I know there are currently like 15 threads about this but lets try to have a non troll/bait/shill thread for a moment.
Please let's have a serious debate, use only valid arguments.
"reddit/soros/liberals are in favor of nn" is not a fucking argument per se.
Hide and don't reply to non arguments and ad hominem and shitposts.
At this point I want a barrier of entry so obamaphone fags can't shitpost.
I still don't see any solid agruments against NN.
More competition argument is false, since we are talking about an oligopoly.
We are better being controlled by corps instead of the gov is also false since both things are happen at the same time.
Muh leddit, muh soros, etc
This is all I keep hearing from people who are agains NN
>"reddit/soros/liberals are in favor of nn" is not a fucking argument
it literally is.
Association is not an argument
There is more than one reason someone might be in favor or against it, at the end of the day it is a corporate power struggle.
Whoever benefits, we have to analyze our bottom line, and through which option we'd get less fucked.
Here's an argument, before you blow in the wind
bump
Losing net neutrality is a situation where everyone loses. INCLUDING YOU.
Your glorious bastion of free speech will be deleted after Hiroki refuses to cough up the japan bucks to keep this website from being throttled. Even then an ISP can just decide it doesn't want to allow traffic to a websites normies know for pedophilia, hacking, and "hate speech"
Think about it, if there were some form of global conspiracy that was against right wing media what do you think they would want? An unrestricted media where they have to work tirelessly to sway a small portion of public opinion or a controlled internet where they can pay an ISP to throttle conservative websites and promote globalism. Giving the ability for a jewish cabal to just pay for what the average person is able to view online is the last thing you want.
ISPs have monopolies, there is no competition because they have pre existing arrangements with one another to make sure most places outside of a major city have only one internet provider. If you give them the ability to regulate themselves they will abuse it and sell that control to the highest bidder. Everyone loses when the playing field can be bought and all the costs are going to be passed off to you.
Let them get rid of it, the internet won't be worse of when those retards have to pay extra for doing anything on it.
Internet turned to shit when poor people started spouting shit everywhere.
This. All I ever hear is "the free market will solve it" or "think of the innovation that will somehow solve the problems arising from free corporate control".
They're arguing from ivory-tower libertarian principles like "regulations make corruption" or "corporate corruption can be punished by consumer choices", hoping it will somehow turn out well, but completely disregard that the high cost of new infrastructure means that small competitors are incapable of entering the market.
Google
Facebook
Soros
All want net neutrality
Weev says net neutrality is bad
I’ll go with weev who has done more than anyone else for free speech on the internet
Nephilim, when?
I forgot about all that money I had to pay for Netflix to get uncucked from Verizon!
Oh wait Netflix paid that...
You're on an infamous right wing website during thanksgiving, now is not the time to call each other poor.
Is that all your backing your decision on?
Aayyyyy lamao
Yes Weev...
Netflix has to pay an ISP for fastest speeds then they increase the price of the subscription to netflix.
You ALSO have to pay the ISP to access netflix at the highest speeds.
You know, when different flags start posting the same fucking post, it makes people around you suspicious.
Get a real job
>combating harmful content
Like how Jewgle, Twatter, and Cuckbook censor anyone with wrongthink? Changing to EU laws to combat hate speech?
>some private sites censor and delete the content they don't want
and? what you are proposing is to apply this to the whole Internet? So the ISP(and the gov) will sensor ban or charge more to browse entere websites of their choice?
Google may be a big influence, but isn't your direct middleman regarding information transfers.
You can't compare the two. Google can't block/throttle a website to an unusable state.
I didnt know that an ISP is an all being capable of banning websites and just getting away with it. It creates more competition and leads to cheaper stuff. You think that after NN its going to some dystopia where no one can get good internet. A consumer isnt always a fucking braindead corpse with no control.
Its a monopoly on the internet itself. On search engines, video streaming, etc. Also, what is the Daily Stormer?
...