This man is after the Internet as we know it. His name is Ajit Pai and he is the FCC chairman...

This man is after the Internet as we know it. His name is Ajit Pai and he is the FCC chairman. He is trying to destroy Net Neutrality. If he gets his way, we will only be able to visit "Websites Approved by Xfinity".

WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS DOX HIM. FIND HIS PERSONAL INFORMATION AND POST IT HERE AS WELL AS ON OTHER WEBSITES.

Other urls found in this thread:

pbs.org/newshour/bb/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If Trump believes that getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing, then i'm 100% for getting rid of it.

He says on a site that depends on NN to survive.

Shut up retard

you are such a fucking shill kike

Everyday I ask "should they get rid of sites like Sup Forums"
Deep down I know they should.
What would I do with my life afterwards? I have no clue.

>I let other people form my opinions for me

>Ajit Pai
POO

Fuck off shariablue shills, we need to get rid of it to help open up a competitive market for the ISP's. Also it was Obama's introduced it so you just know it's bad.

MUNICIPAL
BROADBAND

I think they should, it would give all the larpers here a reason to actually get shit done rather than act mightier than thou on an anonymous imageboard

Kill yourself faggot shill
Net Neutrality give control of the internet to the FCC it is the OPPOSITE of a free internet you lying cunt

>we need to get rid of it to help open up a competitive market for the ISP's


Wrong.

AT&T begged poor when the NN rules were introduced but have since invested greatly in infrastructure build-out.

>it was Obama's introduced it so you just know it's bad.

Wrong.
NN has been the foundation of how the Internet works for years, the ISPs started to break those gentlemen's agreements and so Tom Wheeler's hand was forced in reference to keeping them from fucking over consumers.


Really, go peddle your bullshit to someone who doesn't know the facts of the situation.

If the OP actually used the internet in the 90s/early 2000s before Scroogle and Kikebook he'd remember we had more freedom and privacy then.

imagine being this retarded? how do you browse here and still end up that dumb.

When literally all of his opposition can only insult him and not his argument. That is how you can tell the argument is on to something.

>literally all of his opposition can only insult him and not his argument

Apparently, I didn't just post:

>But Muh based Poos
>But Muh based Sikhs

Sooner or later all non whites show their true colors.

Also this.

Ever wonder how (((they))) are going to prevent another Trump election? This is how.
>title II restrictions that will make phone tapping look constitutional

I wanna say you're wrong, and call you a cuckfag or some other derogatory name, but I can't.
In essence Sup Forums is toxic, but has also done some great things over the past.
But, if you scour the entirety of Chan, it's a degenerate pool of fecal matter being stirred by a strong stream of horse piss.
We need to be protected from ourselves at a certain point, and I think we are close to that watershed moment.

Net Neutrality is fucking stupid and so are you

Maybe get the facts straight, and then come back and post.
>1995 FCC ruling
Actual net neutrality. Set down the ideas that allowed the internet to become what it is today
>2015 fcc ruling
Want a to switch ISPs to title II, which allows all kinds of government fuckery like phone tapping, power usage monitoring (typically looking for weed growops), and much worse.

Trumps poo in loo wants to abide by the 1995 ruling, and NOT the 2015 ruling. 2015 ruling was one of Obama's creations.

Friendly reminder that the CEO of comcast is a Jew and is lobbying for the removal of NN.

>competitive market for the ISP's
do you want the number of another company..? oh jeez we're the only one in town, i guess you have to live with capped speed and limited availability for most websites unless you pay more for another package..

>a shit pie

>fear mongering: the post
When was the last time a movement that relied on fear mongering was a good idea?

Fucking retard.

We shouldn't pursue net neutrality through the FCC. That way leads to the same thing you guys are trying to prevent.

What they should do is pass a law through Congress mandating how websites must be treated equally on this side of the ISPs.

Obama was also less friendly towards (((Israel))). Is that bad?

The 1996 Telecom act solidified the responsibility of the major ISPs to treat all internet traffic fairly and build-out their network. They have barely held up the second part of the bargain and were actively disobeying the first part with their actions of throttling or blocking types of traffic they didn't like.

This is not in even the same timezone as what net neutrality stands for.

>Want a to switch ISPs to title II
They were and are currently under this classification

>which allows all kinds of government fuckery like phone tapping, power usage monitoring (typically looking for weed growops), and much worse.

Title 2 has been in effect since 2015 and literally, none of your bullshit boogeymen have materialized.


Your argument boils down to:

"Eww, my tap-water came out brown today...LET'S SMASH ALL GOVERNMENT CLEAN WATER REGULATIONS NOW! THIS IS NOT WHAT I SUPPORTED WHEN I ASKED FOR CLEAN WATER!"

It is either a stupid or dishonest argument and no-one with a brain is convinced.

Anyone who supports net neutrality is either a leftist retard, a shill or a sap who fell for the scam.
Kill yourselves. It's great that net neutrality is going away and there is nothing you can do about it.

Every fascist racist and communist movement used fear mongering.
All of them eventually succeed and take control.

