Has /ourguy/ fallen for the neutrality jew?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
mobile.twitter.com
attpublicpolicy
twitter.com
>/ourguy/
>Race mixer
>Our guy
..........................................................................
>being against Net Neutrality just because Reddit is for it
This spastic was never /ourguy/
Stop promoting this dickhead
he was pretty based, made fun of a lot of the NN spergs while being unoffensive to not kill his kiddie fanbase
said "i love paying extra so i can get a better position, i dont have to stand in line with all the weirdos"
>within a year Sup Forums will be completely American free
>retarded Americans actually celebrate this
>all thanks to some pajeet
Lol.
newfags
? You act like that was even 3 years ago.
NN is just Communism for the Internet
I still haven't seen anyone come up with an actual argument for why net neutrality is bad.
your shit isnt working keeeeed
Don't listen to the Jew.
ISPs have an economic incentive to make internet the most desirable product possible, which means they have an incentive to allow the most content possible. The only thing that could happen is them forcing streaming services to pay (not you, the companies) for their higher usage.
>B-b-b-ut there are Jews against NN too!
Jews own everything, so there are always a jew on the wrong side. The thing is: why are they there? In this case, the Jews against NN are only doing it because they have a high economic interest in the matter. Meanwhile, the ones for NN have no particular economical interest in either result, which means that they're doing it for other reasons, political ones - and those are far more dangerous than a few more shekels in pockets full of them.
>Muh ISPs ending Sup Forums
On one hand you have a government and several lobbyists who would love to see this website, and others like it, going down. On the other one, you have companies that do not care about our existence because we're paying a lot and cause almost no problem for them (or you really think that a bunch of reaction pics can compete against Netflix?).
>Muh internetz should be free
The content should, indeed, be free. So what do you prefer: a company with no interest on what you're posting, or a government highly interested in it?
>Muh big cartels
If you want to end the oligopoly on ISPs, you need to reduce regulation and open the market, not set up even more barriers.
>Muh those times it happened
You have 7 or 8 times where a company tried to over reach and failed, just that. It's nothing to be alarmed about. In fact, it's easier to fight a company than a government and their appointed officials.
>Muh pic of internet peckages
All fake and others are cellphone data plan
Comcast CEO = Jew
all other ISPs are controlled by Jews
FCC pajeet used to work for verizon...
who is falling for the jew trap user?
You're a fucking moron, m8.
Holy fuck you faggots can't even think for yourself. Your decision is literally whether or not a jew is involved. And if there are multiple jews you pull some weird ass mental gymnastics to decide which jew is more of a jew. How about actually looking into it and deciding for yourself?
you dropped this
>who is falling for the jew trap user?
Everyone. It's the usual jewish tactic of divide and conquer. Now people will rally behind website corporations because they're suddenly now for "free speech" and "equal internet" even though that couldn't be any farther from the truth. Whoever loses, jews win.
>How about actually looking into it and deciding for yourself?
That is what I am doing dumbass. You just disagree with my method. Tough shit.
What did we do before it was implemented by Obama? And they always forget Obama was the one that gave up control of ICANN
Let them do it.
We'll be able to share memes laughing at deluded ancaps and will be able to share amerimutt memes without amerimutts autisticly screeching at us.
He deleted it
video deleted
Your entire argument is that we should be giving ISPs more slack with which to vacuum money out of consumers and content providers. Literally no upside to this at all user, your logic as to why its bad is twisted and stupid "uhhhh more jews want it than not so it must be bad".
Prices for service packages will not go down without net neutrality. Even if they DON'T GO UP, content providers will simply pass along the cost of being extorted by ISPs.
"net neutrality" is a government "solution" to a government created problem. you guys are too retarded to get that though.
Did someone saved the fucking video?
I'm kind of curious...
what I find funny is that America already has the bullshit data cap limits for domestic internet service. and they want to fuck themselves even more.
