/sci/ - Science & Math

>Be American
>"land of the free"
>don't even have the freedom to torrent

>Net Neutrality prevents innovation
>kill net neutrality
>legal to kill torrent

Do they realize torrent is literally the ONLY good software distribution system out there?
It's like banning cars cause a terrorist ran over some pedestrians. WTF

>>9315762
>It's like banning cars cause a terrorist ran over some pedestrians. WTF
or banning guns cause a mentally ill individual committed a mass shooting. WTF

>>9315762
What did you expect from poo in loo Pajeet?
Even the ones with degree can't into computer.

surely there's a way around this. it's not like you can block peer 2 peer communications, and if they somehow catch users by profiling traffic you could just generate fake traffic over it

>>9315590
stop being a nigger about net neutrality.
when did /sci/ become so leftist and reddit-y? fucking brainlets

>>9315766
You have to have an IQ of at least 90 to post on this board, sir.

>>9315766
Nice try but cars have other purposes not involving killing

>>9315790
Also you need a license to drive a car, all cars are registered to the DMV, there are various laws against certain modifications that compromise safety, and enforcible traffic laws.

>>9315770
>it's not like you can block peer 2 peer communications
why not?
Your ISP could just block any traffic that's not directed to a whitelisted website.

>>9315790
>Nice try but cars have other purposes not involving killing
Guns also have the purpose of defending against tyranny.

And just because something is primarily used for killing is not a reason to ban it, unless you want to conflate hunting wildlife with mass shootings.

>>>/pol/ Everyone just fuck off

>>9315774
People become democrats and leftists because they think it makes them look smart. People post on reddit to feel smart. People post on /sci/ to feel smart. People just want to be intelligent, even if they are unable to get past average intelligence.

>>9315796
>all internet activity is logged and tagged with your IP which can be requested by government in case of legal wrong doing
>various laws already prevent illegal torrenting

Since we already have a system for stopping and punishing illegal torrenting, this new law is meant to ONLY punish legal and legit forms of torrenting.

>>9315806
Oh yeah, and people on the internet are not professors, reciting what they say word-for-word does not make you "informed", it makes you a drone.

>>9315807
>>various laws already prevent illegal torrenting
Laws don't prevent crime, they're just part of a system by which people who commit the crime can be punished

>>9315807
My post wasn't even discussing net neutrality at this point. Just guns vs cars.

Internet is entirely different. Net neutrality is good for consumers tho.

>>9315590
Good.

You wouldn't steal a car, would you?

>>9315590
Welp, time to build a VPN server farm in Canada.

>>9315590
Im all for net neutrality but at a certain point I realized its already over. This is like what, the 10th time they have tried to pass this shit? If enough rich and powerful people want something its gonna fucking hapoen. All the rich people want to kill net neutrality because they stand to get even richer if they do. If they cant pass it legally they will eventually just stop holding a vote and get Trump to sign an executive order. Its over boys. Just be happy you were here to witness the golden age of the internet.

>>9315825

>the golden age
>fucking 2014-17

This was the age of cancer, and coincidentally the age of net neutrality. Burn this shitty law.

>>9315828
>This was the age of cancer, and coincidentally the age of net neutrality. Burn this shitty law.
the age of cancer started in ~07/08 when mass amounts of SJWs got online

>>9315828
Why are you implying that NN has only been around since 2014 when the FCC has been telling ISPs to fuck off with non-neutral schemes since at least '09

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/

So at first hearing about this scared me. I didn't fully understand NN. But the immediate and incredible outpour of "outrage" about its repeal, everywhere (a little too everywhere, bet your ass there is a large amount of money/establishment behind trying to keep it in place), I got a little suspicious and looked into it.

First off, from what I can gather, this law has only been on the books for 2 and a half years. So all of these doomsday scenarios are literally hypotheticals that never actually came to fruition in the 20 or so years of ubiquitous internet prior. It was a preemptive regulation, so probably more along the lines of government trying to get its claws into yet another industry over an actual problem.

The internet is designed to be free and decentralized. This was actually a form of control over that and when people try to control things it usually makes it worse, especially from our government.

If an ISP were to engage in practices such as bandwidth throttling and blocking the public backlash would be enormous and they would lose a lot of money. As it stands ISPs charge an exorbitant amount of money for internet (above true value) because they are already large and fat and virtual monopolies propped up by government "regulations".

Regulating the net and disallowing true capitalism to work its magic on a fundamentally decentralized entity is asking to delay development and create larger problems down the line.

Corporations don't have a fraction of the power of government. It's when governments and corporations start falling in line that you should start to worry, that's how your Standard Oils and Bells came to be.

>>9315746
>his body fell down the stairs like a sack of potatoes

what did he meme by this

>>9315835

>Lawsuit

That's how this should actually work, not enacting sweeping regulations. The internet isn't a fucking water system.

>>9315746
more like land of the mongrels

>>9315590
I think this is a good idea. I really hope they go forward with it

>Net Neutrality prevents innovation
Exactly. We'll be seeing some new, improved, hopefully more secure (encrypted, anonymous) protocol being used.
North americans will be forced to switch to the superior protocols and the rest of the world will follow.

If the ISPs don't know what the packets being send are the only option left is >>9315798 at which point NA is worse than China.

>>9315846

This is what I'm getting from it. This regulation was just asking for anti-competition.

Anyone noticed how embarrassingly slow network development has been in comparison to software and web applications? My area still doesn't have fiber, about a decade later. Ask yourself why that is.

>>9315844
Holy fuck you are dense. The basis of any lawsuit is that a law is being broken, in this case laws related to NET NEUTRALITY. If they get rid of said laws there WILL BE NO BASIS FOR LAWSUITS SINCE THROTTLING SHIT WON'T BE ILLEGAL.

Jesus fucking Christ dude PLEASE kill yourself out of this country.

>>9315806
>People become democrats and leftists because they think it makes them look smart.

actually they become leftists when they get a complete college education. But hey, how would a brainlet like you not disregard scientific evidence that disproves their carefully constructed world view that caters to avoiding cognitive dissonance with their inate slave mind?

>>9315852
people who are against net neutrality don't even have a leg to stand on: there is literally no competition for ISPs, which is the BARE minimum for arguing against net neutrality. (and even then it's garbage because it targets a major source of information for people)

>>9315852

So if NN wasn't official policy what was the law that was the basis of this suit? That article is a blog post

>>9315839
>First off, from what I can gather, this law has only been on the books for 2 and a half years. So all of these doomsday scenarios are literally hypotheticals that never actually came to fruition in the 20 or so years of ubiquitous internet prior. It was a preemptive regulation, so probably more along the lines of government trying to get its claws into yet another industry over an actual problem.

So fucking wrong. Although it hasn't been put into law for long, NN was the de facto official policy, with fines and penalties for breaking NN in place since the earliest days of the modern internet - in particular when it came to p2p or video services.

Repealing NN is giving companies a carte blance to monitor and control traffic as they see fit. It's the end of internet freedom, not a liberation.

>>9315860
they settled.

>>9315859

ISPs are allowed to get so large and entrenched because the government doesn't let new technologies and ISP upstarts to incur on their territory (see: Google Fiber).

The "utility company" treatment is essentially a wall to outside competition because they have to abide by a manner of excess protocols and also deal with potentially corrupt officials granted the letter of the law to literally deny them the opportunity to compete in an area.

As we speak, AT&T is in the process of acquiring Time Warner and forming a mega ISP, so we're going to be left with that and Comcast. I don't think whatever we have right now is working.

>>9315861

Creating a box around the internet with law is not freedom, it is a false impression of it. The way the internet is set up is fundamentally competitive: a network of decentralized nodes spanning the globe that can communicate and route around one another at will.

