Do you realize how close we were to complete government control over the internet?

On the eve of the death of Net Neutrality, it is only apt this image is posted once again.

Read it. Understand it. The last post in the image is the most important.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/152760068/
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text
readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

I was in this thread when it was first posted, pointing out that it was a pack of lies.

It was ignored in favor of packaging liquid shit into an infographic that would be greedily sucked down by braindead children.

That was a good read, bump

Where did all the UUID posters go?

>read it
fuck off cunt tell that guy he's not writing a tom clancy novel and he should be concise if he wants anyone to read his stupid shit

does anybody know how to read any form of pic like this on here since the image server "broke" like 10 months ago?

>doesnt post anything refuting anything
>larping
k

you could try not being a phoneposter

is2 cdn was a honeypot.

...

I find it funny, that this is the first more 'true conspiracy' accapted outside pol, but most of us don't care shit. Why is this?

I gotta hand it to you leaf. This post is fucking kino

saved

...

The answer is in the pic. Its controlled opposition. The shareblue fags never left. What scares me legitimently is that this reminds me of the Hillary slides for goldman sachs. When she describes "creating value" (((manufactured consent))) shes talking about using these laws to shutdown or shut up (via controlled opposition) websites that harbor contrarian political views like Sup Forums

Because we came to terms with it long ago.

Yeah, I'm seeing something like that too. At the beginning it was kinda weird, but it feels like a reddit conspiracy: no reality foundation, too much and confusingly made and no real dangerly outcome. Fucking parasites

The more I learn, the more I find that world is more corrupt than I could ever imagine.

Literally we government employees shitposting with us kek. No wonder they stopped trying to recruit me.

You know, you can always find the actual thread and read it.

Anyway, here you go: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/152760068/

I'm not going to go over all the bullshit a second time over just because somebody decided to copy-paste the first ten posts into a infographic.

Major Bump

Hehe true. It's kinda weird that most spy work and undercover work is true or with media and internet. It seems all to simple, but this organisation can't even find out things like Vegas or voter fraud. I'm not talking about myself, but take 100 of autistic pol users and give them the funds to investigate things (like Alabama voter fraud) and they will find it out in a few months.

Give a to;dr for all the phoneposters who cannot read your image.

What do you think that show "The Crowd" is about.

Basically NN was a power grab by the gov't. Obama snuck a law in that formed a internet spy agency which literally are shills set to expire eight years from now.

Hmmm, fuck you're right. Never really watched it.

TFW living in a liberal shit-hole pays off.

NN was enacted to bring internet under the control of guberment (ish).
Obuma passed law in his last few days that made shitposting a federal offense (ish)
Allows them to shut down any website they don't like, under the legal president that it is 'foreign' propaganda.
If you remember, it was Hillary's team that first started using the phrase 'fake news'. That was their plan. Call all opposition fake news, and get them shut down 'legally'.

To all you anti net neutrality fags

If in 5 years your internet turns into a variety of cable packages you have to have a subscription for. Your vpn’s throttled automatically because you could potentially be stealing and bypassing geo locks. Etc.


Will you admit you were wrong and that you got swindled by Verizon and friends?

They are still retaining the right enact Title II whenever they want.

They could've done that in 2002, they could've done that in 2012, why would they have waited until 2022?

Some kind of regulation needs to exist, I agree.
The direction we WERE heading was very very bad. That doesn't mean that we can't make it a public utility SANS the 1984 thought-police.
For now, it seems we dodged a bullet and landed back in the frying pan. It's not ideal, but at least it's not suicide. From here we are at least safe to try again.

>Obuma passed law in his last few days that made shitposting a federal offense (ish)
This is a violation of the First Amendment. It's neither what it does, nor would any court uphold it if it were.

>'foreign' propaganda.
The government can no more do this than they can label all Republicans "enemy combatants" and shoot them.

Anyone who believes the bullshit in the OP failed elementary school civics.

good always wins, it's darkest before the dawn.
Hollywood's movie format is based off the archetypal structure of reality.

Tl;Dr as a result of the telecommunications act of '96, a sneaky amendment to the 2017 ndaa and title 2 "net neutrality" the government would have been able to strong arm isps into taking down sites/content without a court order. All under the guise of taking down foreign/non-state propaganda.
Concise enough?

Corruption cant exist in government because it's illegal.
I bet you also think that no one would ever be shot if all guns were made illegal.

>you're gonna pay slightly more now
>wouldn't you rather give government the authority to censor anything they claim is foreign propaganda?

Because everyone thought it was illegal until FTC v. AT&T Mobility in 2014, which is what prompted the Obama administration to add the new regulations in the first place.

