3 MONTHS after Net Neutrality was repealed

>3 MONTHS after Net Neutrality was repealed
>fuckall has changed

You said we would have to pay extra for youtube and FREEDUMS or else be dragged into the street by the Comcast death squads by now.
Could it be that Sup Forumseddit was wrong again?

Attached: net neutrality in a nutshell.jpg (1115x586, 156K)

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/ajit-pai-faces-investigation-into-moves-that-benefit-sinclair-broadcasting/
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb53jn/fcc-inspector-general-investigation-ajit-pai-corruption
nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-ajit-pai.html
theregister.co.uk/2018/02/15/fcc_chairman_investigation/
digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-paypal-net-neutrality/
digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/03/comcast-increases-2018/
mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

sounds about right lmao

If they abuse it out of the box then the repeal will automatically be repealed.

Reddit was wrong again.

That's because it won't take effect until mid April.

no shit what were you expecting

The changes won't come out until later. Not sure what you're talking about.

Did you think everything was going to change at once?
No, you fucking idiot, it's going to happen gradually.

I cannot escape this meme

>moving the goalposts this hard

Just admit that your reddit-induced hatred for LE EVIL DRUMPFT and the media fearmongering clouded your judgement.

Attached: 1488828059653.png (764x706, 24K)

MONTHS after Net Neutrality was repealed
>>fuckall has changed
Because the new rules aren't in effect yet, learn how regulations work you fucking imbecile.

>moving goalposts
How can anything be affected if the new rule hasn't been implemented yet?

>hurr durr nothing has happened
>because the new regulation isn't in effect yet
>STOP MOVING THE GOALPOST REEEE!!!

Attached: bait-hand.jpg (625x626, 33K)

>fuckall has changed
Of course it didn't dumbfuck. NN is only officially dropped by April 23rd.

Impressively dumb. I suspect this is a Sup Forums user.

It's just low energy trolling.

Nothing that r*ddit said would happen actually happened. In fact my 75mbps plan was upgraded to 100mpbs for free. Same price.

>6 posters pointing out that the regulation isn't dropped until April
>still makes this post to shit on libtards at reddit
Consider sudoku

Comcast has bandwidth limit overages now that I keep getting notifications for

Thanks obama

The end of the internet as we know it, according the silicon valley fearmongers.

>he's just pretending to be retarded
No I think you're wrong. I've interacted with Sup Forums users enough now to diagnose them.
Have you ever read their board a little? They're all like this. They don't care for correctness at all. When posed with an article they don't even look at the article source to make a point when they disagree. They focus on volume of speech to get their will through and that's obviously not enough for any diverse group.
That's a strong sign of low intelligence.

>Have you ever read their board a little?
I'll admit that I haven't, because racist memes isn't really my kind of thing.

Still doesn't mean that they are just trolling. Sure, some people (like Anglin and Weev) spend so much time doing it they break down the wall that separates memes from real life, but I sincerely doubt that's the case for every single one of Sup Forumslacks.

I supported repealing it. I dont want the government any more involved in the internet than they already are

>I dont want the government any more involved in the internet than they already are
But that's not what you supported... You supported less government involvement, not "keep current level of involvement as is".

Because is was astroturfing by paid shills to distract idiots from the real issues of antitrust and conflicts of interest and as a government attempt at a power grab via the FCC. What idiots should be wasting their time on is lobbying the FTC to break up these monopolies and create legislation that makes it illegal for ISPs to be anything more than dumb pipe utilities. Companies like Comcast should not be allowed to own both an ISP and a content producer like NBC. Companies like Comcast should not even be allowed to have a homepage that displays news articles because of the potential to manipulate the news to push their own agendas.

>3 MONTHS after Net Neutrality was repealed
It has been less than a month since the actual repeal. Ajit is under investigation for corruption, Comcast has been caught blocking paypal and other sites (again(, internet rates got a significant hike this year.
Even worse, russian bots were proven to have been posting pro repeal comments on the FCCs site, significantly so.
You not only fell for self-harming bullshit, you enabled and supported it and continue to do so.

I hope you enjoy being a fucking tool.

Oh yeah, changing the subject somehow makes the issue disappear. Pointing out other issues makes dissolving net neutrality ok, and in fact not relevant because there are other issues.
This is hilariously childish logic, making things worse doesn't matter because things are really bad already, guise! Stop bothering le god emprah.

>Ajit is under investigation for corruption
Either provide source or stop quoting fake news blogposts.

go back to Sup Forums

You forgot /m/ousepad

For someone shilling this retard's policies, you sure don't keep up with the news.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/ajit-pai-faces-investigation-into-moves-that-benefit-sinclair-broadcasting/
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb53jn/fcc-inspector-general-investigation-ajit-pai-corruption

> lawyer for verizon
> chairman of fcc

yes he's corrupt, if you dont think he is you're a fucking retard

>For someone shilling this retard's policies,
I haven't shilled for him or his policies, but parroting unverified stories is literally fake news.

