How the downfall of net neutrality will effect the second amendment

[Ralgha]

Soros is on the side that makes him look like the peoples' man. He's not an idiot, regardless of what people here think of him. Of course he's going to side with the common man on this, in words, but once it's done and over with, what do you think he's going to do? Use his money to benefit himself, like he always does.

 

[Heywood]

Soros is on the side that makes him look like the peoples' man. He's not an idiot, regardless of what people here think of him. Of course he's going to side with the common man on this, in words, but once it's done and over with, what do you think he's going to do? Use his money to benefit himself, like he always does.

That makes absolutely zero sense.
He spent $200 million dollars to promote net neutrality so he could look good to the mass' yet secretly hopes it will be overturned so he can make the big bucks?
Same with google? And Facebook?
Not following you here...

 

[mkwerx]

Europe already has lost net neutrality in some countries (Spain and a few others IIRC)and exactly what is being predicted is playing out. ISPs strike deals with content providers for fast lanes and access packages. You pay to play for those sites or they get severely throttled or outright blocked. Comcast for example as an NBC comany owns a stake in Hulu. It makes sense for them to boost content delivery there and throttle Netflix and Amazon Prime unless you or they pay for fast lanes. Tiered pricing by content here we come.

And many urban locals still have limited options. The place I am in, for example. We could get Comcast or DSL. Fiber was not available. Or we do what I do now and just use Verizon Wireless but thats not great as signal is poor. If we had more choice in more locales I could see the argument of the market driving the direction but realistically its a couple companies with a lock on broadband. If both have tiered pricing or by-type content restructions or throttling you as the consumer get shafted. Pay more or you don't get to play at all. And while returning to a 1980s or early 90s way of life is sometimes appealing, its unrealistic for most of us.

 

[EPS]

Give me a break these computer company's run the world like it or not that libral punk mark Zuckerberg has more power than Pres Trump and he had more power than Obama also before that he didn't but was working on it by the next four years he will have the power to choose the next president NO JOKE buy guns and ammo now it's going to get ugly in the next 10 years

 

[Jamie6.5]

Soros is on the side that makes him look like the peoples' man. He's not an idiot, regardless of what people here think of him. Of course he's going to side with the common man on this, in words, but once it's done and over with, what do you think he's going to do? Use his money to benefit himself, like he always does.

Soros is NOT coming out in favor of the 2nd Amendment no matter how good it makes him look. His roots go all the way back to the Third Reich. He's forgotten more about disarming the populace than you will EVER know. And he knows the result because he's witnesses it 1st hand. Not to mention the fact that he's profited off it directly.
Or did you miss that part?

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.

Google/Youtube already censors content. They've already de-monetized content they disagree with. Extensively. And they block videos daily based on their judgement of what constitutes "hate."
Yet my ISP hasn't charged me a single red cent more to watch that now limited content.
Where the hell have you been? Youtube publisher/creators have been bubbleguming about this for months.
And this has all happened under the guise of "Net Neutrality."

Sorry Ralgha, but the evidence is all I need to counter your claim(s). "Net neutrality" was a scam involving control of the message. And for a couple of years now, we've been watching it work.
And the sooner we're rid of it, the better.

 

[Jason Brown]

Can anyone guess who exactly is going to benefit from repealing net neutrality? Ding Ding Ding, it ain't you baby!!!!!

 

[Certaindeaf]

All I know is Obama has his fingerprints all over it so it can't be good.

 

[slimmer13]

No idea about any of this stuff, but from what I gather, some are bubbleguming about the relinquishing of government control and turning control of the net back into the free market from where it was born?

 

[notazombie]

Al Gore can fix it.

 

[Crohnos01]

Yeah, while no expert on any of this, the whole idea of "net neutrality" seems counter productive. The internet survived 30 years without it until the government decided they need to "help"?

Besides, just look at the name. Am I the only one who has noticed whatever they name the legislation, in practice the exact opposite happens? Look no further than the "Affordable Care Act" for a classic example.

 

[JRuby]

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.

Is that why a search engine blocks anything under shopping for guns
I think that this is one more method to control the information we can access. To remove access to the "fake" news and tell us what the real news is. And by the way my job depends on me using a VPN when I telecommute.

 

[DieselScout]

All I know is Obama has his fingerprints all over it so it can't be good.

Your an idiot to use that as your soul measure for judgement. Wait for your only ISP to take the "moral high ground" and shut off your access to firearms related sites. An those who say *offering more access is better business," can you show me how that plays out in cable TV, since most the ISP are cable providers? Here's a clue. it doesn't. You want more you pay more. Most the citizens of the US have only one ISP and that ISP won't miss an opportunity to squeeze them for more money. Joe should put up a pay wall, where we all have to pay 5 bucks to enter. You know give us a taste of the future you all seem to crave.

 

[Caveman Jim]

KIRO 7 had a short quip about this last night (I don't normally watch much news especially liberal Seattle news) but they basically said the sky would fall if Owebamas net neutrality was scrapped by Trump. So that tells me what I need to hear.

SCRAP THAT MOFO!!!!

 

[DieselScout]

KIRO 7 had a short quip about this last night (I don't normally watch much news especially liberal Seattle news) but they basically said the sky would fall if Owebamas net neutrality was scrapped by Trump. So that tells me what I need to hear.

SCRAP THAT MOFO!!!!

So you don't trust the liberal news of Seattle, but your happy to let a liberal company control what you see online?

 

[Caveman Jim]

Most all the technology companies have liberal owners, if it were me I would not morn if an internet EMP were to happen.
I would go back to the ways when the days were simple and all the social media was F2F or a phone call away.

 

[DieselScout]

Most all the technology companies have liberal owners, if it were me I would not morn if an internet EMP were to happen.
I would go back to the ways when the days were simple and all the social media was F2F or a phone call away.

Then log out and turn it off, no one is forcing you, but stop using your poor reasoning to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Your an idiot..

Nice punctuation, idiot.

 

[Mikej]

Most all the technology companies have liberal owners, if it were me I would not morn if an internet EMP were to happen.
I would go back to the ways when the days were simple and all the social media was F2F or a phone call away.

NOOOOOOO! Where would I get my news? If I couldn't log on to NWFA every day? Television? NOOOOO!!!!!!

Getting my news here I can always read different opinions from people I've come to respect, and feel like I get a better idea of the reality of things going on.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

I still feel that any ability of censorship on the internet is a serious loss of freedom. Many are saying that these internet providers will not want to block content due to profit motives, however, other companies have already shown that profits are not as important as politics. If they are given that option, then it will be abused eventually.

Hopefully capitalism will win out and internet providers will get called out if they are found blocking content that do not align with their beliefs.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I still feel that any ability of censorship on the internet is a serious loss of freedom. Many are saying that these internet providers will not want to block content due to profit motives, however, other companies have already shown that profits are not as important as politics. If they are given that option, then it will be abused eventually.

Hopefully capitalism will win out and internet providers will get called out if they are found blocking content that do not align with their beliefs.

Any regulation is a barrier to entry, thereby reducing competition. "They" want (continuing and more) regulation because they got their piece of the pie and good luck to you trying to compete with them.
Classic tactics.