Since no one would want restricted internet in the west and people would be willing to pay for the existing product over any cut down version i don't believe this whole pro NN campaign has anything to do with the west. I think it's so developing countries don't end up with a sort of state media version of the internet which would make it harder for any more Soros style media supported revolutions.
Why does everyone have it backwards? Net neutrality means the government is MORE involved with our internet THEYRE regulating it. Getting rid of net neutrality will not affect consumers hardly at all. Companies who mess with certain site connections will be found out for it and the backlash will force them to stop with it.
Before 2015 there was no net neutrality at all. The world wasnt ending. All net neutrality is is about money. Why cant people do real research?
Net neutrality benefits ISPs who dont have a streaming service. No net neutrality benefits ISPs with streaming services. Its really that simple and is about money.
Us consumers will not be affected. There will be no “porn package” or “gaming package” that we have to buy nobody even understands that. Net neutrality is not a big deal.
If net neutrality stays woo hoo good for me if it goes? Eh, who gives a shit desu? It means the government is more out of our lives.
You guys need to decide if youd rather have the government spying on us more and regulating the traffic of the internet or if youd rather a few ISPs ever so slightly change the bandwidth of a site like netflix which they will then lose customers for.
>Why does everyone have it backwards?
NN doesn't regulate the internet, it regulates ISPs
Fuck off WSJ
>means the government is MORE involved.
Not literally every regulation is bad.
Net neutrality doesn't mean the government is monitoring or censoring the internet more its just a rule that ISPs can't selectively throttle content from different sources.
If you don't even believe there will be a consumer effect either way then why do you oppose keeping NN. I happen to enjoy Hulu and Netflix and fucking hate Comcast so which way do you expect me to flop here even if I accept everything you've said. Why the fuck would I want my ISP to be prioritizing its own traffic over the content I actually want.
seconding this. I haven't seen the video
when you forget not everyone will understand pol memes
The problem is the result of state enforced monopolies and the proposed (((solution))) is more government regulation and control over the internet instead of breaking up ISP monopolies, deregulating, stopping municipality contracts and finding a way to introduce competition.
NN’s existence would be pointless if consumers could just switch providers if their service provider decided to start paywalling or throttling other services. But they can’t because they often only have a single choice. NN doesn’t stop comcast from raping you in the ass, it doesn’t care about the existence of these monopolies. It’s only about making sure ISPs don’t also start fucking with google or netflix. You’re still getting fucked with exorbitantly high prices regardless.
is this the reason he deleted it?
>he thinks the government actually cares about your ability to watch netflix
He tweeted that he got some things wrong or something and didn't want to spread misinformation.
>U THINK DU GUBMINT CARES???
Do you have some sort of learning disability, user?
Do you think I personally give a shit about Comcasts ability to do anything? Why should I give them more control over the data I buy from them. Fuck them.
Literally the only thing that a repeal of NN will accomplish is allow them to decide how to throttle my data by source in order to make more money for themselves. That's the entire point. I feel like you're purposefully over-complicating this to distract from that.
Net Neutrality wasn't needed before 2015 because it was covered by a 1995 ruling.
When thst rulibg was repealed, because Comcast sued Obamas FCC and argued that the internet didn't fall under FCC protection, Obama reclassified the internet so that it WAS a public utility that ISPs couldn't control.
Stop spreading this meme "hurrrrr we only had EN EN fer two weeks!" No, we had it since 1995. NN was just a move to keep those protections in place.
Thats not a reason why NN is bad, user. Thats MAYBE a reason why NN doesn't matter very much in general, but you're still minimizing the positives of NN instead of providing negatives.
His business is content production. Most content producers will be "for" net neutrality, the same as most elderly will be for medicare and SS.
if he was /ourgoy/ he would've called out the media as bs hate mongering anti white cocksuckers like they are, instead he buckled down under preassure, he's easily rich enough to give a middlefinger to anyone that meddles with him.
When he was going on about not wanting the gubment in control, I was half expecting him to end with "Oh wait, this regulation actually gives more control to the government"
Have you even read what the bill says? Jew lawyers don’t care about what the public thinks it does. they care about what it actually says
Use the link but change YouTube to hook tube.