We have 4,500 ISPs in this country. If one were to act out of line to a point of unreason the way freedom works is that customers would switch to another service. If there were a lack of services at fair value in the area another ISP would capitalize on the opportunity. Furthermore, there would be an impetus for network technology to improve in order to counter nefarious or inefficient action.

These huge ISP monopolies don't arise because, fundamentally speaking, capitalism or freedom fails in this instance. It is because they can get the local government on their side and say "no" to any new ISPs who want to build their infrastructure into that area. This has happened time and time again. And it's only worse because they're now classified as utilities and subject to those stringent regulations.

>>9315861
>NN was the de facto official policy, with fines and penalties for breaking NN in place since the earliest days of the modern internet - in particular when it came to p2p or video services.
So de facto that the one time it ever was attempted to be enforced, the courts ruled it couldn't be.

>Repealing NN is giving companies a carte blance to monitor and control traffic as they see fit. It's the end of internet freedom, not a liberation.
Companies have always had carte blanche and the internet has always been free. This is a solution to a non-existent problem that will only have unintended consequences.

>>9315846
>Exactly. We'll be seeing some new, improved, hopefully more secure (encrypted, anonymous) protocol being used.
>North americans will be forced to switch to the superior protocols and the rest of the world will follow.

So the "innovation" coming in the wake of a NN repeal will be the desperate attempts to evade all-pervasive corporate surveillance? That's your argument?

>>9315860
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#FCC_promotes_freedom_without_regulation_.282004.29

It's been official policy since 2005 and the FCC has shown a willingness to investigate companies infringing on it since then.

>>9315874
>literally "we will be shadowrunners and shiet"

>>9315874

>Desperate

Buddy, this is how innovation has always worked. Bastard capitalists trying to outdo one another and in the process oftentimes unintentionally creating a better world for everyone.

Why do you think we need our hand held for everything? Why do you think the government will not pervert this?

>>9315863
>SPs are allowed to get so large and entrenched because the government doesn't let new technologies and ISP upstarts to incur on their territory

which is the doing of those ISP lobbying (i.e. legal bribery).


>The "utility company" treatment is essentially a wall to outside competition because they have to abide by a manner of excess protocols

it's necessary though, it is a utility. one cannot realistcly be a part of today's society without internet access.

> also deal with potentially corrupt officials granted the letter of the law to literally deny them the opportunity to compete in an area.

I'll agree with this.

>As we speak, AT&T is in the process of acquiring Time Warner and forming a mega ISP, so we're going to be left with that and Comcast. I don't think whatever we have right now is working.

No it's not, and the source of it all is because we continue to allow politicians to be bought out by companies through "campaign donations". But until that changes, the only thing standing between ISPs price gouging even more/abusing their monopoly and the current situation is net neutrality.

You want to know how bad legal bribery is? Look at the military budget feeding tax payer money to private contractors who then shower legislators with part of that public funding.

Just recently a supreme court chair was basically auctionned at $10 million with secret donors. (look up Judicial Crisis Network https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4254472-Wellspring-Committee-2016.html ) It's over.

So until you (non-american here) get rid of corporate money in politics, it's my opinion that net neutrality is the only thing protecting you from being assraped by ISPs.

>>9315881
>muh free market
Stop arguing from ivory tower principles just for a fucking second and take a look at realities. Letting corporations run free is just as terrible as artificially distorting the market. Both result in snowballing supercorps and diminishing customer rights. NN is about enforcing a favorable end result - hands off from data.

It really isn't that different from abolishing secrecy of correspondence. Are you also in favor of that?

>>9315875

Ok, so it isn't a law but rather their executive policy? Also, this is the key thing I've noticed in the past few years regarding Title II (which is the thing that is actually being rolled back):

>The primary argument in this NPRM is that the “Title II Order” (on net neutrality) has pushed the major telecoms to reduce their capital expenditures (CapEx) in new infrastructure, thereby threatening the future of the nation. For this, they cite the less than $1 billion reduction from 2014 to 2015 in CapEx reported by the USTelecom and similar figures from industry consultant Hal Singer[114]

This is absolutely 100% happening and I've wondered why for years now. Bandwidth speeds have completely stopped, infrastructure is fucking terrible, fiber isn't spreading anywhere, and we are mostly still stuck with the old IP protocol.

These are internet lines, not fucking water pipes. These companies need to move forward.

>>9315798
I wonder how adds would work with this?

What if a whitelisted websites' add revenue comes from a non whitelisted web site?

>>9315886
This is not a problem in other countries that respect NN. Don't jump to conclusions about causes, effects and solutions.

>>9315882

How do you get rid of corporate money in politics? REMOVING POLITICS

I'll restate: the classic monopolies of old arose not because they existed in a market where only they could compete, but because they existed in a regulatory and government context where they could get large, buy out the government, and then use them to wall out competition.

A corporation on its own is a feeble thing. It is 100% dependent on its customers and has a constant stream of competitors snapping at its heels. Look at Blockbuster, that bastard went from #1 in the movie industry to nonexistent and bankrupt within a single decade.

So where is the danger? Our government. They have absolute control over us. They are centralized, and have no competition. Put one corrupt man in office and the entire system has broken because they can be bought. A utility classification is asking for trouble.

>no, you can't become an ISP here because you don't conform to our """""standards""""".
>the end

This is an age old story. From a consumer standpoint, it is easy to see our government and laws as fair and altruistic. That's almost never the case.

Don't let corporate money into politics by not bastardizing the intersection between politics and corporation. You know?

>>9315894
>Put one corrupt man in office and the entire system has broken because they can be bought.
You're basically talking about Ajit Pai.

>>9315892

I'm talking about the United States. The context isn't the same here and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

>>9315882
>Just recently a supreme court chair was basically auctionned at $10 million with secret donors.
So $10 million was spent on political advertising? How is that auctioning or bribery? Jesus Christ.

>>9315901
so you're not even pissed at how cucked you are?

Do you even know what the supreme court is or are you just underage spending your time playing vidya in your mom's basement?

>>9315905
>Cuckcuckcuck
How is political advertising auctioning or bribery?

>>9315898

Sounds like everyone (big companies included) hate Ajit Pai. Including the sweeping and immediate response conspicuously all over the web which could not have been fully grassroots. I smell bullshit and it isn't from him.

>>9315774
> Caring about being able to torrent
> Leftist & reddit-y

>>9315898
>>9315908

Also I fear nothing from a man in office who wants to reduce government power. You guys truly have it twisted today.

>>9315908
What's really cracking me up is that all these people citing the power of the free market to protect consumer interests don't realize that the man they're aligning with, Ajit Pai, is a massive shill for corporate interests. He's not doing it out of some libertarian principles. They think they're on the path to more freedom, but it's actually the exact opposite.

traumatized leftists are realizing they've completely lost the battle against trump and are now going after ajit pai because they have nothing better to do, pathetic

Obama tried to help you but because of America's retarded racism you will now feel the full might of corporate shilling.

This is just the beginning too and no one in office will do anything to stop it because they're either bought off or the ones who paid them off.

This is the future America chose and in the end it is what you deserve for electing a fucking billionaire into office.

>>9315919

No it isn't. Just because something appears manipulative or shady doesn't mean it isn't in alignment with freedom. Freedom means the freedom to attempt nefarious practices as well. Because we can't grant the final right to arbitrate to any individual human being (government included), since they are just as prone to corruption.

Freedom means letting unfavorable circumstances play out and trust the process will rectify it. NN means short term headaches but long to mid term favorable outcomes.

Once again, it's a matter of short vs. long sightedness. This debate is big money vs. big money so there is no non corporate side.

>>9315929

>NN means

*rolling back NN means, I meant

I fully believe healthy battle between ISPs would mean our network infrastructure finally gets the facelift its rotting ass has needed.