>vice.com
Not really a credible source, but I appreciate you providing a second link.

Yeah, sure. I should just blindly listen to retards on a Mongolian cavepainting forum.

How stupid do you have to be to understand that American politics are legalized corruption

> guy works as lawyer for Verizon, a telecommunications company
> guy gets kickbacks from Verizon
> guy is head of fcc and guts Verizons biggest regulation

fake news? No, you're just a stupid kkkunt.

Oh it was all over the news, if you want to pull that ad-hominem argument.
nytimes.com/2018/02/15/technology/fcc-sinclair-ajit-pai.html

theregister.co.uk/2018/02/15/fcc_chairman_investigation/

You centipede mongoloids literally fucked yourselves in the ass and are now asking for seconds.

>moving the goalpost from "being investigated for corruption" to "lol american politics and lobbying is essentially just like corruption"

Stick to your original argument or fuck off. There's a difference between potentially having done something illegal and being investigated/probed for it, and "I think the entire system is flawed to begin with, therefore he is a bad person". Those are not the same thing at all.

>if you want to pull that ad-hominem argument.
What ad hominem?

>You centipede mongoloids literally fucked yourselves in the ass and are now asking for seconds.
Now that's an ad hominem, and I'm not even sure why you would sperg out like that when I just fucking said that I appreciated the link. Maybe stop inventing strawman arguments and actually read what I write next time?

I'm not the guy moving the goal post. I know its hard for you to understand, but you're arguing with at least two people here.

Lobbying is legalized bribery you stupid cunt. I'm sorry that in your underutilized brain you cannot understand that you stupid fucking pleb.

>it's f-fake news
That ad-hominem. Attacking the source instead of the information provided.
>now that's an ad-hominem
You clearly have no idea what that term means, or a strawman for that matter.
In any case, it's funny how the resolve of these shills dissolves when confronted with the sack of manure this pajeet actually is.

Eternal reminder that under net neutrality an ISP could just say "we're not neutral" and ignore it.

>I'm not the guy moving the goal post. I know its hard for you to understand, but you're arguing with at least two people here.
But you responded to my request for a source on him being investigated for corruption.... Jesus Christ, you're stupid.

>Lobbying is legalized bribery you stupid cunt. I'm sorry that in your underutilized brain you cannot understand that you stupid fucking pleb.
Whatever you personally feel about lobbying is fucking irrelevant, you stupid shit.

And?

Money in politics is no matter how you slice it corruption. Just because it's legalized doesn't mean it's not corruption you stupid piece of shit.

>That ad-hominem
That's not an ad hominem.

>Attacking the source instead of the information provided.
Questioning the validity of a source is not an ad hominem, moron.

>In any case, it's funny how the resolve of these shills dissolves when confronted with the sack of manure this pajeet actually is.
I'm not a shill, for crying out loud. I personally think dismantling Title II is a huge step in the wrong direction.

You attributing an opinion I don't have to me, simply because I dared to question your claim, is your strawman.

I don't know if you're trolling or being deliberately stupid or whatever, but I requested a source on him being investigated for the (illegal) corruption. How can you be investigated for something that's legal? Lobbying is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

This meme is stupid. Why would anyone suck a person into their anus?

Not him, attacking the source is ad-hominem, not questioning the source.

> I requested a source on him being investigated for the (illegal) corruption
As you, yourself pointed out lobbying is not illegal in the united states

Lobbying is not irrelevant; especially when the oligarchy has captured law and created laws to their benefit.

If you think lobbying is not corruption, you're stupid. As you have so aptly demonstrated.

Murrika has better internet than pretty much every western Yurocuck nation and the rest of the world.

Attached: speed.png (553x2137, 86K)

>be retarded
>hurr don't move the goalposts

It's an edit of a Sup Forums meme, what did you expect.

Attached: 1507077056766.jpg (1134x1761, 204K)

...

welcome to Sup Forums, where Sup Forums comes to drop massive flaming turds and Sup Forums responds to them with well thought out critiques rather than dismiss it as trolling.

This is why we can't have nice threads. It's just too easy to troll Sup Forums. But honestly, if you let your guard down then the trolls just run over the place and eventually it'll be no different than /biz/. Please just stay to Sup Forums and /biz/ leave us alone!

To be immediately shot down and forced to comply, as happened many times. Hell, it's the reason why those rules were in place to begin with.
Keep trying to spread misinformation, it's kinda cute.

digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-paypal-net-neutrality/

Attached: 1521103768698.jpg (526x526, 72K)

This, you stupid faggot or I'm going to vote to take your guns away stupid faggot

>attacking the source is ad-hominem, not questioning the source.
First of all, you're clearly him.