Isn't his gf white?
>5'9 manlet
>/ourguy/
Depends on you Sup Forums autistic meter i guess.
Net Neutrality means you pay more for internet service.
No Net Neutrality means you pay more for Netflix.
If the ISPs have to provide the same level of service to those who use a shitton of bandwidth as they do to those who use very little, then they either have to improve lines, and pass the costs of those upgrades on to you, the consumer or offer slower service for everyone on the consumer side so that the existing infrastructure can handle the load.
If they, instead, put in special lanes (fast-lane is a misnomer) for the high-bandwidth services, for which they charge a higher fee, then companies like Google and Netflix have to either deal with slower speeds or pony up the additional funds.
No he's against net neutrality? I mean did you watch the vid?
As someone who is 5'9 I am unironically thankful for every inch of height that I possess
This site was runned way before net neutrality became a thing lol
Good goy, just pay an extra 50 dollars/month to access all the websites you like. Sup Forums? Sorry goy, no hate speech allowed on our internet!
Reminder that the 2015 "Net Neutrality" provisions don't actually prevent ISPs from creating tiered internet services based on which websites you want to go to IF they openly advertise such practices.
attpublicpolicy .com/consumer-broadband/the-surprising-to-me-narrowness-of-the-d-c-circuits-title-ii-decision/
>According to the concurrence, which was written by Judges Sri Srinivasan and David S. Tatel (the same judges who wrote theunderlying decisionbtw), “the net neutrality rule applies only to ‘those broadband providers who hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits’ to any content of a subscriber’s own choosing,” (quoting the underlying decision). The concurrence goes on to say, “the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway – i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of editorial discretion.”
>I was surprised by this, though I should not have been since the FCC’s own lawyer implicitly conceded this point during oral argument. And even supporters of Title IInow appear to agreethat the scope of Title II is limited to ISPs not offering a “curated experience.” However, in the past, supporters of Title II often alleged that without reclassification, ISPs would be free to block unpopular opinions or viewpoints that they disagreed with. In the understanding of the D.C. Circuit panel majority, it seems that the Title II order does not touch such practices as long as an ISP clearly discloses its blocking plans to customers
It wasn't implemented by Obama, you dunce.
If anything, that’s more of an argument for actually enforcing NN instead of getting rid of it. Break up the fucking monopolies, it doesn’t matter if I know comcast is fucking up the internet if my only choices are no internet and Comcast.
>Not literally every regulation is bad.
wrong
Feels good tbqh
Are you mad because your women love our cannelloni?
Except NN makes the situation worse as far as monoplies go, because now there is greater barrier to entry due to the regulatory burden added on by the 2015 OIO on top of greater standard if infastructure to meet those regulations that only the established ISP companies who have the capital can meet . And now the regulation you all championing doesn't even prevent the thing you were all screaming about.
You demand that the monoplies be broken up; well that is what the FTC is for, and now they can do shit precisely because of the 2015 OIO. The FCC doesn't do that, they are there to regulate content and again, this "Net Neutrality" doesn't solve shit. Every single thing you claim needs to be solved, the Net Neutrality 2015 provisions do the complete opposite of that.
Derp lord, would you rather everyone pay higher internet fees or only those who subscribe to pay services?
Where did I say the ISPs were going to charge for access to these websites? This isn't television. ISPs just connect you to the internet. They have no way to regulate where you go and don't have the ability to offer anything other than faster or slower speeds depending on the level of service you pay for.
It's up to the content providers to come up with the additional funding for the tiered service, not the ISPs. Google just wants you to foot the bill for the improvements rather than them. Why do you think they are such staunch defenders of NN?
>ISPs have an economic incentive to make internet the most desirable product possible
its already attractive and practically a necessity in this day and age. many places have only 1-2 ISPs, meaning they can do what they want and barely have any competition to worry about, if at all