[godfather dust]

This could potentially drag maga down. Breitbart (and similar) throttled to dial up speed? Goodbye 2018 midterms.

Does Trump not understand the internet largely won him the election? Fire this FCC jackass.

[EndsExpect]

(11-22-2017 11:47 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

This could potentially drag maga down. Breitbart (and similar) throttled to dial up speed? Goodbye 2018 midterms.
Does Trump not understand the internet largely won him the election? Fire this FCC jackass.

I used to work for Comcast years ago. You have no idea how Liberal this organization is top to bottom. Only the salesforce has some conservatives. I spoke to some upper management folks in Philly and these muhfuckers are the planets most liberal sons of bitches.

This is a situation where Trump should pander to the socialists a bit. Nationalize these fucking companies, imprison the executives.

[Latinopan]

From T_D

[Cattle Rustler]

(11-22-2017 11:23 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Under Obama every fucking president before Trump....

Fixed it for you.

[Matt Forney]

At the same time Twitter, Reddit, Google et al. are gearing up to oppose the supposed censorship that would occur if "net neutrality" is scrapped...

- Twitter is preparing to ban all right-wing users starting Dec. 18, using "smart cookies" to track your activity around the Internet like a creeper and ban you from their site if your politics aren't progressive enough for their tastes, even if you aren't violating Twitter's own rules.

- Google has throttled search results for RT and Sputnik because they are supposedly "Russian propaganda," with no evidence of this.

- Facebook is making it increasingly difficult for so-called "fake news" to circulate on their network, "fake news" being defined as "any news that isn't from CNN or another mainstream media, corporate source."

These three companies hold a monopoly on worldwide communications and have been using it to control information and censor people they don't like, yet they're accusing telecom companies of wanting to do the same or---God forbid---charging people extra for Netflix?

Our chosen friends have a word for the proponents of net neutrality: chutzpah.

"Net neutrality" is a fake concept invented to solve a nonexistent problem. No ISP anywhere in the world has introduced the "tiered pricing" model that net neutrality advocates claim makes the law necessary. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of countries do not have any form of net neutrality legislation. Any ISP that tried to introduce such a model would lose business to ones that didn't, and I can say this with confidence because there is not a single ISP in the world that uses this model.

As for the threat of censorship that net neutrality is designed to prevent, the three aforementioned companies---Twitter, Facebook, Google---already censor and ban right-wing voices to such a degree that any censorship from telecom companies would be redundant.

Net neutrality exists for one reason only: web companies don't want to pay their fair share for bandwidth. Google, Facebook, Twitter et al., companies that are worth billions of dollars, are cheapskates who want a free ride from telecom companies, companies that have to pay to maintain Internet infrastructure but are restricted in their ability to charge people who use said infrastructure. Everything else is window dressing.

The only form of "net neutrality" that would be meaningful is one that would declare Google, Twitter, Facebook and the like to be public utilities, making it illegal for them to control, censor, or manipulate information and banning people for their political views. And as it turns out, this already exists: in 1946, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Alabama that private companies do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they have a monopoly on the means by which speech takes place. In other words, any halfway competent lawyer could crush Big Tech in a court of law by pointing out that they're literally violating the Constitution.

We don't need "net neutrality" because we already have it. It's just not being enforced.

As far as I'm concerned, this entire argument is a bum fight. It's completely irrelevant to us because neither side has our best interests at heart.

Not my people. Not my problem.

[Transsimian]

[Repo]

(11-23-2017 08:36 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

"Net neutrality" is a fake concept invented to solve a nonexistent problem. No ISP anywhere in the world has introduced the "tiered pricing" model that net neutrality advocates claim makes the law necessary. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of countries do not have any form of net neutrality legislation.

Did a quick Google search, that doesn't seem to be accurate:



https://amp.businessinsider.com/net-neut...cc-2017-11

**edit** posted wrong image

[Transsimian]

Fake news! kinda.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/1669...t-pai-plan

[Suits]

(11-23-2017 08:36 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

"Net neutrality" is a fake concept invented to solve a nonexistent problem. No ISP anywhere in the world has introduced the "tiered pricing" model that net neutrality advocates claim makes the law necessary. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of countries do not have any form of net neutrality legislation.