Secondly, if attacking the validity of a source is an ad-hominem then you've effectively destroyed any argument as I can post any bullshit claim I want and questioning those claims is, according to you, a fallacious argument.

You're clearly intelligent enough to see that not all sources are equally valid, thus questioning the validity of a source is perfectly reasonable when that source is known for being imprecise and not holding up to a basic level of journalistic integrity.

>Lobbying is not irrelevant;
It is in the current discussion, but if the corruption probe finds something then the Title II repeal could be overturned. In other words, we are discussing the repeal of net neutrality here and you're just rambling off about the ethics of lobbying, which is a totally separate discussion.

>If you think lobbying is not corruption, you're stupid. As you have so aptly demonstrated.
I haven't made any comments regarding my views on lobbying, so now you're just making strawman arguments.

Literally fake news.

They weren't blocking the website through their network which is what this whole thread is about. The blocking was done via some safe browser and the setting could be turned off..

Fake news yet again by redditors.

I'm the first guy you were fumbling to argue with, so no, I'm not samefagging. An ad-hominem fallacy refers to questioning the messenger instead of the message, I'm sure you can educate yourself doing a google search. Everything else in this post shows a gross display of cognitive dissonance, which I'm not going to address.

I know i always vote for less governmenr

>everything is fakenews if it's not follow my shitty agenda

>An ad-hominem fallacy refers to questioning the messenger instead of the message
I didn't question the messenger (aka user), I questioned the source of the message (aka vice.com, a website literally known for propagating unverified stories).

> vote less govt
create more monopolies and crony capitalism

how stupid do you have to be to see that less govt in many cases is just you being manipulated?

When was the last time you started an ISP? Exactly.

Only idiots thought things would change immediately. Things will change when ISPs are confident the legal status won't change. That'll be in the state-level net neutrality regulations (which are progressing rapidly in many large markets) are overruled and if the next administration doesn't roll back the changes (which they easily can do by executive order).

The only person with an agenda is you. I easily proved you're full of shit.

>The blocking was done via some safe browser and the setting could be turned off..
Which would have made them liable with net neutrality rules in effect, since it was being blocked through a service they sell and configure. Since the site is reporting exactly this, I don't see how "fake news" applies in this context. Contrary to magatard belief, it doesn't mean "I ain't trying to hear that shit, nigguh".

NN is still in effect, the regulations wear off in april

The only thing you can provide is a shitty denial.

Attached: 1521055357598.jpg (580x394, 48K)

That's the same thing, you're trying to distort the discussion into semantics to avoid the central point. The messenger in this case is the site reporting the news, disregarding whatever the news is. In any case, you were provided with plenty of sources, so this never applied to begin with.

I contend that the average Sup Forums poster is a lot stupider than the average Sup Forums poster thinks the average Sup Forums poster is.

Cry more communist authoritarian

And they're already shitting the bed with increased rates
digitalmusicnews.com/2018/01/03/comcast-increases-2018/
And sketchy practices
What a carnival of shit they're going to make you eat next month.
#shadilay

I don't like Vice's coverage on many things, but they're as credible as any other source. If you disqualify sources of information because they're biased, you'll not have many left, for one. Additionally, it shows that you're too stupid/lazy to read between the lines and extract what's actually relevant.

because ISPs aren't fucking retarded. people would be up in arms if they start shoving their dick into their asses as soon as NN goes away. it will be a slow and gradual change, boiling frog style

lol? disagree with me so I'm a communist authoritarian?

Attached: 1520903598649.png (708x537, 243K)

A browser is not considered a utility so you're wrong you mong.

Why are libtards crying about NN being repealed when they can just pass NN laws at the state level?

>because ISPs aren't fucking retarded. people would be up in arms if they start shoving their dick into their asses as soon as NN goes away.
Why do you think those rules were set in the first place? They're going to fuck your boipuccy raw and you gave them permission.

>That's the same thing, you're trying to distort the discussion into semantics to avoid the central point.
The central point is that you posted a claim without sources, which I then asked for. You replied, to your credit, with sources, but also a bunch of wild strawmans about my supposedly stance on the subject and remarks about my intelligence and motives (which would definitively classify as an actual adhominem attack).

I pointed out that vice.com is not credible (implying that you should probably refrain from using them as a source in the future), and thanked you for the other link. You somehow interpreted this as a personal attack and started creating false dichotomies about how if I didn't find vice.com to be credible, then I clearly must be a "retarded shill" and even started rambling on about how questioning the credibility of a source somehow is also an adhominem attack (which is just fucking ridiculous, stop pretending otherwise).

>you were provided with plenty of sources, so this never applied to begin with.
Which is why I don't understand why you are so extremely butthurt over the vice.com remark? You seem like an extremely sensitive person. I suggest trying to be less emotionally invested in such discussions in the future, not everyone is out there to "get" you.

