So now that Trump is going to win what can we expect of privacy and net neutrality? Are we gonna be alright?

So now that Trump is going to win what can we expect of privacy and net neutrality? Are we gonna be alright?

Other urls found in this thread:

graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
streamable.com/q3s2
gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-net-neutralit-1760829072
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>trump
>winning

ctr shills are on Sup Forums too?

trump will win

Better than if we were with Hillary.

Fuck off back to Sup Forums Jesus Christ.

But he'll be 100% better than Hillary, a 69 year old woman who thinks Sup Forums-tier memes are people trying to incite racial hatred.

>Trump winning
>you being a shill

pick 2

>Accepting that Trump's chances of winning are slim = ctr shill

He will stop large telecom mergers and give us more choices. Comcast is running scared right now

Where did you find this? Genuinely curious since everywhere is saying shillary is narrowly ahead

its fake

drumpf has no chance

fuck you, faggots. you can't deport me.

graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

this poll was one of few which accurately predicted the 2012 election FYI

kys ctr shill

>Donald "we need to call Bill Gates to shut down the internet" Trump
>privacy

> privacy
Privacy is just a meme 2bh
> net neutrality
Also a meme.
www.mykittentumblr12345.WordPress.tumblr.com shouldn't gave the same connection rate as important sites as YouTube or even Pandora

I see a dumbfuck who does not know what he's doing

And I see a witch that knows exactly what she's doing

I find the latter scarier. I'm sorry.

Trump is not gonna win I have insider information that Hillary Clinton is gonna win I don't need to prove it I mean they're showing you to your face she's gonna win but I work in IT have access to shit you guys wouldn't believe.
I mean not like I couldn't fake the shit and claim it's legit.

>Privacy is just a meme 2bh
Even though it isn't.

>tfw China makes the inflation great again

>The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll tracks about 3,000 eligible voters until election day, asking on a regular basis about their support for Hillary Clinton
>3,000 voters only
>This much indecision and second guessing reflected in the graph
>Not fabricated
Sup Forumstards being gullible and retarded yet again.

>kys ctr shill
>everyone who disagrees with me is a shill!

this

Vote for me you fucking losers

LOL seriously, does it matter? He is gonna bulldoze all the niggers and spics into the pacific

Memery aside, either candidate is pretty fucking bad on the internet as far as this board is concerned. Hillary has called for a Manhattan Project level project to break encryption, and Trump's position on net neutrality is obvious.

>CTR shills

Kind funny considering how hard OP is shilling Trump here

Anyone is deluded if they don't think Hillary will go after the internet after all the grief the hackers and Pepe gave her these past few years. The internet needs to be controlled and censored from a leftists viewpoint

netneutrality is a trojan horse.

HRC and DJT are the worst for America and Sup Forums. What we need is Julian Assange & Edward Snowden to take the oval office.

The funnies part is
Few hours ago Trump wife had official statement. She said tah she will end internet bully.

It will be ridiculous to watch how trump will kill Sup Forums at the end

i read the methodology. 1/2 were participants from '08 polls. 1/3 were participants from '12 polls.
>i.e. many are the same people they always poll

Its the same people, over and over again, quite odd.

Its a panel, not cross sectional.

did i really need to look at the name?
Just like the tranny known as Michelle promised no sodas and health food in schools?

I think Trump is gonna be just fine for us. His intentions are to strip down many of the overbearing alphabet agencies, which can only mean good things for us (i.e. the removal of govt agencies that make stealing from the people a "legit" business)

Annnd the thread is derailed.

those are oversampled polls of Democrats

streamable.com/q3s2

WTF I love Trump now.

The soda machines at my school had 4 buttons for mt dew and they were refilled twice a day.

If they took that shit away a good chunk of the school would go through bipolar rage tier withdrawls. I still don't understand how that shit can give you coke tier withdrawls.

I hope all redditshits go back to plebbit once the elections are over.