>>9315907
>>9315901
they spent money (7 million) to advertise against Obama's nominee, encouraging republicans to keep pushing away the timing of nomination for a year (Merrick Garland). Usually supreme court nominees are approved swiftly.

This alone is bad enough.

Then they spent 10 million to advertise in favor of Justice Neil Gorsuch who's Trump's pick.

Then the worst part: usually you have to disclose your identity when you do such things, except the legal status of "The Wellspring Committee" doesn't require it to discole the identity of its donors.

This means a secret donor can basically buy a supreme court seat.

Let that sink in.

If it doesn't bother you, too bad. I don't want to see America succeed anyway. I'm just surprised you dumb Americans actually ask to be shafted over and over again.

>>9315932
>discole

disclose*

>>9315929
>Freedom means letting unfavorable circumstances play out and trust the process will rectify it. NN means short term headaches but long to mid term favorable outcomes.
I'm not even sure what's your stance is based on that.
>This debate is big money vs. big money so there is no non corporate side.
But there is a consumer side, and NN-abolitionists are not on it.

>Netflix and other online companies are for NN it must be bad!!!
Netflix knows that if there's a $10 "video entertainment package" fee from the ISPs on top of its subscription fee they will go bankrupt.

>>9315936

>I'm not even sure what's your stance is based on that.

I'm pro-freedom and I don't believe NN represents it. In a free environment everything isn't always rosy, the belief is that the final outcome will be rosier than the alternative. Innovation and positive growth is best in a free environment riddled with what can appear to be corruption and gamesmanship. For example:

>Comcast has a stranglehold on a town because of regulation. No particular sites are throttled or blocked but the infrastructure is poor: IPv4 and 5-15 Mbps because internet lines are treated like water pipes. No competitors such as fiber are allowed to move in because officials deny them authority on the grounds of standards and regulation.

You're forcibly creating the illusion of "freedom" strictly in the web space while disallowing natural freedom of growth in network infrastructure and even market pricing to play out. In a free world:

>Comcast tries to block or throttle site X, site X is a favorite of consumers and the backlash is swift, competing ISPs can easily move in because the internet is naturally designed to be accessible, they offer a better price and quicker speeds and no throttling and immediately make bank. Comcast responds by removing their throttling and lowering prices. That still isn't enough because consumers are pissed, so they upgrade their network infrastructure and quadruple the speed of the newcomer ISP. People move back to Comcast.

Rinse and repeat.

>But there is a consumer side, and NN-abolitionists are not on it.

They are also fairly low information. I don't mean to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy but from my understanding of networks (as a CS/Networking grad) trying to control and limit its natural progression is a horrid idea and why it has slowed to a halt in this country. We should all be wanting better infrastructure and realize the unfavorable alternatives in terms of site manipulation to be hypothetical and unrealistic doomsday scenarios.

>>9315923
Obama gave control of our internet away to an international body

>>9315950

So they need the government to hold their hand and make sure they don't have to devote resources to keeping things fair? That doesn't sound very free to me. Facebook/Google/Amazon are also behind it, and they are some of the richest entities on the planet.

They can afford to devote resources to maintaining a free web where our government has operated in their stead. In fact, that is the actual best case scenario for us. ISPs, large net entities, and the government at odds with one another, that is freedom and competition.

Your concentrated backlash right now is because the fat cat internet giants don't want to spend some extra cash on having the occasional battle with ISPs.

>>9315953
>I'm pro-freedom and I don't believe NN represents it. In a free environment everything isn't always rosy, the belief is that the final outcome will be rosier than the alternative. Innovation and positive growth is best in a free environment riddled with what can appear to be corruption and gamesmanship.

Then you believe in the freedom of consumers to protect themselves from companies.

Thanks for your support of net neutrality mate, I knew we could count on you.

>>9315959
without government regulation

>>9315959

Consumers protect themselves from companies by not buying shitty products. Like anything else. Why are you a baby who wants the heavy hand of authoritarianism to enforce a specific context.

>Mate

Ah, cause you're British :-)

>>9315774
FCC shill spotted.

>>9315963
My autistic American ex gf used to tell me she likes to use british lingo . . it's an attention/self esteem thing.

>>9315953
>Comcast has a stranglehold on a town because of regulation. No particular sites are throttled or blocked but the infrastructure is poor: IPv4 and 5-15 Mbps because internet lines are treated like water pipes. No competitors such as fiber are allowed to move in because officials deny them authority on the grounds of standards and regulation.
What does that have to do with NN? Sounds like you're conflating independent problems and end up advocating solutions that run counter to your actual interests.

>>9315957

No, Trump is the one who elected Pai to become Chairman and fully supports another five years of him. Obama only brought him in because an all democrat FCC would have been bad and raised a stink with republicans.

>>9315963
>Consumers protect themselves from companies by not buying shitty products
can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.
As I said, you can't win this debate because you either don't know the facts or try to disregard them. In both cases your opinion doesn't matter as a consequence.

>>9315590
It's not in Comcast's interest to do this; they become liable for the content they broadcast over the network when they make themselves into anything more than a pipeline.

>>9315961
government regulation is what protects people and companies.

sorry anarchist.

>>9315969

NN enforces a situation where ISPs are treated like utility companies, with utility company regulations. This makes things more difficult for new ISPs to an area as they have to prove they can meet those standards. Additionally, it grants pass/fail authority to government regulators. If those regulators are bought out by the largest ISP in an area they can deny entry to newcomers or make it exceedingly difficult.

The empirical evidence speaks for itself. The major ISPs today are continuing to consolidate and network development has slowed to a halt while prices have steadily risen. This is not a free enterprise.

>>9315979
>government regulation is what protects people and companies.
>sorry anarchist.
t. teenager

>>9315977

>can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.

That is only because clearance for smaller ISPs is a continual hurdle. The consumer effort should be towards supporting them.

>can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.
As I said, you can't win this debate because you either don't know the facts or try to disregard them. In both cases your opinion doesn't matter as a consequence.

Thanks for sharing I guess.

>>9315978
Torrents will not be blocked; this is partisan scare tactics.

Whether net neutrality exists affects little from the consumer end. It's mostly an affair among the negotiating companies.

>>9315983
The internet is an oligopoly as-is, and not because of regulations of some other nebulous impediments. There is no way for small competitors to scrounge up the money to set up their own infrastructure, so you'll never get your magical competition that solves all the real problems you're dismissing so easily. The consumer is powerless here. This is not a problem that the free market can fix, so government-enforced standards are the optimal solution.

>>9315979
Religion protects people and companies

>>9315994

>This is not a problem that the free market can fix

How do you prove that? It's the internet. As I said, it is structured to be inherently pro freedom. The only elements of anti freedom are from arbitrary constraints.

>magical competition

And your fairy dad government is just as sick and corrupt as corporations, except they get absolute power. Better idea to give them more control, yes?

The laughable irony of all this is that the NN mass is both screaming for the government to retain power, while decrying our standing federal government as corrupt. Take a step back and look at this scenario.

>>9316000
t. brainlet

>>9315990
The ISPs won't care about letting torrents use bandwidth just because they're "technically" legal. They can avoid the legal headache by blocking it completely while not affecting even 0.1% of their customers. Easy choice for an ISP. The torrents sites aren't about to pay the ISP to let them use their bandwidth. Torrents will either be blocked or severely throttled.

>>9316000
>And your fairy dad government is just as sick and corrupt as corporations

Please tell me how "data traffic shall not be infringed" can be twisted to somehow hurt the consumer. Tell me how this simple principle is susceptible to corruption and bribery, and an unbridled oligopoly is not.

