FCC won't stop repeal no matter what

>arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/

Get fucked NN memer's, your voices don't mean shit

Other urls found in this thread:

newsmax.com/ChristieLeeMcNally/george-soros-free-speech-open-society-foundations-net-neutrality/2017/11/17/id/826873/
cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-2017-repeal-what-it-means/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

fells gud mern

NN kikes got EPIC BTFOd.

So what are the NN kikes going to do now?

Dress in all black and riot in the street. Thats all they understand.

>Ignoring the voters is good

Has your democracy failed?

>democracy

FFS we are a constitutional republic dagnabit!!!
we were never a shit democracy I wish people would stop thinking that we are

Good riddance NNiggers.

We already voted, you don't get a redo.

Honestly, if every corner of Reddit was being astroturfed with misinformation about NN repeal being the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA and somehow causing facebook/youtube/twitter to cost extra, I really wouldn't give a shit about the inevitable angry swarm of uninformed opinions either.

Rare and fresh salt from the caves of Twitter, on the lawn of the White House lawn, no less...
Happy Thanksgiving

Mmmm them tears are sweat

It's a federal republic, my dude

Elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people for their entire term, they aren't supposed to just do whatever they want for 4 years

And we want net neutrality to go away, only ledditniggers disagree.

SOYBOYS ETERNALLY BTFO

haha whites are dying out
i've given 4 blondes my bbc before turning 22

Most polling done on the subject shows huge support for net neutrality from both parties. The fairest thing to do would be to hold a referendum.

That would prove once and for all.

>do you support (thing with nice name)?
>majority says yes

Really joggins my noggin.

>m-muh dik :(

And you have no evidence at all for your support, a poll is better than literally nothing

...

We voted for Donald Trump.

...

...

Is it the dawn of a new brown Era?

...

...

That perfectly lines up with the polling data, you know that right? Only 33% of the country voted for donald trump

That's still lacking majority support from the people

...

...

this one thing could make Trump the least popular president ever

Punished Ajit

>I'm HAPPY to throw away my consumer rights!
The state of this board.

>a literal poo in loo diversity hire doesn't give a shit about "rayciss white bois" and their opinions
gee what a surprise
its nice to know that no matter if you support democrats or republicans, you still support SJW anti-white diversity hires

>t.butthurt NN nigger

its literally jew psyops, they switch around and use other shit to make you divert your beliefs

Good times are ahead

I have no consumer rights under NN's legalized monopolies.

DUDE VOTE TRUMP BUT F*CK THE GOVERNMENT, REPEAL NN COS THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD VOTE TRUMP, BASED COMCAST AND AT&T ARE IN IT FOR MY INTERESTS

G-D BLESS THE FEDERAL RESERVE WHICH IS A PRIVATE ORGANISATION AND FUCK THE GOVERMENT

Capitalism ho!

Enjoy getting throttled out of Sup Forums retards.

newsmax.com/ChristieLeeMcNally/george-soros-free-speech-open-society-foundations-net-neutrality/2017/11/17/id/826873/

You have the right to use your internet for any lawful use that you want. Without NN your ISP can throttle your connection to stop you from reaching sites they don't like even though they are 100% legal.

I read it as the FGC and got confused for a bit.
Sage for off-topic

Didnt we tell you in other threads how you cant meme for fucking shit?

(((Lawful use)))

Well yeah, that's the point. Do you not remember why the Hilldawg memes were so popular on here?

>britbong knowing how American Economics work
fuck off

yeah as long as your internet use doesn't break federal law you're good.

Not an argument.

You are literally handing over the keys to the internet to people that would and fucking have in the past prior to Net Neutrality profited from censoring and regulating the internet.

>be Sup Forumsack
>gobernment calls Sup Forums psyops "russian bot psyops"
>believes gobernment when they pull the "bot" meme when it benifits you
seriously, how do you manage to breathe

The executive branch has been growing for the past 80 years and it basically has more power than congress at this point. FDR is the one to blame.

He dies next year

Good thing that's not how elections work then. It would be awful if all the shitskins and niggers voted to take away the First Amendment.

This board is complete and utter shit pedophile red shirt enablers

How will reddit ever recover?

The difference is that the FCC letter writing campaign was done by Time Warner/HBO's favorite Jewish shill, John Oliver, so this isn't a surprise.

*With* NN, Silicon Valley is allowed to censor the internet and websites like Daily Stormer with impunity. I always suggest in these threads that we could have NN if we banned the pro-NN corporations from censorship as a condition for ISPs not being allowed to throttle them, but NNiggers don't agree to it because "they're private platforms" and "y-you can use a different website", which is ironic considering NN shills are the same people who use "ancaps" as an insult.

I swear the porn producing jews are the ones carpet bombing for NN

The terms of service for facebook, twitter, or whatever other site, has nothing to do with NN. If you think there should be legislation for that, it would be a different issue. This is more about consumer's rights than a free speech issue. It makes little sense to conflate the two.

Yeah, with all this shilling I knew something suspicious was going on. Especially a COMMUNIST like obama creating a bill ensuring freedom. GUESS AGAIN NIGGERS, it just made keeping the internet neutral both unrealistic and legally unenforcible.

TRUST KING NIGGER AND HIS COMMIE GANG TO ALWAYS LIE TO YOU

cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-2017-repeal-what-it-means/

Why in the fuck would Democraps vote AGAINST T the repeal if they weren't gaining massive power with it!