>first thing Hillary does as president is try to pass legislation that gives authorities the right to shut-down or otherwise block sites that promote "hateful and devisive rhetoric."
>passes the "Unity Act" that creates a public database of people who've posted "hateful, racist bigoted" message on social media sites.
>business can look your name up in a public registry and see you called Da'quan a nigger on twitter 2 years ago and deny you employment
>an entire generation of white men are unable to secure jobs outside sanitation

agreed, mostly. I have seen something of a push for internet id's. The internet is too powerful for politicians, it has to be controlled somehow and brought down.

Let's just throw away any sentiment right off that bat that Hillary has any consideration for the well-being of anything or anybody but herself and the globalist establishment. She is actively against every one of us (unless George Soros is lurking in the thread)

With that said, as a pretty strong Trump supporter, I must admit net neutrality and digital privacy are major concerns for me in considering a Trump presidency. He already doesn't have a great record; has said Snowden should be executed, iPhones should have backdoor, etc. Trump openly admits he doesn't know shit about technology, and his only real experience is using twitter on his phone, and even half the time he just has an assistant tweet things for him. I think Trump is a good man, with American, and human interests in mind, but his science and technology platform will be entirely dependent on whoever is advising him. I think it would be very easy to manipulate his ignorance, into a disastrous policy platform.

Just remember, Hillary's eldercare policy for Syria(see 'no fly zone') would nearly guarantee (nuclear) war with Russia. Yeah Trump could continue fucking us, just as Bush and Obama have, but so will hillary. Trump at least doesn't hate us.

*declared policy** not "eldercare"

Lol no. Under Trump, it's actually going to get a lot worse.

Both are absolute shit-tier (and if you suck either of their cocks, you should move to Haiti just to stay out of the first world forever), but privacy is the one issue that Trump is actually worse than Hillary.

Trump has a saving grace though, he LISTENS to the people. While he may not know shit about tech, he has great people advising him that do. I really trust him not to do anything stupid (*cough* Obama ICANN) under the table without consulting the populace.

Haiti eh. I think the people there know a thing or two about the Clintons....

>Based on 3,004 respondents
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAAHAHAHAHAH

>mentioning icann

go back to Sup Forums where everyone will play along with you having no idea what you are talking about

explain to me the motivation behind icann. Not sarcastic, I'd genuinely like to know.

Is it bad? Is it not bad but has the potential to be bad?

How does the previous holder, USA, benefit? Is there any benefit at all?

>he LISTENS to the people
Are you fucking serious?
It's a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder.

*Essentially* he only listens to himself. He pretends to listen to the people, to find out what they want to hear, so as to use this to manipulate them like a proper demagogue.

You won't shake my alignment one bit by spazzing out like a retarded liberal. I'm far too well informed on this entire election to give one solitary fuck about your 'rhetoric'.

>diagnosing someone you've never met
>diagnosing someone without a doctorate in the appropriate field

Well, hey, you're a textbook case of "dumbass."

we never fucking owned it or had real control, it was already determined to be more or less a 'world' type of ownership. we never fucking owned the internet even though we created it, this change was literally nothing.

it was just tried to be spammed here and elsewhere by fucking idiots unaware of how the internet already worked

She did "revamp" the school lunch system as I was on my way out.

They weren't allowed to serve bread that wasn't multi-grain (even in pizza and breadsticks), and anything with sugar in it was made zero calorie.

If the intention was to get me to pack my lunch, it worked.

What liberal mate, liberals are the scum of earth and the whole republican party is very very liberal: po-market, pro-corporation and anti-regulation.

Trump himself is a fucking corporate for fuck's sake, capitalising on the free markets and using every means possible to increase his wealth. You can't get more liberal than that.


>You won't shake my alignment one bit
I don't blame you. Demagogue tricks obviously work. Demagogues are routinely described as trustworthy, charismatic and charming, a testament to the efficacy of their tactics.

I'm not convinced. If it was nothing, why spend the hours drawing up the agreement, discussing it with other nations, and passing it via executive order.

