Why do libertarians support this buck toothed street shitter?

Why do libertarians support this buck toothed street shitter?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC
gizmodo.com/5466492/verizon-has-blocked-access-to-Sup
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because people like you put so much time, money and energy into trying to get us not to like him. It's sad to be honest.

Because they think that allowing multi-billion dollar companies to censor and restrict your internet access is a good idea based on principal.

lesser of evils

...

he's pretty based pooinloo

he btfo obama and jewgle

There in lies the problem. Shit heads like this will willfully and gleefully vote against their own interests so long as whatever they are voting for is opposed by the evil "leftists".

so government doing the exact same is ok? yeah fuck off and continue asskissing the state-sponsored ISP monopolies, kike

I was against NN before he even was FCC head chair

If we give companies the freedom to censor the internet, they might choose not to.

What's wrong with pre-2015 internet?

What a surprise another shithead right winger who has no idea what he's talking about.

What's wrong with treating ISP's like utlities and not allowing them to ass rape consumers and censor speech?

Comcast throttling torrents.

Who cares what libertarians officially support
We supported Gary fucking Johnson ffs

why?

What a surprise another shithead left winger who doesn't understand basic government

When Comcast throttled Netflix? When AT&T blocked Skype and some other dog shit like that.

They don’t care about censoring speech. They want to make Netflix, Amazon Video, Youtube, Hulu and Twitch pay for broadband.

>and censor speech?
Like twitter, facebook, youtube, and reddit do right now? The same people for NN?

NN is a meme

What a stupid question.

Libertarians believe the absolute of private property rights and therefore want to apply it to the internet.

Fuck you are a stupid bastard.

They know they just pretend not to in an attempt to hoodwink people

> Trusting the motivations of Billion dollar companies

It doesn't matter what they claim to want to do. The point is this would give them the power to censor speech which is a big problem.

You mean raise prices for everyone.
>But I don't use Netflix!
Doesn't matter. Google gets revenue through ads. No NN means Google raises its ad prices, and every company in the western world has to raise their prices to make up for the loss.

Yeah Reddit likes to ban people. That's why we need to let Comcast shut down Sup Forums.

Because government has more incentive to restrict freedom on internet than private corporations

Yeah, because those are the only websites on the internet. If you don't like how they censor speech don't visit them, but don't try to compare that to wholesale censorship of the internet as a whole.

>would give them the power to censor speech

You do realize getting rid of Net Neutrality doesn't magically remove the government's ability to regulate the internet right?

The hundreds of other internet regulations and laws stay on the books.

So explain why you are for NN without using words like "they could" or "they might"

Yeah, I agree with you. Banning single users from twitter is too slow. The sooner we can shut down whole websites that go against the liberal narrative, the better.

Before NN, Comcast was sued multiple times for throttling content they didn't like.

It'd not a "they might" it's a "They will, probably within days."

it removes over reaching regulatory power.

Government can still regulate internet after NN goes. Stop the shilling

Is that supposed to be a counter argument? Do you not see the difference between one website having policies that you don't like, vs an ISP censoring websites that they don't like? I.e. on one hand you have a choice to not visit sites that you don't like, on the other a company gets to decide which websites you can visit.

>Comcast was sued multiple times for throttling content they didn't like.

Did the lawsuits win?
Are you in some stupid fucking shithole where you can't use someone else?

Why are right wingers against any regulation that would protect them as consumers? Why do you shill for billion dollar companies?

It doesn't change the power at all, the FCC can do anything they want as soon as a different person is in charge. It doesn't limit the FFC's future ability in any way.

All removing NN does is remove YOUR rights.

You really trust them to not do it? Come on, dude. These companies don't give a fuck about ethics. They'll do whatever they can to make as much money as possible.

>when NN is finally repealed

because hes based

>Are you in some stupid fucking shithole where you can't use someone else?
most counties in the US operate under ISP monopoly or oligopoly

>ISP censoring websites that they don't like
Wow that sounds scary! Could you give me some preNN examples of this.

>Did the lawsuits win?
Settled out of court so they wouldn't have to admit any guilt to lying. IIRC the last big one earned the people suing $16.