Doxing is a rule violation and OP literally can't stop sucking dicks

>implying this wouldn't be the exact situation for many consumers effected by this fuckin policy

Get your head out of your fucking ass you kike

>Obama was also less friendly towards the only democracy in the middle east
Yes it was, he was helping Iran.

Like moths to a flame. All you fucks seem only capable of insults and no rational discussion.
>giving gross power to the government is ok because they haven't fucked us with it yet
Show flag. You sound like a typical euro cuck who unironically trust their government.
Title 2 gives mass control to the government, exactly what Obama wanted. It is not Net Neutrality, it is a farce.

And then they perished in a pile of flames because fear mongering does not build lasting confidence.

TIME FOR THE POO TO DIE

Honestly both options are awful especially if shit like google and kikebook are for NN but I guess its the lesser of two evils

Jesus Christ you partisan fucks are dumb.
>I literally don't think for myself and let daddy Trump do my thinking for me
>Gets mad because people call him out on it

>more ad hominem
Not an argument

They are never destroyed as long as the fear exists.

Wait until after we know the internet is destroyed for sure before you do anything like that. It could just piss him off and lead him to destroy it out of spite.
Can't make a counter argument when you haven't made an argument to counter in the first place.

>Ajit Pai
A Paijit

Research the 1995 ruling vs the 2015 ruling. 2015 ruling curtails the ability of the ISPs to control their own business, which is a direct benefit to Google and friends, as they want to prevent the ISPs moving into the data market at all cost.
ISPs cannot legally enter the data market if they are classified as title 2, thus being a direct help to Google's bottom line.
Fear doesn't last. All men grow old, and all men must die. The fear only last based on the strength of the man who starts it. One slip up and the entire control is up in flames.

...

>commie can't read
Surprise!

if ISP's aren't required to give me the entire internet at 1 rate, then I'm not required to pay them anything

Your "argument":
>hurr durr quit insulting him for saying something moronic

WTF, I hate Net Neutrality now

>trusting a poo
>ever

No, my argument is clearly written here
>Title 2 gives mass control to the government, exactly what Obama wanted. It is not Net Neutrality, it is a farce.
Like I said, typically commie education can't into debates.

>>giving gross power to the government

The power was specifically suggested by the judiciary in response to the nefarious acts of Verizon in 2014, if Congress will not codify such things into law then it stands as literally our only defense against greedy ISPs. You can pretend you are for net neutrality all you want but literally, no-one who stands for such things would rather have the ISPs running wild instead of the government oversight we have now. Well, no one who is not a dishonest shill.

>Research the 1995 ruling vs the 2015 ruling. 2015 ruling curtails the ability of the ISPs to control their own business,

>The 1996 Telecom act didn't happen and the ISPs did not take massive tax breaks to not do what they were doing in 2014.

Cool. Guess history is a cherry tree from which you can pick.

How about this. The ISPs pay every dime of the tax money they did not have to pay since 96' so that they are not beholden to it.

The fuck. How did Sup Forums exist for over a decade before NN?

Than you should have addressed it towards me instead of the other user you retarded faggot. And no, there is no "mass control". It literally only states that ISP's can't limit the amount of packets you send and receive from certain websites. i.e. they can't pick and choose which websites will run fast and which websites will run slow, allowing them to censor the internet and essentially turn it into something similar to cable TV.

NN was a doctrine that all parties obeyed voluntarily so as not to fuck eachother over.
The ISPs got big enough that they could fuck with the doctrine but face no real consequences. The FCC changed their classification and codified the gentlemen's agreements of NN into hard-rules to stop the ISPs, who have stopped much of their shitty behaviours since 2015 when this happened.

>the government suggests to the government to take all power because a company broke the rules
Like I said, you are probably a euro who has total trust in government for some ignorant reason.
I would rather not trade one small pain for one giant pain. Anyone who thinks the US Government can do better than US private business is retarded and probably a communist.

Want to know the only government entity that does a good job? The post office.
Want to know what the government did to them? They are now required to prepay the entire pensions of all prospective employees, 50 years ahead of time. Right along the same time internet shopping started getting big.

So now our post office is understaffed because of the pension bullshit, can't hire more full time labor, and has a substantially increased load to deal with.

Thanks Obama!
>retards want this type of administration in charge of the internet

Appointing based Ajit to the FCC in 2012 was Obama's greatest accomplishment. He has restored liberty to the internet and given it back to the people.

Taxes forgiven are not taxes owed. Just because they got a tax write off does not mean they are slaves to the government and the people.
Stupid fucking communist, go learn the tax laws.

>it is your fault I pick fights without reading the entire post
Fuck off

>muh ISP boogieman
Convienently forgetting how rich and powerful the silicon valley companies have gotten, i see.
You are trying to kill one corporation to defend the profits of another.

The 96' Act specifically says that in agreeing to the tax breaks you have to build out your network and serve all connections fairly and equally. It's fine if ISPs want to do whatever the fuck they want with their networks, right after they pay back the money they saved for not being such cunts about it.


>Like I said, you are probably a euro who has total trust in government for some ignorant reason.

