Net neutrality
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
First it was obamacare.
Now obamanet?
Why isnt /g/ happy?
Im confused
>>46764113
Because it doesn't go into effect for a whole month which gives ISPs like Comcast and Verizon plenty of time to sue.
I'm not Burgerian.
>obamanlet
>>46764113
/g/ is shilling and trolling the fuck out of this thing.
Protip: shills are a real thing, even though they've tried to inflate the usage of the term to make it meaningless.
obamacare is shit though
please post some source when you do this shit. Nobody has time to stay up to date with every country in the world.
>>46764638
For most people sure, but if you are (un) lucky enough to be the right sort of poor and qualify for the marketplace subsidies it is pretty cash
>>46764278
/pol/ died anon. That isn't the same /pol/ has before
>>46764378
Do you think water shouldn't be regulated? What about electricity?
>>46766248
He didn't say what he thought.
>>46766229
The new /pol/ is a Reptilian Hollow Earth Mayan Zombie from Outer Space.
>>46764993
>implying you don't dream about 'merica
>>46764113
Why all of a sudden is the government doing a good thing when we have been trying to stop them from doing all those bad things just in the last 5 years?
Holy shit, stop watching hollywood & television and snap out of the trance they have you in.
>>46766309
>doing a good thing
what?
how is literally handing over the keys to the internet to the US government a good thing in the slightest?
>>46767704
they already had them and you know it
how doesn't this have 200 replies?
>>46767704
I was responding to the outpouring of support for Net Neuteredreality; please re-read with my question being asked with an incredulous tone
>>46764113
>Net Neuteredreality
That's insanely retarded. Do you also say obummer?
>>46767704
There are literally no keys to the internet, you donkey.
>>46768660
>retarded
I think you are merely jealous you didn't post it yourself, perhaps because you are unable to think so cleverly? I don't know, but I am sure you will deny it.
Enjoy being impaired mentally.
Seems great on the surface.
Unfortunately our government has no honor. Look what they were able to do with the "patriot" act.
Over 300 pages is a lot of space to hide subtle things to be exploited. Don't trust Wheeler, he seemed to be for the cable companies, but now he's a champion of the people?
I fear that this is a Trojan horse and part of a larger plan to control political dissent(extremism). Only time will tell.
>>46768782
Over 300 pages that we can't read yet. Although that is the usual.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-tom-wheeler-20150210-story.html
Also, I'm pretty sure that if wheeler is planning something, he would plan to erect massive barriers to entry to hinder new competition for his cable companies, not spy on everyone.
The idea of Net Neutrality seems ok to me, but I fear how they will "try to implement" it.
>>46764314
There's no way to enforce a law that passes immediately without warning, it would bankrupt the ISPs. The ISPs with or without a month would file for an emergency temporary restraining order anyways.
>>46768694
Do you normally talk like a cartoon villain or is it just something you reserve for trolling trolls on 4chan?
>Why isnt /g/ happy?
Because the average /g/ user is 15 years old and hasn't been conscious long enough to remember how many years we've been fighting for this.
>>46768879
Trolling is only allowed on >>>/b/, so again, you are incorrect. Your malady is most perplexing.
Now I must board my rocket to the moon, where I have setup a doomsday machine to destroy the earth.
Farewell, Mr. Anon.
I leave you here with my most inept henchman, not even considering to make sure you die, and will be waiting patiently for your arrival at my lair.
>>46768916
>330+ pages of secret law
>we've been fighting for this
No, dipshito, you have been fighting against this and when they spray paint it with freedom colors and dab poor-people-rescue musk you fucktards swallow it up.
>>46767704
>literally handing over the keys to the internet to the US government
The internet has keys?
#literally.
>>46768994
You cannot tell me earnestly that you were there campaigning on slashdot in 05 and here on /g/ laughing at Ted Stevens in 06, so don't tell me what I've been fighting for.
>>46768943
>Trolling is only allowed on >>>/b/
wut?
When was this rule imposed.
Tha...thanks Obama.
>>46768878
>it would bankrupt the ISPs
Simply no ;)
>>46768916
Yeah the facebook generation has been "fighting" over it with twitter campaigns, reddit posts, maybe year or two maximum. As long as I remember everybody was against government control. Suddenly everybody is for government control, even the eff who just couple years ago was the biggest opponent of net neutrality turned their backs. Fuck those guys.
Back in the the 90's when all was good and when most of the internet users were tech savvy people you got blown the fuck out of the irc channels and usenet groups if you suggested any government control at all. They hated the idea of government sticking their fingers in and ruining all this.
>>46770326
How I understand it is that it's not the government taking over the Internet. It's the government preventing large ISPs from stifling innovation while making huge profits.