If something is worthless, why spend time on it. If the USA did not benefit, then why was such a deal committed to?

It raises more questions than it answers.

obviously using the word 'liberal' was a mistake, there are cronies and cucks in both parties.

Unless you are accusing him of illegal practices, then you are hammering on the guy for being a successful businessman. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Lets say there are 10 businessmen, all in the same situation with the same prospects. All adhere to the same tax code. All have the same opportunity to 'abuse' that tax code, where such abuse is perfectly legal.

The one that doesn't will be outperformed by the ones that do.

You may not like the rules, you may not like the players. Dollars and cents.

>wanting to eat mud cookies
>wanting to drown in a hurricane
>wanting even more corrupt government
>wanting to be DR's Mexico

Not that user but no it doesn't raise more questions than it answers. It's something which has been legally ambiguous that's finally bubbled up to the top of the list of "things to deal with". That's literally it.

>Why would the media make things out to be closer then they really are

That may be so, by I've yet to read one single thing that objectively shows it was a good decision.

Not even if it was discovered on the day of the election that Hillary created ISIS would it change the outcomem go smoke fumes somewhere else Sup Forums

The best thing the media could do for Hillary's campaign is make it look like Trump could actually win.

Most dems and some repubs are hardly voting for Hillary, they're voting against Trump. Fear of Trump winning will drive higher voter turnout.

He's anti-net neutrality

Bernie was our best hope

Cos it was barely a decision.
>Shall we make this international thing legally international?
>Whatever
The only people making any fuss are people who don't understand what it was.

They're gonna all fucked up

>business

>Lets say there are 10 businessmen, all in the same situation with the same prospects.
The problem is, these businessmen were more or less in the same situation 300 years ago, not now.
Now we're dealing with the great-great-great granchildren of those businessmen, that still run the family business, only with 300 years of former successes or failures added up. The businessmen are no longer equal, at least the top level ones, and as the ability to create money rises exponentially with your already established wealth, the situation is self-sustained and relatively stable, kinda unlikely to change.

In practical terms for instance, Trump (and other magnates I'm sure) managed to unilaterally cut the amount he owned (and had signed contracts for), because he threatened to outsue his contractors to bankruptcy.


And yeah obviously I hate the system, not the players.

no. Nothing is done for no reason. You, my friend, are full of shit. You have no idea what it is, and what the implications of ICANN will be.

And yet, you spread bullshit with hive mentality to be accepted by the group.

"hahahaha" look at that guy he questions the group what an idiot. Fuck off mate. I don't know whether it was good or bad, and I won't believe shit until I can prove it to myself.

I suggest you do the same.

I think he's probably the worst option honestly. He seems like the kind of person that would demand congress draft up a law to forbid the FCC from "interfering" in the "free" "market" of the internet if he became president.

>So now that Trump is going to win

Bernie Sanders is so pro net neutrality, his face is probably on dart boards in Verizon and Comcast offices across the nation. In 2014, he gave a fiery Senate speech in support of reclassifying broadband under Title II, even saying that fast lanes “were grotesquely unfair.” Sanders also led an effort to go after fraudulent cable and broadband pricing, and he’s openly stated that Broadband access “is a necessity, not a luxury.”

The Vermont senator’s own $1 trillion infrastructure plan is the closest of any candidate’s promise to the American Society of Civil Engineer’s own $3.6 trillion estimate needed to repair America’s deteriorating infrastructure by 2020. (However, some economists have questioned the Sanders campaign’s math.) Of that large chunk of change, Sanders would spend $5 billion a year for five years improving connectivity and speeds in the US. The only question is whether Sanders can pass such a costly plan without Republican interference.

gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-net-neutralit-1760829072

Not like it'd change anything, the FCC lets comcast fuck you murrikans up the ass instead of suing them for a billion goybucks for costumer abuse.

>tfw to intelligent to use the internet

for every person that started out rich, and became successful, there are 1000s that pissed their fortunes away.

