned in most airports. For example you can use Sup Forums on a plane wifi very easily but it will likely be banned because of some other idiot user (and slow because it's plane wifi.)

There was a massive web campaign against SOPA. I don't think net neutrality was ever a big issue with TPP. TISA is a different matter. I feel like you're trying way too hard to make a connection between net neutrality and Trump.

>Net Neutrality a thing long before Trump was even a glimmer in Steve Bannon's eye
>Trump stacks the FCC with anti Net Neutrality fags
>contrived
And the award for biggest faggot of the day goes to... OP!

...

>no source

>There was a massive web campaign against SOPA.
That's funny, I don't remember any websites getting involved, just a bunch of users.

>There was a massive web campaign against SOPA

There were some articles, not full blown Reddit and Facebook warnings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

This site has an amazing ability to turn bipartisan issues into character assassination of Trump. I don't even see what you're talking about when it comes to the coverage. No media outlet I've seen has connected the Internet Freedom Restoration Act to Trump in any way.

>Russia narrative flops

You aren't so delusional to believe this are you? Even if you personally think Trump colluding with Russians is not a big deal, this week it clearly went from the speculative to the actual.

>Trump's son met with someone who said had information about hillary and took nothing
>said informant was a Russian citizen with no connections to Russian government who worked with democrats and was openly anti-Trump in social media
Wowzer

>Trump's son met with someone who said had information about hillary and took nothing
Besides the fact that the meeting itself is a problem--regardless of what information he actually got--Trump Jr. has no credibility whatsoever, so taking his account as true is laughable. And it's now being reported that they DID hand over documents:

"Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democrats, Akhmetshin said. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said."

apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a/Russian-American-lobbyist-says-he-was-in-Trump-son's-meeting

>said informant was a Russian citizen with no connections to Russian
Are you dense? She is a lawyer for a Russian oligarch lobbying to remove sanctions on Russian officials. And there were 3 other Russian people with her, including a "former" Soviet spy and a rep from the Oligarch family who set up the meeting.

I"M THE SOURCE. It's a screencap I took while on a local restaurant's wifi. Are you niggers that dumb that you don't realize public wifis don't ban websites?

Thank u user