Not true. I live in the literal capital of Internet censorship.

Major Chinese search engines and companies pay extra to get their websites delivered at high speed, while everything other than those certain websites are delivered at a crawl. I have to use a VPN to access non-blocked websites at a reasonable enough speed to make use of other websites not paying for a top position.

[Latinopan]

(11-23-2017 08:36 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Net neutrality exists for one reason only: web companies don't want to pay their fair share for bandwidth. Google, Facebook, Twitter et al., companies that are worth billions of dollars, are cheapskates who want a free ride from telecom companies, companies that have to pay to maintain Internet infrastructure but are restricted in their ability to charge people who use said infrastructure. Everything else is window dressing.

While I am not a fan of going around defending companies, this is a big part of the problem, ISPs have to really have people on the ground, mostly blue collar people doing the infrastructure work to keep said infrastructure running, during the summer, or winter, not matter the weather, not, is not perfect, but they keep it running.

Then you have tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, with a bunch of people, many SJWs, that don't know how to even change a tire, sitting on a cubicle all day making demands on how said infrastructure should me manage.

Next thing they will demand some Net Neutrality where every ISPs must be forced to install fiber to everyone.

Is easy to run a company when all you have is people sitting in big rooms clicking. Lets see one of these big tech companies try to build a infrastructure.

[Matt Forney]

Holy shit, the FCC is woke.

Their filing to end net neutrality directly cites the wave of censorship from Google, Facebook, domain registrars and the like, naming CloudFlare's treatment of the Daily Stormer, Gab being banned from the Google Play Store, and Twitter censoring right-wingers as examples. Go to pages 150-152 and also check the footnotes:

Quote:

261. Consensus against blocking and throttling. We emphasize once again that we do not support blocking lawful content, consistent with long-standing Commission policy. The potential consequences of blocking or throttling lawful content on the Internet ecosystem are well-documented in the record and in Commission precedent. Stakeholders from across the Internet ecosystem oppose the blocking and throttling of lawful content, including ISPs, public interest groups, edge providers, other content producers, network equipment manufacturers, and other businesses and individuals who use the Internet. This consensus is among the reasons that there is scant evidence that end users, under different legal frameworks, have been prevented by blocking or throttling from accessing the content of their choosing. It also is among the reasons why providers have voluntarily abided by no-blocking practices even during periods where they were not legally required to do so. As to free expression in particular, we note that none of the actual incidents discussed in the Title II Order squarely implicated free speech. If anything, recent evidence suggests that hosting services, social media platforms, edge providers, and other providers of virtual Internet infrastructure are more likely to block content on viewpoint grounds. [emphasis by me - ed.]

https://torrentfreak.com/images/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Intentionally or not, by ending net neutrality, the FCC is calling Big Tech's bluff. They're exposing how these same megacorporations crying about potential censorship from ISPs are themselves the biggest censors on the planet.

Left-wing meltdown in three... two... one...

[Matt Forney]

(11-24-2017 08:42 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 08:36 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

"Net neutrality" is a fake concept invented to solve a nonexistent problem. No ISP anywhere in the world has introduced the "tiered pricing" model that net neutrality advocates claim makes the law necessary. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of countries do not have any form of net neutrality legislation.

Not true. I live in the literal capital of Internet censorship.

Major Chinese search engines and companies pay extra to get their websites delivered at high speed, while everything other than those certain websites are delivered at a crawl. I have to use a VPN to access non-blocked websites at a reasonable enough speed to make use of other websites not paying for a top position.

So we have exactly one country where the "tiered package" model of Internet service is used. A country that is already known for its strict controls on speech, and therefore has little in common with the U.S. or any other Western nation.

I'm wrong, but my point still stands: there is no wave of ISPs ready to jack up peoples' broadband bills should net neutrality end.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-24-2017 06:09 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

So we have exactly one country where the "tiered package" model of Internet service is used. A country that is already known for its strict controls on speech, and therefore has little in common with the U.S. or any other Western nation.

I'm wrong, but my point still stands: there is no wave of ISPs ready to jack up peoples' broadband bills should net neutrality end.