I bet you can list several people in your own life that had all the advantages in the world, but 0 heart. 0 will.

The man started out with 10 mil, and now he's nearly 10 bil. That's impressive dude. The man is smart. He's also human, and makes mistakes. But he always came back to succeed.

I really like him.. I think theres a lot the average joe could learn from his attitude and willpower.

>I won't believe shit until I can prove it to myself.
You're gonna spend your life pretty confused then my friend.

I might never know. But I'll be damned if I take part in the arrogance that comes with shitposting my opinion on things I can't speak intelligently about

>the "Trump is pro privacy and net neutrality" meme is still being shilled on your favorite technology board

Trump will be a lot better than Clinton, who used a personal e-mail account to share classified info. To all my Trump bros, thanks for not being a pussy on Nov 8.

If your so fucking dense that you can't come to your own conclusion then your fucked. If you actually gave 2 shits about you'd go look it up you fucking cunt. I explained to you the gist. You want to believe there's a conspiracy and your too scared to find out because you know you'll be wrong and i'll be right. Fuck yourself and the kill yourself fuckstick.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

"trump will win"

That's the correct chart. Any reason chances of winning increased lately? I like the 85:15 better.

>being this delusional
kek

I really hope net neutrality gets canned, makes no sense to me, everyone jumps on board because neutrality couldn't be a bad thing

thank you for correcting the record

Be prepared for the great firewall of America.

> I don't understand it so get rid of it

>johnson
why even try

Net Neutrality I don't think he'll pay much mind to, but he'll almost certainly want greater surveillance powers.

He's not a good libertarian candidate but he can at least win some recognition for his party and increased funding for the next election.

Note that the graph only reflects his chances of winning not his overall popularity. In some states he hovers around 10%, which is pretty good for a minor party. He's actually popular enough to act as a spoiler for either of the two main candidates.

he'll be forgotten about in 2.5 weeks

He cant even manage to "listen" during the debates. It appears to be a physical struggle when he genuinely tries to. But most of the time he is just too eager to interupt

> "No No"
> "Wrrrong"

Fuck you buddy, fucking telecom plant.

>American politics aren't actually about politics, just about who can hide their criminal background best and spouts the best memes

what a time to be alive

Trump listens to what he wants to hear, he actually takes criticism really poorly.

He acts like a giant babby.

No he won't, he'll lose and accuse the clinton campaign of "stealing" or "cheating", and then will take all of his retarded followers and buy HSN network and turn it into trumptv

>privacy
>net neutrality
Nice memes Hillary

expect NSA cuckery to worsen and net neutrality to get canned

Trump and Hillary are both terrible. They both want state mandated backdoors in encryption, and they will both continue to increase the power of the surveillance state, just like Obama and Bush.

Trump even said that he wanted Snowden executed for upholding his oath to defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic.

>(((Privacy)))
>(((Net neutrality)))

I'm gonna need some sources on that.

The most ironic part, he readily and willingly uses stolen information provided by the same website Snowden did his releases. Can't really blame he candidate for being a charlatan and bufoon since it is gus profesion, but i do blame all the idiots that can't see through his bullshit--the real suckers of the election.

>mfw all the /g basement manlets get drafted to Syria to help ISIS.
Keep shilling Hillary you beta faggots.

As your average Trump-tard, I have very little knowledge about his platform but I hold the firm belief that he stands for everything I stand for even if that goes against statements he's made in the past. Therefore, Trump's America will be a privacy haven.

>it is literally impossible for someone to disagree with me without having ulterior motives
When will you fucking idiots take your medication?

>Trump wants to shut down all terrorist communications channels
>Hilary Clinton made no statement for or against Internet spying
>Obviously we're better off with Trump
Refer to the first part of my post.

If Trump had used private servers for classified information, Sup Forumstards would have been kissing his ass for showing contempt for state secrecy. But because Hilary did it, she's literally Hitler.

He wants to make the internet a utility so it can't be capped and can't be shut off for no reason