>>9316003

I can count innumerable instances of a corrupt government victimizing its people and only a few instances of a corporation literally getting too large to compete with

The only instances of mega corporation monopolies existed with government support in enforcement

Because at the end of the day that is the only entity with true total power

Your strain of thinking stems from being a tit sucking single mom spawn with no concept of authority

>>9316016
The actual people who are expected to uphold this will make all kinds of exceptions, wiggle room, loop holes, and when that doesn't work they will just be plain corrupt and ignore the law or bypass it. And they will do this all under the illusion that company 1 is bad but company 2 is good or that company 2 got in trouble for a,b, and c while it's getting away with d-z behind the scenes. Everyone gets rich except the consumer.

>>9316016

Your deliberately reductionist interpretation of the law and policy regarding NN is not complete so I'm not obligated to respond specifically. The issue is that ISP are held to the standards of a utility provider.

These standards and regulations are many (beyond "data traffic shall not be infringed"). The issue is that these laws can be subjectively administered, by local officials, who are all individually susceptible to errors in judgement, or in ethics. The smaller or new ISP has to contend with this. They are not allowed to practice business and compete until they "meet" these standards and get a green light.

Here's a tangible example: the taxi industry. Taxis built up a wealth of government enforced regulations and standards over the years that left the system rotten. Taxis were overpriced, drivers irritable, often late, essentially one big bad service. And new liveries had a huge mountain of standards to meet before being allowed to operate.

Enter Uber, which had to totally circumvent regulations in operating as a contractual service. People unanimously agreed it was better. Better technology, quicker, cheaper, friendlier service.

I have dealt with a few major ISPs in getting a cable/internet service over the years and I see a similar situation. The networks are grossly inefficient and slow, shit is overpriced, and their service is a matter of bouncing around customer service until you give up.

>>9315796
>Also you need a license to drive a car, all cars are registered to the DMV, there are various laws against certain modifications that compromise safety, and enforcible traffic laws.
All of these are only on public roads. I can drive without a license as fast as I want on my own land.

>>9315932
>This means a secret donor can basically buy a supreme court seat.
No it means that Republicans wasted $17 million on political ads.

>>9316031
>>9316026
That's some nice abstract theorizing you have there, but it doesn't change the realities of the ISP market, where ownership of the communications infrastructure would dictate the terms of all competing providers were it not for government interference and regulation. There are exactly two choices - let the government hold the reigns, or let the telecom megacorps hold the reigns. You're at risk to be trampled upon by the government when corruption takes place, but certain to be trampled upon by unconstrained megacorp interests. There is no third choice.

>>9315855
American schools brainwash their students.

>>9315894
>we don't need net neutrality, we just need to fix corruption!
right-wing idealism has become truly disgusting

>>9316044
>pay to get a republican handpicked justice in the supreme court
>wasted money

there's a reason why the average american is so easy to shit on after all.

I can see how this goes down already. All the pieces are there it just needs to be put together
>Net Neutrality gets repealed
>ISP have a whitelist (proprietary websites for standard social media bullshit like facebook and youtube )
>Charge extra for access to graylisted websites ( what you actually want like netflix )
>Shit speeds and data caps all around anyways just because they can
>Nothing else because they block traffic to anything else
>If you disagree with the last one you are a racist, pirate, terrorist, and/or or pedophile
And to top it all off having such a small pool of available websites makes it even easier for the government to monitor all activity. Everybody wins but you.

>>9315869
ISPs have monopolies in most of the country you dumb motherfucker

>>9316096
And again, you assume that political ads bought Gorsuch's approval when no Republicans were against him in the first place and no Democrats support him regardless. In fact, I bet that these ads if anything make it easier for Democrats to oppose his approval. The problem with this "follow the money" retardation is that political money is not spent intelligently and ad money especially is not spent intelligently.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

>>9316000

>It's the internet. As I said, it is structured to be inherently pro freedom. The only elements of anti freedom are from arbitrary constraints.

Not him but anti freedom also comes from refinement of a given structure. The internet was pro freedom because it lack refinement.

It's the same principal that applies mineral purification. In it's natural state minerals are open to the elements (freedom) while in it's purified form they are closed (anti freedom). Constraint is about limits to the elements while refinement is about removal of those elements.

What Net Neutrality sought was constraint which indeed does limit freedom (openness to elements). However what the telecommunication services seek is refinement which removes freedom (removal of elements).

Both scenarios are not ideal if the wish here is for a pro freedom internet. But in this situation constraint may very well be the preferred option until technology and economics reach a point where a cohesive third option can be selected for.

>>9316099
B-but muh innovations... muh intangible and unpredictable benefits of the invisible hand of the free market!

Come on, let's repeal NN. Let's pick the mystery box! Just trust me, you dumb fuck.

>>9315869
>The way the internet is set up is fundamentally competitive
Yeah. Competition is fuckin' BOOMING in the ISP market. So many options for me personally. I can go Comcast, or...nope that's it, just Comcast. Don't like our new 1TB limit? Tough shit, faggot! The government needs to designate this shit as a utility so I can hold the township accountable instead of a gigantic multi-billion dollar corporation I can't touch.

>>9316158
Also:
>NN is repealed
>be competitor
>"Alright, time to give these free market wheels a spin! I'm stoked!"
>all the infrastructure is owned by Comcast
>don't have half a billion to lay my own
>"Greetings, competitor-kun. I'm Comcast. You can use our network. Just sign this contract that says what you can and can't do while using it, who to block, who to obstruct, and who to prefer. Isn't the free market great? OK, see you soon, and don't forget to bring the money."

>>9315908
>Including the sweeping and immediate response conspicuously all over the web which could not have been fully grassroots.
that's google, who have a good deal of control over what you are likely to just happen upon while browsing the web randomly, and a vested interest in net neutrality.

>>9316170
Why haven't we broken up these massive telecom companies? Someone resurrect Theodore roosevelt and turn his ass loose on them. Even before this whole NN thing blew up we all KNEW they were essentially monopolies in vast stretches of the country-why haven't we done anything about it?

>>9316185
Because NN forced them to be benign.

>>9316170
Don't forget that constructing your own infrastructure is illegal in 99% of American countys. So even if you had the millions as a startup to do it, you literally can't.

I'm forced to use Comcast as a private entity, but the government protects it as if it's a utility. Meaning it gets the pros of both and the cons of none.

>>9316158
I like how they changed the definition of broadband solely in order to argue that broadband competition is weak.

>>9316170
So if NN legislation is the only thing keeping companies from throttling and censoring, why didn't it happen before the legislation was passed?

>>9316282
It did, the FCC intervened and was found to have no legal basis, and then created it.

>>9316289
So it literally happened once? And the internet did not turn into a hell hole? I don't see why the internet would suddenly become censored, sorry.

>>9316307
No, multiple cases.

Jesus, just shut the fuck up and read up on the history of NN. I'm not your babysitter.

>>9316312
Which cases?

>>9315801
>Guns also have the purpose of defending against tyranny.
yeah, you're totally going to be able to fight back against the US army if your government becomes "tyrannical"
>And just because something is primarily used for killing is not a reason to ban it, unless you want to conflate hunting wildlife with mass shootings.
yeah because people hunt animals with handguns and assault rifles

>>9315801
See
>>9315796
Regulation =/= ban. Nobody wants to ban guns.

>>9316362
>Nobody wants to ban guns.
lol

>>9316322
>yeah, you're totally going to be able to fight back against the US army if your government becomes "tyrannical"
What are you trying to say?

>yeah because people hunt animals with handguns and assault rifles
Handguns are widely used for self defense, and assault rifles are already regulated.

>>9316105

AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE FUCKING NN AND OTHER REGULATIONS

THAT IS HAPPENING WITH NN

GJGE

>>9316322
If you think the US government can tyrannically control the south you just might be retarded

>>9316158

Comcast thrives because it can blockade competitors with administrative government help

I'll repeat there are strict regulations concerning how and who can wire up in a new area

Utility designation makes it even harder

>>9316172

That is: Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc.