>*With* NN, Silicon Valley is allowed to censor the internet and websites like Daily Stormer with impunity.
really? how?
i'm really curious how you think ISP control over bandwidth speeds affects this issue in any way, shape, or form
i'm also curious why you support a literal shitskin but also support the daily stormer

You do realise that AT&T and Comcast prior to Net Neutrality both throttled sites that threatened their market share right?

Could be right. Oh fuck I never considered the effect this will have on porn. Thank god those dirty smut peddlers won't be able to spread their vile opium on the masses
World was becoming weimar germany

>google supports NN
>facebook supports NN
>soros supports NN
>reddit supports NN

really makes you think....

>your voices don't mean shit

And yours does? LOLOLOLOL

They were going to do this with or without you. Comcast is going to make a killing and they own the internet. Get used to it faggot.

>i-i-it's unrelated

This is literally just a copout. And it is related because all NN does is give the companies committing censorship a right to free bandwidth.

It's literally a backdoor around the First Amendment.

Correct.

See above.

okay but donald won
I dont think you understand how america works bud

Then I won't use the internet anymore, we spend way too much time on it anyway

daily stormer got fucked by king nigger obama giving away control to UN + virtue signalling domain hosts that did illegal shit

NN is totally different its just kike websites not wanting to pay more for bandwidth

proofs?

>Millions of niggers, libtards, and boomers are forced off social media because they're too cheap/poor for "social" internet packages
>Kike shills will have to pay for their own shilling
>(((Netflix))) gets fucked royally

And nothing of value was lost.

>prior to Net Neutrality
So NN stopped them from doing it again? Nice, sounds like it protected consumers like it's meant to.
>This is literally just a copout.
You trying to imply that NN has anything to do with that is what is a copout. It's literally a classic shill distraction argument. How much is Ajit paying you?

>And it is related because all NN does is give the companies committing censorship a right to free bandwidth.
but ISPs don't care about the bandwidth use of google, or twitter, or kikebook, and especially not any leftist news sites, because they don't use that much bandwidth
all they care about is stuff like jewtube and netflix
also, you didn't answer my question: why are you supporting a literal shitskin?

You positively reek of Reddit, newfriend.

^^^this DESU

the internet has controlled and ruined our lives

>NN is totally different its just kike websites not wanting to pay more for bandwidth

It's more than that, it's about google & facebook & soros having monopoly over the internet and controlling the narrative and pushing what people should see and believe in


Right now Google and Facebook basically decide what the public narative is and there is no controlling body over them. Together they control some 90% of the entire information that is conssumend on the web

Jesus fuck your contrarian logic is cringy as fuck.

Seriously, 9 out of 10 of the people on this board need to drink cyanide.

Remember when data caps weren't everywhere?

>(((Netflix)))
i'm not sure i get this meme
what on earth is kike about netflix

>what on earth is kike about netflix

That's because I'm right

you know posting some random cartoon image doesn't answer my question, right
are you genuinely autistic? serious question. do you not know how to formulate an actual response to a question?

...

right about being a retard. Sure lad.

>i-its just different

Not an argument. See I don't see why "we won't support net neutrality until it regulates Silicon Valley too" is a bad position to hold.

Again, I don't see why it's unreasonable for me to expect the pro-NN companies to have to make concessions in exchange for not being throttled. You going "that's not what NN means!" is just a copout. If that's not what NN means then I don't support it because it's utter cancer.

Then why do they lobby so hard in favor of net neutrality?

Also, I don't care that Ajit Pai is Indian because I'm not a racist Democrat.

Come'on user we both know it's better for our health for the companies to hyke up prices

Well, it was fun memeing with you lads. Sup Forums is ded in a year tops.

See you in one year

This legislation covers ISPs. Silicon Valley isn't an ISP.
It's like whining that the Clean Water Act only covers water.

Democracy is a false god, Wong.

are you okay dude? you seem to genuinely lack basic functioning social skills, like the ability to actually answer a question. you're just throwing random images at me like someone who is genuinely autistic would try to communicate.
>Then why do they lobby so hard in favor of net neutrality?
well, google owns youtube, and i would not be surprised if zucker(((berg))) wanted to open some sort of high bandwidth streaming site in the future
regardless, whether net neutrality exists or not has exactly zero effect on them censoring, and in fact it's only likely they'll censor more and gain more market share because with all the sorosbux they can afford to pay extra to ISPs while right wing sites can't
>Also, I don't care that Ajit Pai is Indian because I'm not a racist
then what the fuck are you doing here, you anti-white cuck? fuck off

Still a copout.

Fuck net neutrality. ISPs are literally just a bogeyman.

you already exposed yourself as an anti white cuck dude, nothing you say means anything
feel free to fuck off back to plebbit

>This is more about consumer's rights than a free speech issue

The pro-NN crowd is arguing that data should be treated equally. To do that would require being pro-free speech as part of allowing data to be treated equally is allowing data involving transferring speech that is undesirable versus the desirable.

Otherwise how is it treating data equally to be treated it differently because some corporations decide they want to?

>not randomly hating people due to skin color makes you an anti white

Exactly. Eloquently stated, user.

...

>Still a copout.
Just because you can't come up with an argument against it, doesn't mean it's a copout. Sorry.

What's the general concern over an NN repeal? Why do people care?

>Otherwise how is it treating data equally to be treated it differently because some corporations decide they want to?
I can't even tell what you mean by this last sentence, is english your first language?

People generally don't like it when they lose consumer rights.