The issue isn't so much paying higher broadband prices as it is how the ISPs will throttle some traffic while it allows other traffic to flow at full speed.

What you will see is services, like Netflix, having to pay the ISPs to avoid throttling their services to the point where it becomes difficult to use. Netflix and other similar companies will jack up their prices to pay for these fees. It can almost come to the point where the ISPs can hold these services hostage.

[Only One Man]

Can you imagine the outcry on the forum if Hillary had won the election and then appionted an FCC head who was pushing to end net neutrality? Come on fellas. Criticizing Trump when it's completely warranted doesn't make you a low-T male feminist pussy.

[Matt Forney]

(11-24-2017 06:19 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 06:09 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

So we have exactly one country where the "tiered package" model of Internet service is used. A country that is already known for its strict controls on speech, and therefore has little in common with the U.S. or any other Western nation.

I'm wrong, but my point still stands: there is no wave of ISPs ready to jack up peoples' broadband bills should net neutrality end.

The issue isn't so much paying higher broadband prices as it is how the ISPs will throttle some traffic while it allows other traffic to flow at full speed.

What you will see is services, like Netflix, having to pay the ISPs to avoid throttling their services to the point where it becomes difficult to use. Netflix and other similar companies will jack up their prices to pay for these fees. It can almost come to the point where the ISPs can hold these services hostage.

I don't see how that's any different or worse than Google, Facebook, and Apple holding people hostage over their political views, which is the reality right now.

For that matter, even if your scenario comes true, consumers will at least be able to deal with it by paying higher bills. If Google and their ilk decide they want to censor or ban you, you have no recourse at all. See: the Daily Stormer having to hop from one domain registrar to the next as they keep getting banned.

Taking sides in the net neutrality debate is like siding between two groups of rival gangs who both want to rape your wife and kill you.

Sorry, but in a world where Facebook can ban me for 30 days because I posted a link to a manosphere blog, severing my ability to communicate with my friends, I'm not going to squirt tears over Netflix customers possibly having to pay $3 more per month.

(11-24-2017 06:24 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

Can you imagine the outcry on the forum if Hillary had won the election and then appionted an FCC head who was pushing to end net neutrality? Come on fellas. Criticizing Trump when it's completely warranted doesn't make you a low-T male feminist pussy.

Why would Hillary end a policy that benefits her corporate backers?

Net neutrality aids leftist companies like Google at the expense of telecom companies by letting them save money on bandwidth. The entire concept of net neutrality was invented by Google and the like because it's easier to get people riled up over defending free-dumb then it is to get them to passionately defend your "right" to a lower bandwidth bill.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-24-2017 06:48 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 06:19 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 06:09 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

So we have exactly one country where the "tiered package" model of Internet service is used. A country that is already known for its strict controls on speech, and therefore has little in common with the U.S. or any other Western nation.

I'm wrong, but my point still stands: there is no wave of ISPs ready to jack up peoples' broadband bills should net neutrality end.

The issue isn't so much paying higher broadband prices as it is how the ISPs will throttle some traffic while it allows other traffic to flow at full speed.

What you will see is services, like Netflix, having to pay the ISPs to avoid throttling their services to the point where it becomes difficult to use. Netflix and other similar companies will jack up their prices to pay for these fees. It can almost come to the point where the ISPs can hold these services hostage.

I don't see how that's any different or worse than Google, Facebook, and Apple holding people hostage over their political views, which is the reality right now.

For that matter, even if your scenario comes true, consumers will at least be able to deal with it by paying higher bills. If Google and their ilk decide they want to censor or ban you, you have no recourse at all. See: the Daily Stormer having to hop from one domain registrar to the next as they keep getting banned.

Taking sides in the net neutrality debate is like siding between two groups of rival gangs who both want to rape your wife and kill you.

Sorry, but in a world where Facebook can ban me for 30 days because I posted a link to a manosphere blog, severing my ability to communicate with my friends, I'm not going to squirt tears over Netflix customers possibly having to pay $3 more per month.

Matt, you seem fixated on companies that censor you. There is a big difference between what I am talking about and what you are.