>Are you in some stupid fucking shithole where you can't use someone else?

You mean am I one of a vast majority of Americans who can only choose between the largest ISPs?

I don't shill for any company.

if that was true why was NN the guidelines a thing in the first place? It gave more oversight to FCC from FTC

Because they're legit retarded, there's a reason they're called lolbertarians. They're so obsessed with no government and so autistic about deregulation that they don't stop to think about what regulation is good, and just applaud any and all deregulation. I bet if someone proposed getting rid of safety laws and getting rid of OSHA they would support that too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC

Basically, Comcast got caught red handed denying internet access to their customers using P2P clients (because people used P2P to share Comcast-owned media without paying Comcast).

The FCC told them to knock that shit off, and the courts said the FCC didn't have the authority. That's why NN exists in the first place.

It doesn't matter if they didn't (or did) do it before.

>having to fight for your rights on a case-by-case basis, confidently assuming you'll win every time and paying the legal costs, is somehow preferable to a blanket stop of such cases, which basically says "you'd win anyway, so why not forego all the red tape"
the absolute state of american libertarianism

NN regulations started with Bush.

The fact that the FCC can decide whenever it wants to turn NN on or off shows they have whatever authority they want to have.

Like, getting rid of NN doesn't take away the FCC's ability to classify the internet as whatever they want to call it.

I used to be for NN.

Then I realized getting rid of NN would make Sup Forums #muttfree

>You do realize getting rid of Net Neutrality doesn't magically remove the government's ability to regulate the internet right?
so people should just take the state's cock all the way? kill yourself

>The hundreds of other internet regulations and laws stay on the books.
those are problems too

>Why are right wingers against any regulation that would protect them as consumers?
because if the state really wanted to protect consumers, they would remove state-sponsored ISP monopolies already and let people protect themselves

>Why do you shill for billion dollar companies?
>he says this, when billion dollar companies are the ones shilling for NN
fuck off. Billion dollar companies shouldn't get corporate welfare either, just fuck off with the state already

>the absolute state of american libertarianism
It is where I live. Thanks to capitalism I can choose to access the internet through cable, DSL, tethering 4GLTE companies, Hughsnet. Why should the rest of us suffer because you live in a shit hole?

It won't make Americans go away, it will make you pay a monthly fee to use Sup Forums because Hiroshimoot won't be able to afford to pay ISPs.

Also when Verizon blocked Sup Forums. Removing NN is the same kind of mistake the dems made in the Obama years. Once Dems are in charge and we're already used to not having NN, be prepared for sites like Sup Forums to be blocked for spreading fake news and right wing propaganda. This is already happening in Europe, and now dumb right wingers want to get rid of the thing preventing it from happening here.

>the government has its cock balls-deep in my throat already
>might as well gobble up corp cock as well then

this is you

>Also when Verizon blocked Sup Forums

Oh yeah, forgot about that. That was what, 2010?

I suppose most of the anti-NN shills here were still in primary school back then.

we don't

>vote against their own interests
How is it in my interest to let the government control the internet with unelected officials?

FCC is ending NN rules, not ending NN. The real battle which everyone is ignoring is between AT&T and the FTC, in which AT&T is attempting to strip the FTC of it's regulatory authority over ISPs, thus stopping the FTC from protecting consumers from ISPs.

nice false dichotomy retard. A state forces me to comply, a corp can't. The entire point of no STATE-SPONSORED ISP monopolies is so there can be more smaller, independent private ISP's around

I know NN doesn't cover that but it's a step in the right direction than going full retard and wanting complete state control of the internet -- basically giving up

That buck-toothed street shitter is your father you disloyal little fuck.

I'm going to have a mighty good laugh when your options as a consumer after NN abolition go up by exactly 0% because the high infrastuctural entry barrier forces the ISP market to be an oligopoly, and all you'll have accomplished is relinquishing protections

count on it

Because it seems like every leftist cunt hates him, so i naturally side with him

Getting rid of NN literally will not help to end the monopoly at all. In fact, more regulation is what would help that. Currently, there is no government interference preventing new companies from entering the market, Google has been slowly entering the market for the last decade. The reason why there is monopolies is because it costs so much money to enter the market. The ISPs own the Internet lines, so new companies have to put down new lines, which costs a lot if money that starter companies just do not have, and is too expensive a gamble for larger companies. If you actually want more competition, you need regulation. The government funded the original lines that the ISPs put in, so they should regulate it and tell them that they must let other companies use those lines. That's the only real way you'll get past the monopolies.

