How the downfall of net neutrality will effect the second amendment

[2Wheels4Ever]

All of the liberal news sites are exploding about the upcoming vote on net neutrality. Touted as the end of the internet as we know it, what effects could this have on our more gun friendly sites? We alread have seen what happens when large corporations are able to censor their content; the second amendment loses its voice. Just look at how YouTube and Facebook have tried to silence pro gun info.

Any validation to these claims? I have not seen much one the topic from Republican news outlets.

I tried to find an article from a non-partisan news station. I failed.
Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

Read More

 

[clearconscience]

End the internet, please.

 

[Medic!]

Not sure?
Do you see it having a large impact on the ''Guns and Girls thread''?

 

[Heywood]

Nonsense. YouTube and google had started their soft censorship after net neutrality was enacted.
Private companies should do what they will with their property.
If people want to treat them like a public utility because the size and scope of their importance we could have that argument, but simply requiring them to abide by certain rules based on certain other peoples belief of fairness. I don't think that is a good idea.

 

[Mark W.]

I'm on 4-5 various Gun related pages on Facebook. The only thing I know is they stopped allowing basically classified ads selling guns on Face book.

 

[JRuby]

When we are no longer allowed to access websites like this one because Comcast has decided that guns are bad who will we blame then. To me I see this as just another sign of how gun friendly the 'Good ole party" is. Chasing the mighty dollar instead of doing what is right. Ending net nuetrallity is a form of censorship by those that provide access to the internet.

 

[cigars]

Internet EMP would be a good start.
Edit: Social media EMP.

 

[MxOverkill]

When we are no longer allowed to access websites like this one because Comcast has decided that guns are bad who will we blame then. To me I see this as just another sign of how gun friendly the 'Good ole party" is. Chasing the mighty dollar instead of doing what is right. Ending net nuetrallity is a form of censorship by those that provide access to the internet.

You are exactly right. The 'net is today's river of commerce, flow of ideas, and perhaps even the 'public square'.

Consider that the Founding Fathers took steps to ensure that rivers, the original networks of commerce, remained open to the publics' unfettered use and free of restraints.

Ending net neutrality is BAD policy for all Americans, regardless of political persuasion.

 

[Jamie6.5]

If the mess obama's FCC handed us had really been "net neutrality," a couple of you guys might be right.
But it wasn't.
All it did was transfer control from the service providers to the 3, 5, 10? major content providers.
And anyone that was on major social media like facebook, Twitter or youtube before and after "net neutrality" became a reality will tell you the censorship started after Mr Pai lost his bid to prevent it.

The providers don't care what you write. As long as data is traversing their hardware they're making money and they're happy. They have no interest in censorship. Censorship means less data gets transferred.
The content hosts however, like Google, MSN, Facebook, Twitter etc, they are very political, and their ad space will sell even with censorship. They're all about the message. And they were all to happy to play along with obama/clinton etc.
Just check their political donations.
Then check what they've done since the last election, with their claims of reining in "fake news." I got called a "bot" on Twitter and had to prove I wasn't. But they still won't verify me. I re-tweet all the wrong stuff for them.
And that's exactly what the last 2-3 years have taught those of us that have paid attention.

And for the data hogs like Netflix and other streaming services, I believe they should pay more. Just like any other commodity being carried by a 3rd party, the more of it there is, the heavier it is, and the faster you want it to move, the more you pay.
The ISPs are no different than a trucking/freight company. They do the exact same thing, and none of us complain. We understand that you can't ship an engine block as cheap as a feather pillow.
So if they want to charge more for TBs of data in the form of a movie subscription than they do for my <1Mb of text every month, I get that.
That makes perfect sense to me.

But then again, I'm a capitalist. With a strong sense of reality.
The loss of net neutrality has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment, unless it will be to help save it.
But only because the more we talk about it, the more money somebody's gonna make in the process.

And I'm pretty damned sure Mark Zuckerberg couldn't care less about your rights or your money. He has more money than God and an armed security detail.

 

[Heywood]

You are exactly right. The 'net is today's river of commerce, flow of ideas, and perhaps even the 'public square'.

Consider that the Founding Fathers took steps to ensure that rivers, the original networks of commerce, remained open to the publics' unfettered use and free of restraints.

Ending net neutrality is BAD policy for all Americans, regardless of political persuasion.

Rivers were not built by private companies. Not to mention private investment in internet infrastructure dropped as a result of this stupid act. More investment= lower cost.
The left is very good at using words that make people believe things that are often the opposite of their intent
Anyone remember the fairness doctrine?
Or how about rich people paying their fair share?
The government is good at picking winners and losers. All they are attempting to do with the Net neutrality is shift control from One type of company to another.