I want choice. If I want to watch puppy videos all day long I don't want my speed fucked with to the point where I can't watch those adorable puppies.

I don't need to use Facebook or Google, but if I did, I want to use them without hindrance because they refuse to pay into some black mailing scheme.

Your view is to cut off the nose to spite the face. Holding companies hostage isn't going to help anyone. No one should want ISPs to have the ability to close down companies like Netflix if they don't pay up. Surely you don't want ISPs to dictate whether your business becomes a success or a failure.

My scenario was happening prior to net neutrality. It isn't a "if" thing.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agr...1393175346

That is like the electric company telling you to use all the electric you need for your toaster but you can only use 1 hour for your fridge. That is until the fridge manufacturers pay up. If you don't like it, well, you can use solar and wind.

Quote:

Sorry, but in a world where Facebook can ban me for 30 days because I posted a link to a manosphere blog, severing my ability to communicate with my friends, I'm not going to squirt tears over Netflix customers possibly having to pay $3 more per month.

Why should others care if you get censored, banned or disallowed to communicate with your friends when you have that view?

[Repo]

(11-24-2017 06:09 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 08:42 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 08:36 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

"Net neutrality" is a fake concept invented to solve a nonexistent problem. No ISP anywhere in the world has introduced the "tiered pricing" model that net neutrality advocates claim makes the law necessary. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of countries do not have any form of net neutrality legislation.

Not true. I live in the literal capital of Internet censorship.

Major Chinese search engines and companies pay extra to get their websites delivered at high speed, while everything other than those certain websites are delivered at a crawl. I have to use a VPN to access non-blocked websites at a reasonable enough speed to make use of other websites not paying for a top position.

So we have exactly one country where the "tiered package" model of Internet service is used. A country that is already known for its strict controls on speech, and therefore has little in common with the U.S. or any other Western nation.

I'm wrong, but my point still stands: there is no wave of ISPs ready to jack up peoples' broadband bills should net neutrality end.

Come on Matt, you can't argue that ISPs aren't lining up to jack bills up while also arguing that this decision will allow them to charge more to build their infrastructure.

[Kapanda]

Economists seem to have always been in favor of scrapping regularity.

http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~faulhab...Review.pdf

http://www.aei.org/publication/net-neutr...mics-says/

Even assuming a tiered delivery of products - by the way, is anyone paying $5 a month for internet? That sounds really cheap, which makes that tiered product by MEO a boost to consumer surplus - does not necessarily mean a loss for customers/consumers/me and you. The law was introduced in 2015. The internet existed for a long time before then.

I hear a lot of hoopla about net neutrality, but all political smoke with little empirical analysis done. Then the empirical analysis I find seems to conclude that net neutrality should be scrapped. Go figure.

[Only One Man]

I don't really care all that much if Facebook, Apple or whoever decides they want to censor certain political views or things they deem "offensive" because it's their website and they can basically do what they want. Nobody is forced to use Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or Jezebel or what have you, and all that shit is free.

What I don't want is the internet itself censored and this sets a bad precedent.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(11-24-2017 07:12 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

I don't really care all that much if Facebook, Apple or whoever decides they want to censor certain political views or things they deem "offensive" because it's their website and they can basically do what they want. Nobody is forced to use Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or Jezebel or what have you, and all that shit is free.

What I don't want is the internet itself censored and this sets a bad precedent.

Twitter (or is it facebook) is about to start banning people based on what sites other than Twitter they visit.

Do you really think that libertarian values are reasonable to apply to megacorps that until recently have literally run the government?

Try to imagine waking up to find that your phone and your computer have been bricked. You go to the phone store to find out what the problem is but it's closed. There's a group of people milling around outside. Their phones are also bricked. After some cagey conversations you find out that everyone present is some form of 'deplorable' or another.

A day later the major corporations release a statement saying they can no longer in good faith provide a means to some customers to spread hatespeech and that those customers can return their products for refunds based on the condition of said product.

And keep in mind, in terms of historic atrocities committed by serious collectivists, this would rank amongst the the most tame while being completely in keeping with libertarian principles.

We might not trust the goverment as far as we can throw them, but they at least have a duty not to play favourites and we can rightly act in extremis when they persecute us.