Not to the same degree

This is what's destroying the country. Too many people feel this way, especially the politicians. When people play partisan politics, the citizens always get the short end of the stick. This is why democracy was a mistake, people are too dumb to not think in groups and actually think about what's in the best interest of the people.

>All removing NN does is remove YOUR rights.

What right(s)?

How about your right to have your data treated exactly the same as everyone else's and not be discriminated against because you're right wing?

Without NN there would literally be nothing stopping Comcast from saying "We need to get rid of these right wing hate sites like Sup Forums and block access to them"

This. Most morons are partisans.
>lets trigger lefties xD xD
>lets trigger righties xD xD
People this dumb are only useful doing menial labor and shouldn't have any say within government, be it through voting or otherwise.

>How about your right to have your data treated exactly the same as everyone else's and not be discriminated against because you're right wing?

Ah, so you were talking out of your ass, so to speak

But it literally happened before.

gizmodo.com/5466492/verizon-has-blocked-access-to-Sup Forums-but-what-are-they-gonna-do-about-it

And? We're talking about rights here, user.

Because their interests generally don't align with ISPs, which are regional monopolies, and whose interests are price gouging.

Ah, you're just a retard then. Okay. Feel free to leave.

>flaggot
The government's interests generally don't align with that of the people. You didn't really answer my question anyway. Be specific.

>Americans literally having to fight all the time for not being butt-raped by corporations
>some of them actually liking it

You don't have a right to access any site you want, user.

Unless you can point out where its in the Bill of Rights.

9th Amendment.

Sure! I think you're right in that these are major generalizations. As has been seen, ISPs are pretty willing to block stuff like torrenting (that's how the net neutrality debate started) and downloads. Ajit Pai has stated that because fast lanes haven't been tried, it's worth trying them.


As someone who runs a website for those that take classes on my (hurricane proof, cell-signal resistant) campus designed to run well under 2G, any changes to traffic prioritization that don't help me, will hurt _a lot_. I can't imagine any case where a fast lane helps a small guy, or does anything that's pro-innovation, or pro-competition. I think the more you look at a net-neutrality vs. non-net neutrality world, the more you see these cases where it doesn't actually do anything good for the consumer. T-Mobile's service is one instance where it's not directly anti-consumer, but it still provides a distinct advantage to incumbents. I'm curious about your side.

If you pay for Internet, especially when it's a monopoly, they shouldn't be allowed to just block access to sites they don't like. The Internet is a huge intergral part of our lives. You can't even get jobs anymore without applying online. It's time we start applying the constitution to it. Free speech/expression online is just as important as offline.

My side is as simple as what I've already stated. I do not trust the government to regulate ISPs especially with unaccountable politicians not beholden to voters in the least. The best thing the government could do for the internet would be to remove the myriad of stringent barriers to competition between service providers and to startups. I'm not so naive as to blindly trust corporations (as they're often in bed with the government anyway). I've suffered through comcast and gotten to enjoy the results of a new competition entering the market a providing a vastly better alternative.

if Comcast wants to die, that's their business. I have no problem falling back on a B-list satellite internet that won't censor shit because it's eager for cash. If Google ads become more/too expensive, then less people will feed the monopoly and it will die.

With government running the show though, I can't realistically just go get a B-list government to provide more acceptable internet when the next democrat gets in office in the year 2032 and uncensors CNN, Reddit and Twitter.

Because libertarians are buck toothed street shitters.

...

Which barriers are there?

Except I'm not a moderate. I'm a fascist who's disillusioned with mainstream politics and mainstream partisans who both advocate for many of the same polices while pretending to be radically different.

...

>I'm so smart because I blindly support everything from my party and hate everything from the other people
>hurr people with actual opinions are so dumb

wait, are you talking about the pro NN companies like Google and Facebook, or the telecoms?