Based Ajit "pajit" Pai Cleansing the Web

Based Ajit "pajit" Pai Cleansing the Web
>kicking amerifats off the internet once and for all
Nothing personal, some of you burgers are based but the disease that killed the internet was spawned from your homeland.
>first place to make smartphones a daily-carry accessory that helped normies shit up the internet
>first place in the """first world""" to regulate the internet as strictly as it's being done now
>lowest quality posts come from american IPs
>center of cultural degradation and moral degeneracy
>try to push politics and identity agendas on the internet
>invented modern social media
>responsible for most of the botnet

Can't he just ban faggot smartphone users? It's literally the only thing wrong with the world.

Good luck with your internet sans American consumer base.

Hope you works out for you.

They won't be going away though. They're just going to be paying more.
>mfw American'ts have to pay for free stuff

You know, in this whole net neutrality bullshit, I've come to realize that both sides are idiots whose views should be discarded and ignored. The pro-NN fags for unironically believing that a literal slippery slope would actually happen despite it not happening for years now and not even reaching to the root of the problem they're trying to solve and the anti-NN fags for just not liking it because they see it as a leftist plot to control the internet. If there were actual rational debate surrounding it instead of mindless activism and pure zealotry/partisanship, I'm pretty sure that something good would come of it and I would actually have more of an opinion about it. Until then, I don't really care because nothing is probably going to happen either way.

>muh both sides

Yeah, because you have to choose between two groups of zealots, especially when they act like blundering idiots and shit up this board almost 24/7 (unironically I guess), am I right?

Agreed.

Of course. You can never be wrong by ignoring problems! Sit back and let Jesus take the wheel.

>buy the Sup Forums pack from your ISP
>get put on a watchlist

Th-thanks...

Maybe if you actually sounded like rational individuals instead of shit-flinging monkeys fighting over bannanas, I would actually take some of your point seriously. It's not hard. If you can't do it, don't expect anyone outside your stupid cult to take you seriously.

*points seriously
And honestly this applies to both sides. Hysteria isn't exactly a good way to get people to take your cause seriously other than people that have already taken it seriously in the first place.

Maybe if you actually stop being quick to label people and generalize them as two sides, I would actually take some of your point seriously. It's not hard. If you can't do it, don't expect anyone outside your stupid cult to take you seriously.

>>center of cultural degradation and moral degeneracy
>>try to push politics and identity agendas on the internet

>I want rational discourse in Burgeristani politics
Dream on. USAin politician have discovered (long, LOOOONG ago) that theatrics and drama will get you votes, while calm discussions will get you snores. Every USAin sociopolitical argument has now becomes one of two things:
>Vote for me, or else your children will die
>Vote for me, or else you are Hitler re-incarnated
Pick any topic, from any year in the last 25 years, and you will find that both sides will have the same "kills kids/re-animates Hitler" arguments.

In USA's sociopolitical circles, rationality died with Kennedy.

pro-nn fags are people who want freedom and realize the obvious consequences of corporations having an even more intense control over the internet. you see this in effect everywhere else, why is it suddenly ~le slippery slope~ when applied here? anti-nn fags are just braindead classcucks confusing corporate freedom with their own

Because you could say the exact same thing about anti-nn fags since they don't like the idea of the gov't controlling the means by which we transmit information to each other, which inevitably ends up like TV and radio and becomes sanitized of anything that is found to be morally offensive or otherwise challenging the status quo, getting rid of the actual point of that telecommunications apparatus in the first place, especially by people on the payroll of these large telecomm corporations. Gov't involvement isn't a good solution to corporate cronyism

even if this unfounded tinfoil shit were true. how is the opposite a better solution? if anything, you're just giving up even more personal control you have over the internet.

also gee wonder which side you're on. why is every ~centrist~ just a classcuck too pussy to own their own ideology?

>even if this unfounded tinfoil shit were true.
So how do you conflate that with tinfoil bullshit when literally most of the gov't is made of Republicucks, who the left has classically described as the party of big business, not to mention the fact that most of the Democratic Party (barring maybe the Sanderites) are basically friends with the Bushes and the Republican Party now.