>>46770735
Yea, that's been clearly stated.
So was this:
>We are not collecting phone calls of American citizens unless they go to another country.
Later:
>err, well, "collected" means "used in a report"
>>46770735
>preventing large ISPs from stifling innovation
That was the messaging, that's how it's sold to the public, I think it's still unclear what we "won" yesterday.
The thing is there was already laws in place for fighting against abusive corporations that stifle innovation. Why weren't they used?
We have net neutrality by law in the netherlands and that's fucking great.
It doesn't mean the government controls the internet. It just means they prevent ISPs from engaging in certain anti-consumerist practices.
Though of course I don't know how the murricans will implement it and they do have a reputation for being lying motherfuckers.
>>46770735
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Note that the Title I and Title II classifications related to the Net Neutrality ruling come from this and the Telecommunications act of 1934, which were admittedly even worse and was part of what got us into this mess in the first place. The 1996 one was supposed to foster competition and fix old problems, but it has failed to do so.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/telco96.html
Read the concluding remarks, then if you want proof actually read through it.
The idea isn't bad, but I'm still wary of the implementation.
>>46770326
> Yeah the facebook generation has been "fighting" over it with twitter campaigns, reddit posts, maybe year or two maximum. As long as I remember everybody was against government control.
see
>>46769079
Maybe your memory is just fucked, old man.
>>46771320
There is a big difference between net neutrality and the 332 page abomination that was voted for yesterday. Did you really fight for this or for something else?
Look at this. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A7-2014-0190+237-244+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
It's the European net neutrality law, it's total of 18 pages long.
>>46767704
>The very technologies that can empower us to do great good can also be used to undermine us and do great harm. The cyberworld is the Wild Wild West — to some degree we’re asked to be the sheriff.
http://nytimes.com/2015/02/14/business/obama-urges-tech-companies-to-cooperate-on-internet-security.html?referrer=&_r=0
What do you think, /g/, now that President Obama is the sheriff of the internet?
>>46768782
>Seems great on the surface.
>Unfortunately our government has no honor. Look what they were able to do with the "patriot" act.
Nothing about the "U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T." act seemed great on the surface, except to idiots and those holding the power.
>>46771548
reminds me of an old western where they made a nigger a sheriff to try to get everybody to leave the town
>>46766211
it's amazing how red states fucked themselves so bad with individual state laws designed to make obamacare look like a $200/month fine
fuck walker
>>46764378
Honestly there are so many shills out trying to make Net Neutrality look like a good thing. IT is kind of sad.
>>46771548
*tips hat*
m'president
>>46771755
It is a good thing, in principle. ISP's WERE gonna fuck us. Why else would verison have challenged the FCC's authority?
Whether There's crap buried in the law to fuck us anyway, remains to be seen.
Maybe it's all smoke to distract from comcrap TWC merger
>>46771579
Blazing Saddles reference, I get it.
>>46771894
thanks couldnt remember the name
>net neutrality
>with nsa still active and giving no fucks
Top kek. Obamas has reddit and the likes by the balls.
>>46771885
ISPs have not been fucking us, until all of the sudden it was a major issue. Total red herring, this is going to fuck us harder than any ISP could have.
>Net Neutrality Act
>every American deserves a free and neutral internet, free of racism, anti-semetism, misogyny, pornography, violent threats and illegal piracy that funds terrorism
How would you react
>>46771977
>also free of political dissent.
>>46766309
>doing good thing
it's a fucking trojan horse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bUuvfDmsAs
>>46771989
Free of Aaron Swartz, Free of Barrett Brown, Free of [insert name here]
>>46764113
Is that cum on his face?
>>46767704
Someone has got to be on top, and if its the government, so be it. I would rather have 1 fucked up department be in charge rather than 4 entire companies who want nothing but money to offer shit tier connections and charge the fuck out of you for visiting Youtube, Netfilix, 4chan, and what not.
It would be best for nobody to be in charge but when something fucks up, someone has to be to blame.
>>46772139
So instead you want the government to charge the shit out of you, fine you, imprison you, censor what you can say and do?
No thank you..
>wake up
>open Patriotism Obamanet Browser 2019
>"Please enter Social Security Number to access the Internet citizen"
>721-01-0911
>"WARNING, REFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 11TH TERRORIST ATTACKS DETECTED. PLEASE SAY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO CONFIRM FREEDOM LEVELS"
>stand up and face government-issued American Flag over my bed
>"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."
>throat hurts, had to confirm freedom levels 14 times last night
>continue pledge, force a smile
>"Connecting to Obamanet servers"
>...