Who don't want to have to commit a little money to helping keeping ISPs in check. They want you, Joe Taxpayer, to freak the absolute fuck out over a hypothetical that never actually happened and isn't very realistic given the structure of the internet.

>>9316322
>yeah, you're totally going to be able to fight back against the US army if your government becomes "tyrannical"
Do you think the Holocaust would have turned out differently if Nazi Germany didn't make it illegal for Jews to own guns, knives, etc.?

How many of you anti net neutrality guys are just memeing? I sure hope it's most of you. Anyway I'm up here in Canada where this shit won't affect me so lmao at all you suckers.

Tfw it really will pass this time

>>9316391
Conservatives oppose it, why is that hard to understand? Private companies should be able to do whatever they want with their property and if you don't like it don't buy their product, go to a competitor.

>>9316322
>yeah, you're totally going to be able to fight back against the US army if your government becomes "tyrannical"
yeah bruh revolutions never happen, amirite?

>>9315855
>actually they become leftists when they get a complete college education. But hey, how would a brainlet like you not disregard scientific evidence that disproves their carefully constructed world view that caters to avoiding cognitive dissonance with their inate slave mind?
Guys like you are in what is called the 'reality-based community,' i.e. people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. But that's not the way the world really works anymore, the US is an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. Us republicans are history's actors…and you leftists, all of you, will be left to just study what we do

>>9316398

>Private companies should be able to do whatever they want with their property

Not him but that depends on the property in question and even there are limits for what you can do with it under the interpretation of law.

>go to a competitor.

Most of this thread has been spent stating why this isn't an option as the lack of competitors and sheer need of resources/ infrastructure to compete is extremely difficult for an upstart.

>>9316398
>private companies deserve more freedoms than people

Why are conservatives so retarded?

>>9316451
don't know. It's sad.

Private companies can own land. They can own goods to the point of starving physical people. They have free speech in the US. They can sue you. They can put you in prison, but they can never go themselves. They can buy legislative votes.

Some people don't understand that companies not only compete with each other, but they also compete with people for resources and money.


Anyone who isn't at least in the top management of a company and still defends their rights more than their own rights is retarded by my standards.

>>9316322
>yeah, you're totally going to be able to fight back against the US army if your government becomes "tyrannical"
It is working in the middle east against the invaders.

>>9316407

Your Sophistry is amazing!!!!

You come to a conclusion then pick your givens to fit your conclusion, and then use that argument to say you are right so it must mean that that is what is meant to be!!

Son of a Bitch! You should sell shit for Comcast!

I have another story! We fucking decide that we kill you and take your shit, because why should we agree to let you enslave us just because of your stupid argument.

That is also a conclusion that picks its givens and it also works and so it must be right too!

See you on the battlefield Conservatard!

>>9316451
>Why are conservatives so retarded?
This is why Trump won.

>>9316463
>Your Sophistry is amazing!!!!
>You come to a conclusion then pick your givens to fit your conclusion, and then use that argument to say you are right so it must mean that that is what is meant to be!!
>Son of a Bitch! You should sell shit for Comcast!
>I have another story! We fucking decide that we kill you and take your shit, because why should we agree to let you enslave us just because of your stupid argument.
>That is also a conclusion that picks its givens and it also works and so it must be right too!
>See you on the battlefield Conservatard!
cringe

>>9315590
>2017
>not having a seedbox
I don't want anyone that stupid on any of the sites I use anyway.
>>9315819
>I changed the subject so you have to agree with my rules or else you're wrong
>>9315839
>Corporations don't have a fraction of the power of government.
No, that have the ENTIRE power of the government because (((they))) own it.
>>9316000
>I just got done reading The Fountainhead so I am a policy expert in all domains

>>9316466
Not really. It wasn't that so many people get butthurt that easily. You're basically just saying people are pussies.

They're mad because soyboy stalinism is making everyone have to think korrekt.

>>9316469
I'm saying conservatives are retarded and no one likes them and Trump isn't one.

>>9316470
Well, then we agree. Trump is a retard. Conservatives are retards and campus liberals need to be gassed. I hate them all.

>some random poo in loo decides this shit
really?

>>9315798
>whitelisted website
This meme needs to die.

Do you realize how unfeasible it would be to attempt a whitelist model for something as large as the internet? Even China's great firewall uses a blacklist.

>>9316483
You've obviously never used a public school's Internet.

>>9316508
>insinuating a specialized use case meant for small groups of people doing research is feasible to scale up for the general public

>>9316483
>not enjoying whitelisting each site you want to use on a home internet connecting for $10/month each

>>9316508
>You've obviously never used a public school's Internet.
Do some public schools unironically use whitelists? Mine only had a blacklist

>99 channels and still nothing on the internet!
This is your future.

>>9315774
when did you become so babbytalking faggot-y?

>>9315839
>bet your ass
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

>>9315881
>Bastard capitalists trying to outdo one another and in the process oftentimes unintentionally creating a better world for everyone.
No, they design incompatible standards and produce products with built-in defects and limited lifespans so that you're locked into buying their shit only and buying it often. Evolution does not select for the "best," it selects only for the "fittest." Monopolies and oligopolies and a "free market" are two entirely different things. When one group has control over the entire game, it's closer to some failed communist state than a free market, except you aren't even given the illusion of being able to vote.

I don't get it. It seems like Trumptards supported this legislation because Google and the like support it and want to censor them. But now they just give ISPs power to censor them instead, which they will do...

>>9315590
Soooo, what you are saying is that I should invest in a VPN biz in Maple Leaf.

Can I still get books from libgen after this or am I fucked?

>let's see...Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and CNN.com are all included in you basic package. Oh, you want to get a premium channel like Discordapp.com added to your whitelist? That'll be 9.99/mo extra

>>9315590
So how fucked does this make accessing the college torrents for the profs/class shit as well as for work-at-home people who need to torrent stuff from work? You know legit legal stuff.

This is what happens when your nation is made up of brainlet mutts. They elect corporate shills. Bravo America, truly land of the degenerate.

>>9315590

You chose a retard for president, what do you expected ?

>>9316792

>>9315590

>>9316792
i can't believe turdeau is walking with other world leaders, he's such a joke

>>9316931
Somehow he managed to shill a game into his tweet. Americans truly are a disgusting mutt nation.

>>9316939
They're all jokes.

>>9315590

>>9316931

>Complains about rights for net neutrality while shilling a game that's being flagged for gambling issues by multiple countries.

LAND OF THE FREE!!!

>>9315846
>North americans will be forced to switch to the superior protocols and the rest of the world will follow.
Top kek, enjoy the last few years of international relevance. After the trumplet is done, there'll be nothing left of it

>>9315851
>get shit network infrastructure because ISPs have local monopolies and feel no pressure to upgrade
>let's give them an even bigger monopoly, that'll fix things surely!

>>9316976

You aren't saying anything at all. An anti competitive law exacerbates monopoly.

>>9316637

>Things that never happened

>>9316391

>Why don't you support the government controlling everything anon? Surely you meme

I'm tired of kids on here

Let socialism take us over so i can at least have a bitter laugh before we all starve to death

>>9316473

He's probably a guy with real principles and will stick to them even in the face of incredible unpopularity. Running meme: everyone associated with Trump must literally be Hitler retard nigger Jews. Because Republidumbs

>>9315798
>ISP 1 whitelists 5 sites
>Free market exists
>ISP 2 markets pro net neutrality
>Free market exists
>ISP 2 CMO gets a promotion

>>9317014
>implying ISP 2 exists
You must live in a city (which, incidentally, are full of leftists).

Reminder that net neutrality is a scam by liberals to censor the internet further

>>9315820
You wouldn't copy a car?

>>9315746
a private organization like Comcast should have the right to block whatever they want.