I can't tell if you're telling me to commit suicide or if you want to. Either way I welcome death.

That guy that wrote the artivle on Vice is a complete marxist and he also runs DSLReports.

Vice is not credible.

Are you too ignorant to understand where your shitty marxist talking points came from?

>Secondly, if attacking the validity of a source
Which isn't what you did. You were just talking shit. In the context of the argument you're making, "attacking the source" would require sources of your own demonstrating how the original source is biased, incompetent, corrupt, etc. You didn't do that, so stop pretending you know something everyone else doesn't.

You used ad hominem.

>but they're as credible as any other source.
They are clearly not. Vice.com has been repeatedly exposed for not holding up to basic levels of journalistic integrity and verification, to which their goto response is that they're not really attempting to be a news media.

>If you disqualify sources of information because they're biased
Bias is one thing, but I do care about whether or not someone propagates UNVERIFIED stories.

>A browser is not considered a utility
It is when it's being provided and configured by the ISP itself. It's not something these users downloaded from a third party on their own. Comcast providing it as a feature of their service effectively made it part of their package.

> calls me communist authoritarian, then marxist
too stupid to realize that there are not communist parties in the US with representation

too stupid to realize that communism and marxism are two different things

try again stupid

How does the US have some of the fastest speeds in the world if LIBERALS have been crying for years that ISP's have monopolies and never upgrade their infrastructure?

>you need to prove that vice.com isn't a credible source
Maximum back-pedalling here, folk.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/

Without amerimutts this site will die.

>waaaaah why can't they just agree with meeeeeee

You pre-emptively assumed whatever sources were to be provided were fake news, so that cemented your stance as far as I'm concerned. And the ad-hominem comment still stands, you immediately disregarded a source for being biased, without taking into account what was being reported at all. You've so far shown a complete misunderstanding of the logical fallacies cited.
I have to admit, you were seeking to turn this into an argument about arguments, to deviate from the central issue (Ajit Pai and the net neutrality repeal) and you managed to do it. So, congratulations, I guess.

can you stop shitposting please

Attached: worldmap-copy-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 57K)

>they're as credible as any other source

Attached: 1520200105465.png (800x729, 48K)

>no true scottsman x 4
Bernie is a marxist, america rejected it. Get fucked pinko

>How does the US have some of the fastest speeds in the world
They don't, not by a long shot. Also data caps in home connections are mostly an american thing.

>Sup Forums is now a kike loving site now
>this triggers the reddit, so it's worth it

Attached: 1519218673949.jpg (604x604, 237K)

>You pre-emptively assumed whatever sources were to be provided were fake news
Except I literally said the opposite, that claims without sources is fake news.

>And the ad-hominem comment still stands, you immediately disregarded a source for being biased, without taking into account what was being reported at all.
That's not an adhominem, that's dismissing the source as untrustworthy (and rightfully so).

An adhominem would be saying "vice is wrong because they're leftists scumbags", but what I've actually said all along is "vice is untrustworthy because they have a history of propagating unverified stories", which is clearly not an adhominem.

>I have to admit, you were seeking to turn this into an argument about arguments, to deviate from the central issue (Ajit Pai and the net neutrality repeal) and you managed to do it. So, congratulations, I guess.
I never did this, I asked for sources and thanked you when you posted them. You went on an angry rant attacking my intelligence and creating strawman arguments about my motives, even though I repeatedly told you that I actually support NN.

Kek

he is a socialist, or social democrat you stupid fucking pleb.

You're the reason why the democracy doesn't work; because you have no perception of different views on reality.

> hur hur he's a marxist, hur hur he's a communist
Pick up a book you fucking retard.

I'm going to vote to dismantle the 2nd amendment. So, I think its best to punish you by taking away your toys you stupid child.

What do either of those things have to do with his ability to report on whether or not there's an investigation happening?

>They are clearly not. Vice.com has been repeatedly exposed
Is that so? Post your sources.

>I do care about whether or not someone propagates UNVERIFIED stories
Every internet news outlet there is does this now. If Vice does it too, they're not in the minority, despite your beliefs.

That was the second post I made in this thread, but to the point: bias doesn't demonstrate reliability. Everyone has bias. It's YOUR job to understand the bias of the news media you consume. If you don't accept that, what you're really doing is pushing for a world where the news media agrees with YOUR bias and everything else is fake news. Eventually, that leads to megalomaniacs like Trump walking around saying everything is fake news. Either you take some responsibility for your own thoughts or you deny reality in its totality in order to remain lazy. Your choice.

See above.

>They don't, not by a long shot

[citation needed]

>Also data caps in home connections are mostly an american thing.

Wrong. Not even that common in the US and I've seen ISP's in other countries do this, especially Germany.