A corporation?

Nope.

If this makes the mega-corps of (((streaming and social media))) bleed then let it all burn. This happening looks set to sort out who values their bread and circuses more than their role in this cultural war.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-24-2017 08:36 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 07:12 PM)Only One Man Wrote:  

I don't really care all that much if Facebook, Apple or whoever decides they want to censor certain political views or things they deem "offensive" because it's their website and they can basically do what they want. Nobody is forced to use Facebook or Twitter or Instagram or Jezebel or what have you, and all that shit is free.

What I don't want is the internet itself censored and this sets a bad precedent.

Twitter (or is it facebook) is about to start banning people based on what sites other than Twitter they visit.

Do you really think that libertarian values are reasonable to apply to megacorps that until recently have literally run the government?

Try to imagine waking up to find that your phone and your computer have been bricked. You go to the phone store to find out what the problem is but it's closed. There's a group of people milling around outside. Their phones are also bricked. After some cagey conversations you find out that everyone present is some form of 'deplorable' or another.

A day later the major corporations release a statement saying they can no longer in good faith provide a means to some customers to spread hatespeech and that those customers can return their products for refunds based on the condition of said product.

And keep in mind, in terms of historic atrocities committed by serious collectivists, this would rank amongst the the most tame while being completely in keeping with libertarian principles.

We might not trust the goverment as far as we can throw them, but they at least have a duty not to play favourites and we can rightly act in extremis when they persecute us.

A corporation?

Nope.

If this makes the mega-corps of (((streaming and social media))) bleed then let it all burn. This happening looks set to sort out who values their bread and circuses more than their role in this cultural war.

I know of one member that was banned from this forum for what he said off forum. At least, that is my recollection.

Do you plan on boycotting this forum or is a member's off forum behavior an acceptable reason for banning in certain circumstances?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(11-24-2017 08:43 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

...

I know of one member that was banned from this forum for what he said off forum. At least, that is my recollection.

Do you plan on boycotting this forum or is a member's off forum behavior an acceptable reason for banning in certain circumstances?

Ask me again when Roosh's net worth exceeds one billion dollars.

Trite "one size fits all" principles are ridiculous to apply across the gamut of dime store blogs through to billion dollar monopolies.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-24-2017 08:47 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Ask me again when Roosh's net worth exceeds one billion dollars.

Trite "one size fits all" principles are ridiculous to apply across the gamut of dime store blogs through to billion dollar monopolies.

More like it is alright for some to do it when you agree but others are bad when you don't agree. Then you will make up excuses like, "They're worth a billion dollars" to side step the hypocrisy.

The ISPs are more of a monopoly than Twitter and you would be willing to give them even more control over what you see. All because some platforms, albeit big ones, don't want you there.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(11-24-2017 08:50 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

...

More like it is alright for some to do it when you agree but others are bad when you don't agree. Then you will make up excuses like, "They're worth a billion dollars" to side step the hypocrisy.

The ISPs are more of a monopoly than Twitter and you would be willing to give them even more control over what you see. All because some platforms, albeit big ones, don't want you there.

So you're saying that a market monopolised to the point where two social-justice-converged companies can literally brick every device you own, blacklist you and in doing so make you virtually unemployable is a small price to pay for libertarian values and your ability to "watch puppies on youtube"?

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-24-2017 09:08 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 08:50 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

...

More like it is alright for some to do it when you agree but others are bad when you don't agree. Then you will make up excuses like, "They're worth a billion dollars" to side step the hypocrisy.

The ISPs are more of a monopoly than Twitter and you would be willing to give them even more control over what you see. All because some platforms, albeit big ones, don't want you there.

So you're saying that a market monopolised to the point where two social-justice-converged companies can literally brick every device you own, blacklist you and in doing so make you virtually unemployable is a small price to pay for libertarian values and your ability to "watch puppies on youtube"?

No, what I am saying is Twitter, Youtube and Facebook are not monopolies. I rarely use any of them yet I still breathe, make money and have sexy time with beautiful women.

If they banned me I wouldn't get angry and push for a true monopoly, that controls access to the internet, to gain even more power just because they hurt my feels.