>>9315590
Without neutrality the web is reduced to a market place. Big Corp will rule. You either consume their shit or get blocked.

It's like reducing all public spaces to malls, mall cops included.

>>9317084
yea funny how these net neutrality marxists got no issue with widespread censorship of opposing views

>>9317505
Good idea. Why should I be allowed to go to cnn.com for some news of wikipedia.org for some info? That doesn't do Comcast any good. I should go to fox.com or click on ad banners.

>>9316637
oh look, it's that meme again

>>9316483

>>9315855
>they become leftists when they get a complete college education
Considering the extreme bias in the social sciences, business, law, and other non-"STEM" areas, this is no surprise. Professors on the right are often afraid to come out, silenced, or driven off.
However, this doesn't reflect reality in a meaningful way.

For example, Trump won every income bracket above 50k;
i.e., the non-retards voted for Trump.

>>9315783
>>9315790
>that astro butthurt

>>9317552
Road is built by private company
You have to pay a fee use it

>Net neutrality
The company is not allowed to monitor or restrict the cargo you transport

>No net neutrality
The company can ban (black list) whatever they want.
“No sir, you are not allowed to carry oranges. We just made a big deal with Apple Corp. I’m sure you understand.”

>>9317505
A private organization with infrastructure developed with public money...

>>9317505
>a private organization like Walmart should have the right to refuse niggers if they want.

>>9317084
>>9317086
Do you really believe this nonsense? Or are you spreading harmful propaganda for teh ebic lulz XD trololol

>>9317540
Actually Comcast owns MSNBC, a rival to FOX News. I really want to see Comcast block all Fox News sites and apps now just to see how this thing backfires on Conservative voters. Just ban all right wing sites so MSNBC has no competition. Good ole capitalism.

>>9315746
*teleports behind u*

How the fuck would you even block bit torrent? You could prevent a lot of people who don't know how to internet from using it by making it slightly more difficult, but there's no way to completely block it, unless they specifically create a whitelist of sites you can access and block literally everything else it's impossible. Worst case if NN goes away we well have less normies or whatever on the internet shitting it up.

>>9317540
>Why should I be allowed to go to cnn.com for some news
You shouldn't, it's fake news

>>9317903
>Do you really believe this nonsense?
What nonsense?

I used to be proNN, but now I'm on the fence. Basically it all comes down to who you want to have the power over the users of the internet. The government, or companies which are basically monopolies. Both are bad, but in the case of companies, there's at least a chance of the free market fixing anything that goes wrong, if the government has the power, you cant do shit. Also, people have been breaking ISP blocking since it became a thing. Worst case they cancelled your internet. If the government decides to do the same, worst case you go to jail.
>But NN doest give the government the power to do that
Read the paper, it gives a lot of power to them, plus the ability to easily modify the rules and laws regulating the internet in the future.

>>9315590
>Both are bad, but in the case of companies, there's at least a chance of the free market fixing anything that goes wrong
The free market has zero chance of fixing anything with how massive the barrier to entry of the ISP industry is. MAYBE some startup will give decent internet to the residents of Seattle but most of the country in rural areas or smaller cities has 0 hope.
Your government does not have any motivation to censor your internet. Maybe they will a little because of some moronic nanny state policing but their motivations are much weaker and much less all-encompassing than the benefits comcast gets by fucking you.

>>9318025
>Your government does not have any motivation to censor your internet.
rofl

>>9316455
Good post. Notice the lack of replies.

>>9318027
Unless you subscribe to some retarded conspiracy theory where the US government are secretly ebil communists, they don't. If the government gave a shit about you jacking it to Nazi propaganda speeches they would have stepped in long ago

>>9318065
>Unless you subscribe to some retarded conspiracy theory where the US government are secretly ebil communists, they don't. If the government gave a shit about you jacking it to Nazi propaganda speeches they would have stepped in long ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States

>>9315590
This should be a constitutional amendment anyways.
"No communication shall be intercepted, modified or prohibited by a third party nor the carrier on any medium, without a valid court order or warrant."

>>9318125
Yes, I can finally force my ISP to send my 1,000,000 terabyte file.

>>9318027
It's ok, Comcast is gonna block FOX News now.

>>9318155
you can't have a 1000000TB file, it would collapse into a black hole

>>9318084
>Literally a single law that requires adult content to make you check off that you're 18 years old
The fucking horror bro. The fucking horror.

>>9318125
>intercept, modify
Isn't that what torrents do?

>>9318186
>you can't have a 1000000TB file, it would collapse into a black hole
What's the maths behind that?

>>9317906

50% of this country is conservative, it is in no company's best interest to piss off half of their client base you smug moron

I'm fine with letting the market work as it should

>>9318222
>50% of this country is conservative
In your dreams bub.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

The only reason why conservatives are in the #1 spot is because moderates are losing out to liberals while conservatives have failed to gain ground in decades

Daily reminder that none of this will matter once fiat collapses and bitcoin takes over the world.

>>9318254

Everyone becomes more conservative as they age and mature.

Not to mention the fact that conservatives as a collective are wealthier. That counts as influence.

>>9318323
no, conservatives are dying off because the red scare is getting further away in time.

>>9316972
The leader of the UN isn't going to just become irrelevant in a few years idiot.

>>9317018
>Implying it doesn't
You don't seem to realize that just because they will have the option to castrate connections, doesn't mean they will. Everyone already knows people buy unlimited data even if they only use like 2 gigs a month. Same applies for internet. The ISP with the most freedom will have the most customers.

>>9318325
Actually our current youngest generation is the most conservative since WW2. Get fucked retard who thinks the red scare.

>>9318367
fascists today are so bad they have to invent an alternate reality where their wishes are facts so they can remain alive.

btw you're the fascist, just so we're clear.

It's fine though, you're disappearing with the old fucks that inflicted crony corporatism on us.

>>9318383
>fascists today
No such thing.

Capitalism is harmful to society.

This has been obvious for the past century.

>>9318389
>Capitalism is harmful to society.
>This has been obvious for the past century.
Every way of life is harmful in some way.

Utopian thinking is purely delusional

Capitalism just happens to be the least harmful way of life that we know

>>9318387
The alt-right is fascist and I'm not going to start arguing over semantics.

>>9318391
>Capitalism just happens to be the least harmful way of life that we know

Whatever. The crux of the problem is that wealth and power are synonymous and we cannot have democracy if we have this current form of capitalism where a few hundred people are billionaires and half the country is in debt. Without democracy, any politics is done by the rich for the rich, and we can never have any progress when we have to accommodate the rich first and foremost before a bill of law is passed.

Just look at our inability to deal with climate change.

>>9318405
>The alt-right is fascist and I'm not going to start arguing over semantics.
But your entire argument is based on faulty semantics, the alt-right is not fascist at all

>>9318411

Not the anon you are talking to, but the alt-right is fascist.

You fundamentally misunderstand what fascism is.

Fascism is not "we love Hitler and the NAZIs". Fascism is when you have a political movement, that is built on the ambiguous notion of "making the country better", largely without any solid political/economic ideology, and with an acceptance and embrace of social hierarchy, to the point that the members of such a political movement, are themselves subservient to the higher ups to ridiculous extents, and moreover, these same members welcome a more authoritarian government. Of times the whole movement is a cult like worship of some political figure that they see as the leader, the father of the nation and the person who they trust unquestionably to make their lives better.

>>9318222
>I'm fine with letting the market work as it should
>should
There is no predefined "should".
"Should" is whatever a society restricts or allows by law.
Back to square one.

>>9318435
>There is no predefined "should".
Yes, it's "freely".

>>9318410
>we cannot have democracy if we have this current form of capitalism where a few hundred people are billionaires and half the country is in debt
There will always be some richer than others... if you think democracy is impossible with wealth inequality, what do you propose as an alternative to democracy?