>"Government authorization complete"
>Go to Official USA Weather Report site, want to know if I need an umbrella today
>Today's Weather: Sunny, 100% Chance of Freedom, 95% Chance of Obesity in Your Area
>Look out the window, it's cloudy
>Get umbrella
>"WARNING, INSUBORDINATION DETECTED. USE OF UMBRELLA PROHIBITED ON SUNNY DAYS. Please say Pledge of Allegiance to confirm Freedom Levels"
>"I pledge allegiance..."
>"ERROR! UNPATRIOTIC TONE DETECTED. LOCAL NSA DEPARTMENT CONTACTED. PLEASE LIE ON THE FLOOR AND PLACE HANDS ON YOUR HEAD. I TECHNICIAN WILL BE WITH YOU BETWEEN 8AM AND 5PM TOMORROW"
>>46772177
I would have rather nobody hold a foot in it. But someone has to pay to put lines up, maintain, pay employees, buy equipment. The internet is a company in itself.
>>46772139
>significant nuclear accidents can be counted on 1 hand
>ignores that wind turbines pose a significant threat to native bird populations and become ice slinging death machines that have to be shutdown in the winter
Solar + nuclear is the real answer.
>>46772016
>infowars
same channel
>hidden messages in the new $100 dollar bill which warn of future nuclear devastation in the United States.
While he may be right, Can't consider that a credible source.
>>46772188
That sounds tinfoil...
much like:
>the gooberment is monitoring all our communications with a project called echelon.
>>46772240
Solar is a good short term alternative. It cost way to much and makes more pollution that what it will prevent. Nuclear on the other hand. Dass guud shit.
To me it just seems like a funny thing with this happening (and succeeding) around when that TPP thing comes back up and there's apparently a bill or something to try and fast track it.
>>46772188
Does Obamanet have it's own 4chan at least?
>>46772240
Birds? Hell, wind turbines have blown up and killed people plenty of times.
>muh utilities
>muh drinking water
>muh cheap electricity
Net neutrality is funny. On one side you have corporations who want to fuck you. and on the other side you have the FCC, who doesnt want you to see fucking
Yesterday I was watching Fox news when this passed. They had a "security expert" who literally said that this would cause trouble when updating your windows operating system, and would cause security vulnerabilities on the internet.
With news like this I'm not surprised there are so many retarded teenagers here on 4chan who think this is a bad thing.
>>46772416
>implying anyone but old people watch the news
>fox news especially
fucking kill yourself
>>46772416
If you think it's a good thing you're retarded. Even the EFF said that it could be a potentially bad thing.
Anything that involves the Government regulating something is a potential issue.
>>46771942
>ISPs have not been fucking us
>>46772435
/pol/ watches fox and uses their website. It's very dangerous to have a news source that actively distorts facts. I don't have a problem with conservative-biased news sources existing, but lying about facts and misleading people is a problem.
>>46772435
I was in the gym, shitstain.
>>46772436
I feel bad for you, that you're such a blind, hypocritical retard that you think government services are bad but takes advantage of so many of them. Have fun driving on your private roads and eating unregulated meat.
>>46772305
Obamanet has 4Freedom. It's not anonymous and all cursing, threats of violent, and non-literal responses to posts are considered hate crimes and result in permanent disconnection from the internet.
>>46772188
>this is what republicans actually believe
>>46772396
The funny thing is that only a conservative government would try to ban porn. Conservatives really are the shittest political party in this country.
>>46772545
Nice strawman argument there.
I'll just direct you to this.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win
>Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
>For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
Figures there are Redditors here who just go with whatever is the current "fight" and don't question the implications of what is being debated at all.
>>46772577
>The funny thing is that only a conservative government would try to ban porn
Really? Last time I heard, tumblr thought porn was oppressive and degrading to women
>>46772541
fox news is too mainstream for /pol/, even ron paul is too "normal" for them as is alex jones
/pol/ just wants to be edgy as possible and most of the GOPers out there actively rallying against NN have no idea what it is
most of this is predicated on the fact that the FCC hasn't released their official 300-page policy statement on NN, which of course means boundless speculation that it'll ban porn or something else equally retarded
>>46772577
Because the UK Government which loves to bend over backwards in the name of being "progressive" and extremely immigrant friendly is a conservative government, right?
>>46772581
Thank you. Someone who understands that the FCC is the better of two evils to have this kind of power.
america's internet is very soon about to head to the way of britbongs internet with the porn things
>>46772541
>/pol/ watches fox and uses their website.
Do you actually believe that?
>It's very dangerous to have a news source that actively distorts facts
Fox isn't even the worst offender of all the mainstream US news outlets when it comes to this. That would go to MSNBC easily.
