GhostPantsMcGee

I am as ignorant as anyone and just want to share my opinion.

So in trying to find information about this decision I noticed that the arguments for NN are generally memes and shaming, whereas anti-NN actually enter discussion and try to convince me. I do like net neutrality, but the obvious truth is that Obama's bill titled "net neutrality" is about as honest as the "patriot act". Despite Obama's so-called "NN" we still see video sites being throttled during peak hours and unsavory websites being deplatformed; clearly what we have now is not the NN that the people actually desire. Who does desire it? Soros and a slew of freedom hating democrats, google, and other bandwidth hogs.

What do I expect from a repeal of NN? Subscription video sites will likely be forced to increase their premiums in order to supply high quality videos without buffering while free tube sites will likely see a die off where survivors monopolize advertising dollars in order to stay afloat. The price of your internet is more likely to fall than it is to rise (if you are lucky enough to have a choice. If you aren't they could have raised your price anyways, but they have not) with increased competition due to restructuring of who pays for bandwidth (every single customer, or just the customers using premium services) and new competitors entering a now deregulated market.

If anyone would take the time to explain why I should support Obama's net neutrality bill (as opposed to true net neutrality as we had before he implemented it) you would be the first and I would be happy to hear it.

Edit: from the comments I assumed this article was about NN, regardless this article is a great example how we already do not have the net neutrality that the people actually desire. Obama's NN bill was over 300 pages, when one page would do quite fine if it simply held the words "censorship of lawful content in a public forum is illegal".

ardvarcus

There's nothing more dangerous than truth to liars, swindlers and con artists. Hence the top priority of the (((elite))) who seek total control over the Internet -- to silence free speech.

Pawn

This is why they want to kill net neutrality.

Men13

Exactly! By killing NN they let companies decide for themselves what content they allow. Just like Google and Facebook and Twitter do. I.e., censor it.

The 1st amendment only forces government to allow free speech. By taking the internet out of the government, you are taking it out of the scope of the 1st amendment.

GhostPantsMcGee

Obama's NN bill is still in effect. It clearly is not accomplishing what you imagine it to be as evidenced by your own observation that we are already being censored. The people want actual NN, not this poorly titled retarded cousin of the "patriot act"

Men13

Obama's NN bill is still in effect.

To be very clear - NN predates Obama's changes. Obama replaced the previous NN regulation with a new one. If we now remove the new one without reinstituting the old one, we'll be left with nothing.

It clearly is not accomplishing what you imagine it to be

Why? It's not clear to me

as evidenced by your own observation that we are already being censored.

Wtf you talking about? What is being censored? I mean, illegal stuff yeah, but the fact that voat and breibart and stormfront still exist shows we aren't being censored.

Where did I say we are already being censored?

The people want actual NN, not this poorly titled retarded cousin of the "patriot act"

Not the people who are here on voat shilling against NN. They are saying that NN as a whole is wrong because it's government owning the internet or something.

You want stronger AND? More power to you.

Blacksunshine

It's getting obvious because they are getting scared.

A cornered animal is dangerous and unpredictable.