>Corruption cant exist in government because it's illegal.
Corruption exists because it is secret. A government takedown of a website cannot be done in complete secrecy, since the person whose website was taken down can always file suit.

Guns cannot be made illegal thanks to Heller vs DC.

it sure fucking worked while obama was in office. I hope "net neutrality bill" crashes and burns. Its as much about fair internet as a law about abolishing the age of consent is about "saving the children bill"

>it sure fucking worked while obama was in office.
I'm glad you agree. In case you were sarcastic and disagree, I'd like to see where Obama used this power to "shut down shitposting."

> I hope "net neutrality bill" crashes and burns.
The net neutrality bill they're voting on is to abolish net neutrality. I hope it crashes and burns too.

Did you read the image in the OP? They wouldn't have had to take anything down. All they had to do was deny them their license, claiming they were somehow involved in fake news that was damaging America.

>This is a violation of the First Amendment
the first ammendment doesn't apply anymore thanks to laws against hate speech

Its blurry bud. Got a better cap?

>All they had to do was deny them their license, claiming they were somehow involved in fake news
>them
Yes. The government will simply deny Comcast it's business license. That wouldn't result in litigation or anything. You figured it out.

>somehow involved in fake news
The Supreme Court ruled in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus established that the government cannot regulate domestic speech based on whether or not it is fake news.

yer gonna need a phone with a bigger screen.

>Corruption exists because it is secret. A government takedown of a website cannot be done in complete secrecy...
Pic related you leftist shill. A government can put pressure on any hosting to make it even harder or out right almost impossible to have opposing views.

Fuck off this board.

>thanks to laws against hate speech
America does not have hate speech laws. In fact, such laws are expressly unconstitutional, as most recently upheld in Matal v. Tam (2017).

The entire thread is available at archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/152760068/

If you're not interested in reading the opposition, just skip the thread after the wall-of-text posts.

You seem to be under the impression that these people actually follow the constitution, or care about rights.

>A government can put pressure on any hosting
Namecheap, GoDaddy, Google Domains, and whatever Russian registrar they were using are not the government. I'm sure if you think very hard, you'll figure out the difference between government and private entities.

Constitutional challenges are litigated through the court system. Separation of powers prevents Obama (or Trump) from walking up to the nearest federal judge and ordering them to toss out a constitutional challenge. Your local cops probably don't give a shit about your constitutional rights, but there is a entire branch of government keeping them accountable.

So you’re telling me Comcast and Verizon care more about the constitution than my wallet? Like they are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts?

Thank you oldfriend

Good never wins you stupid little retard. Go watch another jewish Hollywood movie.

Half the things in that post aren't actually in that bill. It's not 1400 pages, it's like 11, and you can look it up online. Bad larp.

>congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text

The bill is sketchy as fuck because of course it is, it's a cyberwarfare bill, but OP is reaching project blue beam levels of retardation.

Didn't even refute my point. You're a shill.

Private or not if a government does back door dealings or applies pressure to a business they can get whatever they want fucking done in the right political environment. The more leftists win on the censorship of the belief the easier it gets for them to use the mainstream "view" to justify doing what is "good".

Any retard with a modicum of political knowledge knows big business and government are in bed.

>b-but independent and small business...
Anyone who has half a brain can figure out that making it harder and harder to challenge mainstream views is only the first step into total control of the masses view.
Who the fuck but a small minority of people are really going to go out and fight against the government working with hosting companies or search engines to suppress sites that go against it's wishes for political views especially if seen as an extremist view from both sides of the party spectrum? That's how it starts.
Why don't YOU think for a second shill if you want to maintain any sort of argument. This is all logical deduction and basing it from real world situations that HAVE happened

>Private or not if a government does back door dealings or applies pressure to a business
This is illegal, just as illegal as if the government were to send someone to your house and shoot you.

They could do that too, but they don't.

>Why don't YOU think for a second shill if you want to maintain any sort of argument. This is all logical deduction and basing it from real world situations that HAVE happened
The last time it happened was the Red Scare, and even then, it wasn't a secret in the slightest.

brb about to download every single Miles Mathis paper before his site is shut down

Yay! 2 dimensional thinking!
Read my earlier posts and see that this is a step back from disaster, but we are still knee-deep in shit.
Basically, we are backing away from certain doom, but we are now back in the clutches of big-innernet. The problem can be solved, just without thought police. Made it a public utility.

based user is based

>We won the election
We didn't win shit, he's still a zionist, globalist shill.

Sorts wanted it. 0bammy gave it to him. Everything the Rats do is named exactly the opposite of what it accomplishes.

“Affordable Care Act”,

Uh, Randy Weaver?