>>9318434
>Fascism is when you have a political movement, that is built on the ambiguous notion of "making the country better", largely without any solid political/economic ideology, and with an acceptance and embrace of social hierarchy, to the point that the members of such a political movement, are themselves subservient to the higher ups to ridiculous extents, and moreover, these same members welcome a more authoritarian government. Of times the whole movement is a cult like worship of some political figure that they see as the leader, the father of the nation and the person who they trust unquestionably to make their lives better.
very naive definition of fascism

here, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

>>9315769
>poo in loo Pajeet
hes an american you mud

>>9318435

There is no natural market if you are putting arbitrary controls on it. This is so simple I don't understand why you refuse to believe it.

Why is plebbit getting so worked up over this? The internet was fine before net neutrality and will be fine aftewards when it is gone.

>>9318437
>freely
Does freely give you feely?

>>9318389

Capitalism can be harmful

Socialism and communism are suicidal. You distrust big corporations, right? And your solution is to grant total power to a single, unitary entity in the government who not only has the power to take what it wants from you but also to throw you in chains or execute you?

I want all socialist kiddies to have to take a tour of Eastern Europe to get a real perspective on the "fruits" of it. People are inherently malevolent and our only hope for keeping peace and freedom is to keep large entities at bay with one another, not working together.

>>9318325

>Conservatism is McCarthyism

I don't think you understand anything about American politics. Younger people are idealists who think they have the answer and solution to everything, older people are more realistic and wary of change that can potentially be harmful.

Overly conservative societies can stagnate but overly liberal ones can murder themselves.

>>9318469

This movement is being pushed and financed big time by the big internet/tech players and the big government lobby alike. Gotta scare the shit out of the kids.

>>9318475
>older people are more realistic
if experience has proved anything, it's that conservatives have no idea what they're talking about.

They're literally the most ignorant group of people still alive today. And the worst part is they choose to remain that way by staying together and circlejerking all day with their cherrypicked data and Fox&Friends stamp of approval.

I know more about american politics than you do. Have fun being owned by a company because you don't even have a say in what your elected officials do.

>>9318480
>it's that conservatives have no idea what they're talking about.
>They're literally the most ignorant group of people still alive today.

>>9318473
Wait. Eastern Europe has been full of liberal capitalism more than 20 years, and even more in Baltic dwarfes. Fruits of liberal capitalism have a bad taste but it is fully capitalistic product.

>>9318467
But these arbittary controls are always there. A true free market is a utopian end state just as fictional as succesful communism. Imposing net neutrality is a very small drop in a bucket full of laws and regulations. ISP's make money by providing access and transporting data. And just like the postal service has no right to refuse service based on the content of my letter, so does the ISP have no right to refuse transport based on the content of my data.

>>9318486
>I can't justify my ignorance so I'll pretend it's irrelevant

woops, you dropped your fascism for a second.

>>>/pol/

>>9318507
>>I can't justify my ignorance so I'll pretend it's irrelevant
Who are you quoting?

Your slandering against conservatives actually is irrelevant

>>9316387
No.
>>9316406
You have to be either incredibly naive or delusional if you think that a bunch of rednecks with zero combat experience would last longer than a day fighting the U.S army.

>>9316322
>Implying American soldiers would want to risk their lives fighting their own countrymen
Forcing helpless civilians to do stuff can be rationalised as something done for the greater good, but gunning them down clearly crosses a line that would make many of these soldiers work against the military's motives.

>>9317906
MSNBC and fox are more or less the same people backing the same interests
"Conservative" and "liberal" literally mean nothing

>>9317505
Private property is complete bullshit

>>9318591
>a bunch of rednecks with zero combat experience would last longer than a day fighting the U.S army.
What would cause the mostly conservative military to fight rednecks?

>>9318606
>Private property is complete bullshit
t. antifa

>>9318606
>Private property is complete bullshit
retard

>>9318502
>And just like the postal service has no right to refuse service based on the content of my letter
The postal service is an agency of the federal government. Private shipping companies can refuse to ship whatever they want. You have no right to force a private company to transport data it does not want to transport, but none of them actually do, so this is all irrelevant.

>>9318502
>And just like the postal service has no right to refuse service based on the content of my letter, so does the ISP have no right to refuse transport based on the content of my data.
Ever tried sending a gun in the mail?

>>9318610

>>9318616

Not him but he is right.

You are probably confusing personal with private property.

>>9318632
>>9318633
Good job on completely missing the point

>>9318635
>You are probably confusing personal with private property.
I'm not.

Corporations are people

>>9318635
no
we aren't communists

>>9318650
People are corporations

>>9318473
>>9318447

The goal would be decentralisation of some key markets, such as in this case, utilities.

Communistic solutions are bad because there is one party in control of everything.***

Capitalism in it's current forms allows huge monopolies, and in practice you have the same situation as in communism. For even given market you have a few key people who control everything.

We need laws to prevent this from happen. Radical anti-monopoly laws.

However such laws cannot be passed because, well, too much money in politics prevents it. It's a Catch-22.

I have no solution but I think the goal I envision is more or less correct.

*** I also don't agree with socialist/anarchist solutions that envision some kind of economy in which everything is owned by the workers or by the local community. I think there is no reason to believe that such an economy could work and might be too inefficient, due to the added costs of having to decide everything in a democratic way. I think it goes too far. I think lots of problems could be solved if private property is retained but highly decentralized.

>>9318834

Also there is a flaw with this.

Some markets are actually more efficient when they are monopolised IF it weren't for the fact that the monopoly then has the leverage to raised prices as much as it wants to.

For example, it is clear that Amazon and Walmart are more efficient than the thousands of small businesses they replaced. So radical decentralization would take away from this efficiency. So maybe in this case, something else is required. Like capping the amount of stock that any given entity can own (something more sophisticated than that, cause they can always setup shadow companies (maybe increased transparency of financial vehicles would also be a good step to take)), and giving equal voting powers to all so that there is no handful of people that act as the board of shareholders and decide everything, but instead, it is thousands of people, who have a say in key policies. So that if Walmart is planning something bad, those thousands who own stock could step in and halt the madness.

>>9316467
>>cringe
cringe

>>9318873

> I also don't agree with socialist/anarchist solutions that envision some kind of economy in which everything is owned by the workers or by the local community.

Okay I understand it's not exactly the same but it seems to me that's very similar

>>9317632
>implying they shouldn't

>>9318638
That was the only part of your post that actually attempted to justify NN, so no.

>>9318591
Yup. Totally inconceivable that a poorly organized militia of rural people could stand up to the US Army for more than a day... or 3,500 days...

>>9318608
Wanna know how I know you're not .mil?

The military is conservative in an entirely different way than Rush Limbaugh's audience. No, we aren't going to fight for antifa, but if it's the government versus a bunch of Bundy Ranch /pol/tards, no one I know is going to refuse those orders.

>>9319127

The longer it lasts the more money you will make.

Goodbye /t/. We hardly knew ye.

>>9319130
>The military is conservative in an entirely different way than Rush Limbaugh's audience. No, we aren't going to fight for antifa, but if it's the government versus a bunch of Bundy Ranch /pol/tards, no one I know is going to refuse those orders.
t. larper

>>9319496
You could say that, since I'm in the guard, but I know better than your cheeto-stained ass does.

>>9319071
You send a letter. In a closed envelope. Should US Mail or FedEx or UPS have the right to examine the content in order to decide if they want to handle your letter or not?

If you think they shouldn't, you should support NN. If you think they should, you should oppose NN. And kys.

Ancaps and Libertarian should be drenched in white phosphorus.

>believing this has shit to do with NN.

>>9318635
retarded and arbitrary distinction

>>9319778
What really happened is corporations prevented people from pirating aka committing crimes.
In reality, corporations never oppress people as much as the government would if it had the same power.