So I should trust the giant ISPs that were actively fucking over the US Tax-payer and their customer in 2014 instead of the regulation that stopped them?

Are you going to advocate handing your life over to kidnappers instead of trusting cops as well?

>Using an entirely different department that has its own issues to justify dismantling the FCC's rules that protect the very site he is shitposting about it on.

Cool. Since you want to LARP so bad: How about you LARP a world where NN rules and Title 2 are not a thing and fuck off Sup Forums with your lies and half-truths and awful analogies that break down under any scrutiny.

I gave a speech on this brown piece of shit. A former Verizon lawyer currently acting as the head of the FCC. No other FCC chair has had such major ties with a for-profit US communications provider.

The corruption is literally on the FCC's about page.

You are purposely picking and choosing what points to get.

The point of the post office example is that the government cannot be trusted to NOT touch things it has control of. This leads problems and corruption.

There are better ways to deal with the ISPs than sell out the entire internet to government control and intervention. Fuck off with your statist propaganda, any American worth their shit understands how and why the government is the last resort in ALL cases.
You think the ISPs are bad now? Wait until they are government bodies who are above the law. This is what you are fighting for, retard.

>I gave a speech
wtf I hate Ajit Pai now

Wasn't he even one of the lawyers that helped ISP's worm out of punishment when they did get caught fucking with shit?
Just another fucking sociopath trying to get his masters a big paycheck.

Why would a read a part of a post not addressed to me. Newsflash, your opinion isn't that important to me fag.

The unironic Reddit comments in every NN thread do not help your "movement" to take root here. In fact, i would say that is why you are having such issues getting Sup Forums on board with muh internet activism.

please take 5minutes and read ALL of it, he brings up some good points.
FCC chair Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap net neutrality

pbs.org/newshour/bb/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality/

>your opinion isn't that important to me
>still gives me (you)s
So tsundere, user-chan.

>before NN
NN has been the standard, it is only threatened now that ISPs have gotten fuckhuge.

>>muh ISP boogieman

Yeah, that is not how the term "boogeyman" works. They were actively screwing their customers in several markets blocking VOIP, encryption, and other forms of traffic.

Thanks for trying to use my words against me but falling on your dishonest little face you hack.


>The point of the post office example is that the government cannot be trusted to NOT touch things it has control of.
>le AnCap Meme

Buddy, if you honestly think no government move has ever benefited the citizenry of the US then you need to move to Somalia yesterday.


>There are better ways to deal with the ISPs than sell out the entire internet to government control and intervention.

As Congress has shown no interest in making NN the rule of the land and there is no push to bust up the ISPs by way of anti-trust when and how are these materializing while you destroy the FCC's regs?

>any American worth their shit understands how and why the government is the last resort in ALL cases.

That is literally what happened in 2014 in Verizon V. FCC

>You think the ISPs are bad now? Wait until they are government bodies who are above the law. This is what you are fighting for, retard.

Again: The NN rules and Title 2 have been in place since 2015. Waiting for you to name a single abuse of them.

>pbs.org/newshour/bb/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality/
>muh if we help the big companies get richer then it helps the small businesses
>WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES!!!???
Literally just every fucking conservative argument, ever.

ISPs have been huge since the 90s, lad. Go read the 2015 FCC ruling if you are truly at lost for why this is suddenly an issue.

go the fuck back to raddit

>Net Neutrality happens
>Corporations lobby to censor "hate speech"

Sup Forums has been staunchly pro-NN since its inception. It is only now that paid shills and idiots are flooding the zone with their bullshit revisionism.

>forcing government intervention is good for small business

Thank you for your input, Kushner.

This.
>Obama wants it
>Trump doesn't
>Reddit wants it
>Liberals and leftists want it

Pretty clear choice to me.

>Title 2 has been in effect since 2015 and literally, none of your bullshit boogeymen have materialized

What color is the sky in the world you live?

>deregulation is good for small business
Le trickle down; the meme.

NN has been in place since 1995.
Title 2 has been in place since 2015.

Pajeet wants to remove the 2015 ruling to go back in line with the 1995 ruling, ie:
>stop the government from having literal control over the ISP business
The government has no right to force such classification on an information highway, effectly exempting the internet from first amendment protections. This is the goal of the 2015 ruling.
Keep trying to misrepresent the problem, and we will continue to correct it. You can't flip the script this time, DNC.
Your plans for internet control are not going to happen anytime soon.

This
What fucking fantasy land are you from?

If you trust the American government in this day and age you're beyond retarded.

>Xfinity

Dudes, I swear my ISP has been ddos'ing my modem so I'm forced to switch to that fucking garbage

Another burger doesn't even read the thread!
also, you know right that trump isn't jesus but a guy like you and me and he can be wrong about things he does not understand/specialize in?

>he doesn't understand how big businesses use regulations to prevent competition from gaining ground in said industry
Typical of a Democrat to not see the corruption before their eyes. It is like you don't know how the ISPs got so big in the first place.

If (((pornhub))) is for it, I'm against it. Besides, we didn't have this as an actual rule until a couple years ago.