 

[Ralgha]

Net neutrality doesn't really have much to do with content providers such as Netflix, Facebook, etc. It has everything to do with ACCESSING that content, regardless of provider and consumer. Net neutrality strives to ensure that your ISP (such as Comcast, Verizon, etc) can not limit what you can access with your internet connection. What Facebook offers you is not at issue, you have a choice to visit Facebook, or not. Without net neutrality, you may not even get a choice, you just won't be able to.

The base of pretty much everybody's argument against net neutrality is that it will increase competition, allowing consumers like you and I to take our business to the ISP that offers the most. The problem with that is that most of us don't have a choice in ISP. For many people, Comcast is it. For others, Verizon is it, etc. If Comcast is your ISP, and they decide that you can't visit this forum, then you won't be able to visit this forum, and there's absolutely nothing you will be able to do about it. Maybe they'll decide that you shouldn't use a VPN anymore, because F you, and you won't be able to use a VPN anymore, and there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it. Maybe Amazon will decide that they should pay Comcast enough to ban all the streaming video competition from their network. You'll only be able to watch Amazon Prime, no Netflix, no Hulu, no HBO Now, nothing. Perhaps Comcast would decide that you can only watch their own streaming service and no other because you suck and they hate you. You won't have a choice.

I'm sure some of you work at companies that have an internal network that limits your access to the internet, I know I do. There are some sites that they won't let you access, often firearms sites are included, also shopping sites, sometimes search engines, you know what I'm talking about. Imagine the ISP serving your home doing that, because they will be able to without net neutrality laws, and most of us will have no other option to switch to.

Will it happen overnight? Of course not. Comcast isn't stupid, they'll ease it in slowly, taking a little bit more every time, just like the gun grabbers want to do.

Ajit Pai is the scariest person in the government to me right now, he is a former Verizon lawyer and was originally nominated by Obama and confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate. This is not a D vs R issue, it's not about capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other ism you want to toss around. It's all about power concentrating power in the hands of a few, just like gun control is. Anybody who supports what Ajit Pai(d) wants to do is sadly misinformed, or has other motivations they don't want made public.

 

[Heywood]

I live in one of the poorest most rural parts of the state of Oregon and I have acces to 5 different ISPs not including wireless options so pretending anyone will have no choice Incase an ISP starts censoring your content is wrong.
Anytime we give government the option to control what one private companie can do over others is a bad thing. That limits real compitition.
I could guess with close to 100% certainty that most people for this act have zero understanding of economics. Let alone free markets.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Net neutrality doesn't really have much to do with content providers such as Netflix, Facebook, etc. It has everything to do with ACCESSING that content, regardless of provider and consumer. Net neutrality strives to ensure that your ISP (such as Comcast, Verizon, etc) can not limit what you can access with your internet connection. What Facebook offers you is not at issue, you have a choice to visit Facebook, or not. Without net neutrality, you may not even get a choice, you just won't be able to.

The base of pretty much everybody's argument against net neutrality is that it will increase competition, allowing consumers like you and I to take our business to the ISP that offers the most. The problem with that is that most of us don't have a choice in ISP. For many people, Comcast is it. For others, Verizon is it, etc. If Comcast is your ISP, and they decide that you can't visit this forum, then you won't be able to visit this forum, and there's absolutely nothing you will be able to do about it. Maybe they'll decide that you shouldn't use a VPN anymore, because F you, and you won't be able to use a VPN anymore, and there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it. Maybe Amazon will decide that they should pay Comcast enough to ban all the streaming video competition from their network. You'll only be able to watch Amazon Prime, no Netflix, no Hulu, no HBO Now, nothing. Perhaps Comcast would decide that you can only watch their own streaming service and no other because you suck and they hate you. You won't have a choice.

I'm sure some of you work at companies that have an internal network that limits your access to the internet, I know I do. There are some sites that they won't let you access, often firearms sites are included, also shopping sites, sometimes search engines, you know what I'm talking about. Imagine the ISP serving your home doing that, because they will be able to without net neutrality laws, and most of us will have no other option to switch to.

Will it happen overnight? Of course not. Comcast isn't stupid, they'll ease it in slowly, taking a little bit more every time, just like the gun grabbers want to do.

Ajit Pai is the scariest person in the government to me right now, he is a former Verizon lawyer and was originally nominated by Obama and confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate. This is not a D vs R issue, it's not about capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other ism you want to toss around. It's all about power concentrating power in the hands of a few, just like gun control is. Anybody who supports what Ajit Pai(d) wants to do is sadly misinformed, or has other motivations they don't want made public.

H
O
R
S
E

P
U
C
K
E
Y

It's far more profitable for an ISP to offer you as many options as possible. The more they offer, and the more you utilize, the more money they make.
"Net neutrality" as sold to you by the obama admin was about control.
Control of the message, via the content providers.
And that's exactly what has been happening. There is NO dispute, it's happening right now on every major social network. And if they get their way, they'll control all of it.
And tell you it's for your own good.
Just like every totalitarian in the history of the world has done.