I guess we're all Randy Weaver now.

they where very much wanting to rid the internet of anonymous ID's.

>This is a violation of the First Amendment. It's neither what it does, nor would any court uphold it if it were.
Civics 101.
It's the legislation handed down from Congress that gets applied in the day-to-day business, not the Constitution. Note the 1A states, "Congress shall make no law", rather than "Everybody's free".
Best you could do would be to file a lawsuit alleging unconstitutionality of the law. Which would take years to conclude, and meanwhile the law would have been applied as written. The lawsuit could very well fail, as the law is not directly limiting free speech, instead it uses ISP licencing as a loophole. Since the law doesn't concern itself with internet user, only with the ISP licencing, a court could simply reject your lawsuit due to lack of standing. The ISPs themselves would have no incentive to question the law.
Meanwhile anons would be disappearing from Sup Forums one by one, with just shills remaining to talk between each other.

inb4 slav talking 1A over burgers; some of you guys really seem to have slept through your civics.

>you guys really seem to have slept through your civics
Its the rudimentary understanding they received in civics class that leads people to this limited way of thinking. They can't grasp the reality of the situation because they are bound to idealistic thinking.
Like I said earlier, by this same rational, murders can't possibly be real, because they are illegal.

>Yes. The government will simply deny Comcast it's business license. That wouldn't result in litigation or anything. You figured it out.
so, how old where you when Obama's ATF made it extremely hard for gun dealers to get the proper license to run their stores? Are you aware how many of them went out of business because of this?
IF government doesn't want you to have a license, you won't get one.

>Which would take years to conclude, and meanwhile the law would have been applied as written.
If the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, the courts will issue an injunction until litigation terminates. A facially unconstitutional law would get a rapid injunction: they got one for the travel ban in under 24 hours.

>The ISPs themselves would have no incentive to question the law.
Why would an ISP not have an incentive to challenge illegal regulation?

Also, how does whether Comcast gets its license or not affect your ability to access the internet, other than the fact that 100% of all Comcast customers would be out of internet if they were not allowed to offer internet services?

>murders can't possibly be real, because they are illegal.
Murders happen outside of the eye of the state. They involve one individual. Widespread unconstitutional suppression of rights requires that hundreds of people break the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution and commit outright treason, and also that the hundreds of people on the receiving end shut up and take it like little bitches without a single person being mildly concerned about it.

You are death camps tiers of delusional.

>muh licence
this.

Entrenched businesses love high entry barriers, to rid themselves of any upstart competitors. Net Neutrality, as currently legislated, puts several such barriers.

No major ISP would question the law as written; they are strategic infrastructure, best buddies with the government, they rub each other backs.

Cf. AT&T's Room 641A. Some serious quid pro quo went down.

Net neutrality ended ten years ago.

>Net Neutrality, as currently legislated, puts several such barriers.
It is trivial for companies to comply with NN: just leave all routing equipment in its default state. Proving that you comply with NN may cost money, as is the case with all government regulations, but that's its own separate problem that should be discussed on its own merits rather than lumped in with the claim that Obama is coming to ban all Sup Forums users from the internet.

>Why would an ISP not have an incentive to challenge illegal regulation?
see >If the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits
The NDAA 2017 got signed. Launch the fucking lawsuit, larper.

I don't believe I have standing at this moment to challenge whatever clause in the 1600 page document you think is infringing on my rights.

Cascadia when?

I know. I was fighting the shills myself on g for about a year

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

Let's give companies the right to dump toxic waste into rivers because they might not use the power we give them.

>leave all routing equipment in its default state
>get fucked by the first DDoS
>get fucked by the first BGP leak
>get latency spikes everywhere
>not able to provision from local CDNs
>not able to meter-and-cap transfer
>not able to sell varying bandwidth plans
>not able to handover 4G WiFi
>admin/admin
Are you even trying to insult anons? Post ponies, faggot.

It's a simplification. Explain to me how you'd "accidentally" discriminate against traffic without explicitly going out of your way to install QoS type shit.

>If in 5 years your internet turns into a variety of cable packages you have to have a subscription for
>FCC lawyer: “Absolutely, your Honor. …If they filter the Internet and don’t provide access to all or substantially all endpoints, then they drop out of the definition of Broadband Internet Access Service and the rules don’t apply to them.”
readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418

they can already do that. you're just a useful idiot who bought into a Google marketing campaign

The argument was made in the spirit that comcast WOULDN'T buck the government. Why would it risk having to litigate for years and lose the entirety of those years business as opposed to one sites? Youre either dense or intentionally drawing your argument away from this fact. I declare you tard or shill. Which one matters not.

