For all you who are wondering why Sup Forums supports repealing net neutrality

For all you who are wondering why Sup Forums supports repealing net neutrality.

hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6

oh don't worry there wasn't any wondering
it's all just an inside joke that isn't very funny

How many pro NN were likely faked. How many pro NN were likely paid for by Soros. There's major fake shilling going on on both sides because NN is a distraction from the real issues of anti-trust and limited/non-existent ISP competition. Why are ISPs like Comcast allowed to own NBC or even have a homepage that provides news? All ISPs should be forced to be dumb pipes. That's the type of regulation you fags should be supprting/upboating.

Jesus christ. Who are behind these shillbots?

big techs big bux

>everyone who disagrees with soros's 200m+ shill campaign is a Russian bot

Where have I heard this before?

>>everyone who disagrees with ISP's 200m+ shill campaign is a Soros bot

Where have I heard this before?

Did you read your own link?
>At the very minimum, we can conclude that the vast preponderance of individuals passionate enough about the issue to write up their own comment are for keeping net neutrality.
Most of the real comments are FOR net neutrality.

Hello fellow 4Channers on /G

>i have no idea what question marks are

...did you read the article? Pro-repeal (meaning anti) NN comments are faked.

Yes. That's exactly what I wrote you fucking brainlets.

Why would Sup Forums be pro repeal if the comments were faked? Your logic doesn't make any sense.

...

Sup Forums supports it because anti-Trump liberals and redittors try to make it out like it's a huge deal when it's really just rolling back an awkward and ambiguous law that was instated like 2 years ago.

Personally, I find the law too awkward and ambiguous to feel one way or another about its instatement or repeal.

But how many anti-pro-repeal fud comments were shilled artificially by paid bot workers?

How the fuck does that article support repealing net neutrality then?

You have to go back.

_d is that way

when you're trying to spam your image across anti-NN hugboxes and NN threads to make it seem like you have a point but you actually don't

But what about the con-reverse-counter-anti-pro-repeal comments?

There's so much shilling that I don't know what to believe

>How many pro NN were likely paid for by Soros
oh you guys and your boogeymen.

Is this the new way of trolling? State support of one side and then post a link supporting the other side? Or are you just retarded and have no idea what your link is about?

>speaking for all of Sup Forums
I don't want internet that is tiered by the services I use. It stifles innovation by small actors and enables corporations to effectively sensor dissenting opinion.

After this they can and will throttle your favorite p2p protocol.

f-f-ff-fake news

besides if that works is because most people are severely misinformed in the subject (and either supporting or going against net neutrality anyways). If you ever wonder why everyone isn't holding hands and singing "we love NN" don't look at corporations, look at pro NN people that are doing their best not to be informed while at the same time try to push people to promote the message, which turns many away (of which are also misinformed). This is pure politics and you need a good spokesman, less pressure and less retards on your side if you want to win.

Figuring out what to believe is easy. Here's the quick rundown on the research I did:

1. Net Neutrality is about treating all internet data equally, no special censorship or favoritism.
2. There was an attempt by the ISP's to conflate net neutrality with the opposite - now why would they have to lie to people if what they're doing is in our best interests?
3. The FCC chair is a lawyer who works for one of the Telecom companies. Why would I trust him to do anything in my interests when he doesn't even work for me?
4. The Telecom companies own and operate most of the MSM, including CNN and MSNBC. They lie through their teeth on broadcast TV, why the fuck would they stop lying through their teeth now?

Then I did more research. I was told that net neutrality didn't exist until 2 years ago, so I looked it up, and it turned out to be a lie by omission. It's been around for the better part of 3 decades in the US, but in the early 2000's, Verizon won a lawsuit where they claimed the rules didn't apply and the judge agreed it didn't until such a time as the FCC clarified the rules. The 2015 rule change was exactly that clarification, which made Verizon quite unhappy.

Now we have a Verizon lawyer as head of the FCC and he's repealing net neutrality. How is this anything other than a salty as fuck telecom doing an end-run around the law?

Then I decided to look into what happened in between Verizon winning that court case and the 2015 ruling, and what I found was a laundry list of anti-competitive and exploitive measures being taken by various ISP's, including Verizon; from throttling connections to outright censorship.

Finally I checked to see what the state of the telecom market was in the US to see how competitive these telecoms were with each other, and it's a shitshow of ~6 regional monopolies basically fucking everyone raw while largely refusing to compete at all.

God fucking damn you people are stupid. OP was making a comment to the huge flood of spamposts on Sup Forums over the past couple days attacking net neutrality.

You know what, I feel like my post needs a translation to stupid, because it still might be unclear:

Sup Forums was flooded with spambots/paid shills saying net neutrality is bad
OP's article is evidence the spambots/paidshills were/are at work across the internet
OP says, "No wonder we had so many anti-NN posts, they really were bots and shills after all"

If you still don't get it, God help you.

In reality OP is saying "if you're wondering why Sup Forums is so pro net neutrality is because they knew all along about the bots spamming anti-net neutrality posts" but I'm going to assume that OP is retarded and he thought the opposite because in most cases it's something that holds true in these boards.

Given who's on each side, i would say this is a full on bot on bot war.
And i bet you're a bot too.

>awkward and ambiguous
>awkward and ambiguous
>doesn't actually state anything to back that up

nice feels man

>while largely refusing to compete at all.
isn't it glorious?

if soros and the left supports something so vehemently, I'm against it.

_donald

Fuck off indian click farm worker

Oh, I see what is being done. Funny that.

I don't have a horse on either side but I have no doubt that's someone being mad and copying that shit around.

You got caught red handed rajeet, back to the shitting street before your hander throws you in the ganges

But on the other hand, comcast and AT&T supports it.
There's no good guy on this story.

A truly good guy would tell you to stop caring about this shit and making a fuss to end the ISP monopoly on america.
But none of the sides want this to end.

At least you could have posted it on a thread with a news article you nigglet

government-owned lines leased out to ISP companies
that's how other countries took care of the barrrier-to-entry problem but that won't happen anytime soon

You're implying that the tech giants like google etc care about net neutrality.

They don't give a fuck so long as they can get a cut of the pie.

All it takes is Verizon saying, "We'll partner with you Google for $50 million, and nobody on our network will be able to use any other search engine or video website except google.com and youtube.com"; if there's any bots on the pro-NN side, it's not from the tech giants. They look to make out like bandits once they start bribing the telecoms to shutdown/censor/throttle their competition.

Imagine if the only way you could sell goods online is by becoming an "Amazon-affiliate" so Amazon gets a cut of everything you sell rather than you running your own webshop.

You think this is tech giants vs telecoms - it's not. It's telecoms + techgiants + 30" dildo vs your anus in getfucktown

I want more competition but there's never any other isps in my area. Since spectrum bought time warner my bill keeps going up and up. Meanwhile not that far away you can get 1000 mbps fiber from AT&T for $80 versus my hundreds for 300 mbps.