 

[Ralgha]

It's far more profitable for an ISP to offer you as many options as possible. The more they offer, and the more you utilize, the more money they make.
"Net neutrality" as sold to you by the obama admin was about control.
Control of the message, via the content providers.
And that's exactly what has been happening. There is NO dispute, it's happening right now on every major social network. And if they get their way, they'll control all of it.
And tell you it's for your own good.
Just like every totalitarian in the history of the world has done.

So don't go to the social networks. Why are you even complaining about it? They aren't forcing anything on you, you can go where you like, do what you like, and you don't have to pay more for one arbitrary service over another one. It's all bits on a line, it doesn't matter where they come from or go to. And you can damn well bet they're going to block certain things. VPNs would allow you to circumvent their "premium" packages, so you're not going to be able to use them.

 

[Heywood]

Google, Facebook, George Soros and many more champions of American values and personal freedom literally put hundreds of millions of dollars to indoctrinate the mass' on this subject.
Guess which side they're on.

 

[Jamie6.5]

So don't go to the social networks. Why are you even complaining about it? They aren't forcing anything on you, you can go where you like, do what you like, and you don't have to pay more for one arbitrary service over another one. It's all bits on a line, it doesn't matter where they come from or go to. And you can damn well bet they're going to block certain things. VPNs would allow you to circumvent their "premium" packages, so you're not going to be able to use them.

Then why your paranoia equating an employer limiting net access, to an ISP you're paying for service? Your employer has every right to limit web/net access on his/her premises, especially during working hours. He's paying you, you're not paying him.
Your ISP has no motive for limiting your access, as long as you pay your bill. You're paying the ISP, the exact opposite of the employer/employee scenario you equated it to.

Content providers have every motivation to limit content they disagree with.
Data carriers do not. Data carriers make money regardless of the content you watch/read/listen to.
Your assertion that ISPs will limit what you can access is nutty, when they make money on any/all of it.
Limiting your access is limiting the revenue stream.

Now, are you telling me you should be able to circumvent a premium package billing? After you signed a contract with your provider that doesn't include that premium content?
Is that what you're after? The right to cheat?

 

[Heywood]

Then why your paranoia equating an employer limiting net access, to an ISP you're paying for service? Your employer has every right to limit web/net access on his/her premises, especially during working hours. He's paying you, you're not paying him.
Your ISP has no motive for limiting your access, as long as you pay your bill. You're paying the ISP, the exact opposite of the employer/employee scenario you equated it to.

Content providers have every motivation to limit content they disagree with.
Data carriers do not. Data carriers make money regardless of the content you watch/read/listen to.
Your assertion that ISPs will limit what you can access is nutty, when they make money on any/all of it.
Limiting your access is limiting the revenue stream.

Exactly,
Why people believe that ISP's will censor content based on political belief (when they have yet to do so) yet they for some reason think a content provider won't (even though they have). Is mind boggling...

 

[Ralgha]

Fine, look at it this way. You're paying, what, $50, maybe $70 a month for internet access right now from Comcast? For around 25GB/s download (let's not even get into how ridiculously overpriced that already is). They'll then charge you, say $5 for Netflix shaping, $5 for YouTube shaping, $5 for Hulu, $5 for each online game priority. What benefit, exactly, do you think you're going to get out of that? Less buffering on YouTube? Better quality on Netflix? Lower ping on CoD? You do realize that all of that is bullbubblegum right? They have limited control over making it better, their own network is only one link in the chain it travels to get to you. Your service isn't going to get any better, they're just going to sell you extra packages to keep it the same that it is right now, and if you don't pay they'll just turn down the dial on you.

Why wouldn't they censor stuff anyway, they'd make out like bandits. Bloomy and Soros could pay them a hell of a lot more than us gun loving scrubs ever could.

 

[CountryGent]

Do you see it having a large impact on the ''Guns and Girls thread''?

I certainly hope not.

​

 

[Heywood]

Fine, look at it this way. You're paying, what, $50, maybe $70 a month for internet access right now from Comcast? For around 25GB/s download (let's not even get into how ridiculously overpriced that already is). They'll then charge you, say $5 for Netflix shaping, $5 for YouTube shaping, $5 for Hulu, $5 for each online game priority. What benefit, exactly, do you think you're going to get out of that? Less buffering on YouTube? Better quality on Netflix? Lower ping on CoD? You do realize that all of that is bullbubblegum right? They have limited control over making it better, their own network is only one link in the chain it travels to get to you. Your service isn't going to get any better, they're just going to sell you extra packages to keep it the same that it is right now, and if you don't pay they'll just turn down the dial on you.

Why wouldn't they censor stuff anyway, they'd make out like bandits. Bloomy and Soros could pay them a hell of a lot more than us gun loving scrubs ever could.

Soros is on your side buddy.