Enjoying your motte-and-bailey castle?

>skip QoS
>get latency spikes everywhere
Given the slow connections (DOCSIS and DSL; you burgers really got screwed by the ISP monopolies), you wants QoS on the last mile for the connection to be usable. Every large ISP also wants QoS on the routers to avoid building out enough backbone to handle all the customers at once. Underprovisioning has been the name of the game since the day 2.
Everybody on a major ISP wants, and gets, QoS.

The trick is to make QoS unobtrusive to the users. The trick to ensure that is not to spew ink on reams of dead wood, but to have real competition among ISPs. Shit like throttling BitTorrent or blocking websites wouldn't fly in Poland, cause I can switch ISPs on a whim. 48 hours from call calling ISP to papers signed and FTTH installed at worst; a trip to a nearby grocery store to buy a new SIM card would be good enough for Sup Forums shitposting.

tl;dr get some free market capitalism.

I thought so too. Double check by searching the original bills in Congress then senate using the section numbers as reference. Pic related.

>Why would it risk having to litigate for years and lose the entirety of those years business as opposed to one sites?
How exactly is Comcast losing "one sites"? Are you claiming that the FCC, under the guise of net neutrality, will demand that Comcast... stop provisioning people with internet?

>tl;dr get some free market capitalism.
European countries get better rates because European governments force competition by requiring providers to lease lines to other providers. Internet is cheaper in Europe because of government intervention.

meant to quote

You are a fucking idiot. THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!
Stormfront can easily run their own servers from their own building if they want a site up tat badly!!!!!
YOU PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID!!!!

One site, one person. The money is the same when compared to the entirety of a years earnings. Why would they not listen to big daddy gubberment? You still didnt attack my argument shill. Enjoy your stay tho, you're here forever.

GOOD QUESTION:
WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE COMCAST (OWNED BY TED TURNER) WHO ALSO OWNS HBO (HBO WHICH AIRS ANTI TRUMP SHILLS SUCH AS BILL MAHER, JOHN OLIVER) WHO ALSO OWNS CNN? YOU ANTI NN RETARDS REALIZE THAT ONE RIGHT? TED TUNER OWNS COMCAST, HBO, CNN? HE HATES TRUMP, HATES YOUR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND WILL DESTROY YOUR ACCESS TO INFORMATION JUST LIKE CABLE TV!!!

>European countries get better rates because European governments force competition by requiring providers to lease lines to other providers.
>forced competition vs forced equality
>forced equality of opportunity vs forced equality of outcome
Look at the results. 30 years ago Poland was a backwards and dirty post-Wasaw-Pact state. You guys won the Cold War with us, for crying out loud. Don't be "equality of outcome" now. You saw where that leads, and how quickly.

The intervention here is to re-balance the market, as it starts out skewed due to government guaranteeing ownership, in particular of parts of infrastructure. Thus the second intervention necessary to balance it out.

Have a (You) based ass Sup Forumsock. We need more posters like you.

We don't want to go back to the days of AOL, that shit sucked so badly. We have cable TV for tunnel vision. Leave the Internet open for us to rome free.

Thank you burger user. Stay fierce, fight for freedom.
I'll be watching the live transmission from the Moon and Mars landings you guys will pull.

>You still didnt attack my argument shill.
Your argument is incoherent. They could get their injunction the week of the litigation. And there's still no mechanism by which Comcast kicks someone off the internet. If your argument is just going to be "well the government says so" they can already do that.

>as it starts out skewed due to government guaranteeing ownership, in particular of parts of infrastructure.
Guarantee of ownership is known in most parts as "private property" and America has a fetish for it. I would be very happy if we adapted a more European model - with forced competition and all that - but most of the people moaning and bitching about government regulation in this thread would have an aneurysm.

>Google Fiber
It's not about the shekels. Alphabet ("Google" for you goyim) with its billions of cash to throw around couldn't make much headway with Google Fiber because of anticompetitive practices. Take a good hard look at municipalities denying utility pole rights, or signing exclusive contracts with the monopolists. There's entrenched players, money changing hands, and FCC unable curb down the monopolies.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

forgot the image

You guys know only US have NN problem right? And that Europe agreed to STRONG Net Neutrality laws. I get the feeling u don't..

woke

Open the picture in a new tab and delete something in the link. Prob the m for mobile

And these actions happened gradually over 20+ year period by Clinton / Obama, outside the general awareness of the public. Master stroke is the branding Net Neutrality to suggest benign intent when in fact it would lead to unfettered government internet control and censorship. Thank God for Trump. Now can he roll back the current blatant censorship that FB, Twitter, Google et al get away with?