>if anything, you're just giving up even more personal control you have over the internet.
So letting the a gov't that's proven itself incompetent when it comes to economic matters multiple times in the past 40 years take control of the greatest telecommunication medium known to man and has a history of violating personal freedoms that it is legally bound to protect is giving up personal control?

Everytime you say classcuck, I'm just reminded that you're an idiot that follows a failed 200 year old ideology that's literally failed in every state it's been implemented in just like a NEETSoc.

>hurr corporate control bad
>hurr government mandates good

Bazinga yourself, scum.

having respect of yourself beyond what corporations let you have and take from you doesn't really directly have to do with communism but ok. telling of your ideology that you'd even make the comparison. ebin centrism you got there

you ARE somewhat right though. either solution is some kind of shitty compromise and the internet as-is already has a ton of problems. but ridding net neutrality can clearly only exacerbate them and by the time anti-nn legislation is put in effect, it will be too late to change its inevitable problems at all. the legislature itself ensures that. i have been given no reasons as to why it isn't the worse option
>hurr government mandates bad
>hurr corporate control good
wow this sure isn't an argument and not at all what i was saying either way

You dumb tard, I was pointing out your cognitive dissonance since apparently you are fucking clueless to your own hypocrisy.

Tell me oh socialist genius, why is it better when a small group of bureaucrats control a resource versus when a small group of board members and investors do? When has a socialist government actually ever helped the LOW CLASS workers move up from poverty? Go ahead since your not delusional at all, I'm sure you won't have any trouble figuring that out.

Also go back to leftypol you shitdick soyboy. You and the alt-right cunts are shitting up Sup Forums with your politics.

bureaucrats controlling a resource has no inherent agenda, you have to add one via your own presuppositions about whatever the government hypothetically does. board members and investors will inherently do whatever it takes to build capital just in their own self-interest. it's just how the system works, not by any evil plan on their part. it's not that either answer is ideal, it's just the latter has clearer, worse foreseeable consequences. and throwing your arms up in undecided defeat is just surrendering to the status quo (the latter option)
also this has nothing to do with socialism and nobody drinks soy. quit shitting up Sup Forums with your politics.

>it's just how the system works
Confirmed for never reading a book that didn't have pictures in your life you fucking pleb. I'm still waiting for your source and not some shit assertion you pulled from your ass.

>denies drinking soy
>doesn't deny having a dick full of shit
You fags really are a special kind of scum.

>bureaucrats controlling a resource has no inherent agenda
What about the need to keep money flowing into their pockets, just like the board members and investors of a company? If the money they make dries up and their department goes into disuse, they're shit out of a job and broke. So yeah, it's to their advantage for a bureaucrat to push an agenda to make sure he gets money for his bureau and his pocket in return.

>Eurofag goes to jail for saying anything negative about Islam.
Wew, I guess we are pretty free over here in America after all!

>being this retarded
in case you haven't noticed ISPs in America have sucked ass for a long time and have literally stolen billions in government money to better their service without doing so. Compare out internet to the rest of the world, it's a joke. Fact of the matter is we need MORE regulation because right now they are and have been getting away with monpolistic tyranny for years, and you say you don't care because "it's normal".

Or better yet, we could just get rid of all the regional monopolies that are basically enshrined in the law and actually create low barriers of entry to the telecommunications market, circumventing the need for more gov't regulations on companies that no doubt lobby in the gov't, literally like we did before in the late 1800s with AT&T using anti-Trust laws. More regulations aren't going to get rid of these monopolies, especially seeing that they're rich enough to lobby in Congress to get their way 99/100 by paying for some Senator's or House Member's reelection campaign.

Can someone explain what this is all about? I thought ending net neutrality was bad since I can't watch youtube or whatever site without the ISPs making my internet as slow as possible

There was this post in a similar thread from yesterday basically going into a bit more detail about it:

>in case you haven't noticed ISPs in America have sucked ass for a long time and have literally stolen billions in government money to better their service without doing so.

1996 Telecommunications Act

Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014)

Of the 2 judges deciding in favor of Verizon, one of them was literally blind.

>Pajeet Pie

>lowest quality posts come from american IPs
Australians are the biggest shitposters on Sup Forums, not burgers

At least some parts of the world have net neutrality in law though, right?