>>9319944

The government is not, this one single big evil entity.

Unlike corporations the government is not single minded. The government is composed of many different entities all of which have their own goals and inclinations and unlike corporations, the people have a say in the composition of the government. The government can be molded. Some parts of the government can be replaced. Its structure and inner workings can be changed.

It is true that the government is corrupt, but even a corrupt government is more under control of the electorate than an entirely private entity.

You can easily see this by observing how some governments around the world are clearly less corrupt and more efficient than others.

>>9319778
What about when the government and the corporations collude to step on you? Is the only way out mass suicide?

>>9319135
this

>law allows them to shut down any traffic that can potentially be used for criminal activity

Could (((they))) shut down bitcoin transactions and mining?

>>9315746

>>9317505
A private organization running a business on the backbone of publicly-funded public property. Fuck outta here with that pseudo-intellectual drivel.

>>9317532
This
>Dumbshits will say
"Atleast everyone gets a PLACE TO STAY and a JOB"

>>9317505
>>9320454
Anyone remember AOL keywords? It was this partitioned part of the internet that was only accessible if you were an AOL user.

If a private company offers "internet" that doesn't have access to 100% of the complete whole internet, then it legally should not be called the internet. Then they're offering some other service that is a smaller partitioned section of the internet. By definition isn't the internet anymore since some of it is missing. ERGO they can not be called ISPs if they don't provide the internet.

It's like Amazon kindle's unlimited cellular data plan that only gave access to Amazon books and Wikipedia. They called it "whisper-net" and cleverly refrained from saying it was the internet because it's not internet part of it is missing.

This name change would make a difference. Like when they changed the legal definition of broadband to be anything faster than 25Mbps. They could no longer advertise crappy speeds as "broadband" just as they should not be allowed to advertise censured/throttled connection to the web as "internet access."

>>9317995
>0% argument
That nonesense

>>9320560
>>0% argument
Who are you quoting?

>>9319944
>n reality, corporations never oppress people as much as the government would

>>9315766
>>>>/pol/

>>9320826
>>>/reddit/

>>9315774
Go back to /pol, you dont belong here.

>>9315801
>unless you want to conflate killing with killing
How could you ever live without shooting things to death?

>>9319944
>In reality, corporations never oppress people as much as the government would if it had the same power.

Wal-Mart has the same amount of revenue as Norway's GDP. The top 15 companies in terms of revenue combined make the same revenue as the entire U.S. federal government does in tax revenue. Modern multi-national corporations have state-level power, and their combined interests has more power behind it than any state. Corporations rule the world, and you're just another one of their indoctrinated shills.

>>9316455
/thread

>>9320869
>>unless you want to conflate killing with killing
Who are you quoting?

>>9320940
>Wal-Mart has the same amount of revenue as Norway's GDP.
arbitrary statistic

>The top 15 companies in terms of revenue combined make the same revenue as the entire U.S. federal government does in tax revenue.
arbitrary statistic

>>9320940
>Modern multi-national corporations have state-level power, and their combined interests has more power behind it than any state.
"state-level power" means the ability to pass laws and uphold them with violence. the closest corps can come to this is lobbying and litigation, and where corruption exists, bribery. yes, they have ridiculously deep pockets. yes, there are potential monopolies that exist. but this does not confer the power to inflict violence without consequence, or directly enact federal law.

the real problems begin when "federal" agencies run by unelected officials forcibly get in bed with megacorps, IE Google, Verizon, AT&T feeding info to the innumerable intelligence agencies

>>9321164
> this does not confer the power to inflict violence without consequence, or directly enact federal law.

What difference does it make? Corporations simply outsource their violence to another corporation, i.e. the state. I'm talking about actual power, ability to influence - you listed some of the means that corporations to do this. Property ownership intrinsically requires violence, as it is by definition an exclusion of others from use and benefit. Wal-Mart employs 2.3 million employees, compared to 2.8 million civil servants employed by the U.S. government.

Some corporations have nuclear-level power over U.S. citizens, "too big to fail" is economic mutually assured destruction.

>"Let us control the money of a nation, and we care not who makes its laws"

>>9321116
Available economic resources for an entity to use is arbitrary?

>>9321196
holy shit I don't know where to begin.
>buying land is violence
do you have indigenous american MtDNA or something? protecting one's land may involve violence but the Walmart manager isn't going to drag you out for squatting or vagrancy. they'll call the nearest PD.
>what difference does it make?
all the difference. you argue like a Jew. are you a native American-Jewish cross? try shoplifting or attacking a Walmart employee, or rob an Amazon warehouse. they're not "outsourcing" anything by calling the nearest PD on your ass to enforce state/federal laws against robbery or assault.
>nuclear-level power
what? corporations fail every single day. banks should have been allowed to collapse but they weren't, a lot of folks saw the strings that day.
>allow us to print the currency...
this is a commonly invoked argument against the federal reserve / other jewish bankers and is the only reasonable statement in your entire block of text

>>9316451

Don't worry. I'm sure ISP won't abuse their newfound market power.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-and-comcast-win-lawsuit-they-filed-to-stall-google-fiber-in-nashville/

>>9321824

>ISPs working through government "regulations" to wall out competitors

Uh, what point is this trying to prove

>>9320822

Which corporation managed to kill off 100 million of their nation's population?

>>9315774
>not wanting to be fucked by corporations somehow makes you a communist

i swear you libertarians are most retarded people on earth

>>9315863
Time Warner is NOT an ISP, and has nothing to do with Time Warner Cable/Spectrum.

>>9321320
>Walmart manager

That's a person, not a corporation.

>they're not "outsourcing" anything by calling the nearest PD on your ass to enforce state/federal laws against robbery or assault.

Again, that's people, not corporations.

>what? corporations fail every single day. banks should have been allowed to collapse but they weren't, a lot of folks saw the strings that day.

Banks are corporations. They create money from nothing and lend it with interest. It can never be paid back because the debt is larger than the money in circulation. So more has to be printed, and so on to infinity. Genius.

>>9321885
>Again, that's people, not corporations.
But corporations are people

>>9321869

Philosophy is philosophy

What is the point of introducing regulation for something that has hardly been a problem? It can't be anything other than typical big government babbys looking for shit to dig their claws into. Let the internet work on its own.

>>9321890
In no reality is this true

>>9321890

Not in the eyes of the law. Corporations are not considered people.

>>9321911
Hi, I'm an Earth scientist and as an Earth scientist you may think I have nothing to say on the matter of economics.

Sadly this is not true. I work with the state of Utah. One thing I have done for them in the past is cataloging percentages of arsenic and lead in Utah waterways from mine tailings. I only worked on the project for a few weeks. Still, let me clue you in on reality for a moment.

Corporations don't give a fuck one tiny iota for the well being of its customer base or workers except incidentally in their quest for money.. Corporations aren't people. They have no intrinsic morality. A corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders. Those mine tailings sit there slowly bleeding lead and arsenic into the water supply, built up over a century and a half by people who made more money dumping it then cleaning up their own mess. Who's going to clean that shit up now? The free market? Who pays for it? Nobody?

Without regulation, that's what we get. Free market fuckery. If by chance companies get caught abusing shit and hurting people the people on top may get in trouble, likely as not they'll exploit an area, fuck it up to hell, and move on elsewhere fleeing like cockroaches embedding themselves in some other project and telling themselves, 'well I was only responsible for a little bit!'

This is why corporations are not people nor should they be given rights like people and anyone that honestly believes the free market will fix anything need to come out here and explain how and when these mine tailings will ever be cleaned up.

Have a day

>>9321923
sadly, this is not true friend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

>>9321943

>who's going to clean them up?

Shitheads like Earth "scientists"

have a day

>>9321956

You cannot put a corporation in prison, that is the major difference.