NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[mickmoranis]

LOL CONGRATS ON ALABAMA

[Pokesan]

now amazon and google will have to pay for their bandwidth

[hyejin]

this is a horrible thing for freedom. I feel so cold

[Jarnauga]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit: the internet itself.

Already controlling much of the internet's media and all the social media platforms that propagate it, the only thing left for the globalists to control is the infrastructure itself that comprises the internet. That's why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open-Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization).

Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules they need to re-classify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as "common carriers", effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title II, ISPs need to apply for Broadcasting Licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling. The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit's outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for Broadcasting Licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because Broadcasting Licenses become the globalist's most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation.

Three judges presided over the case, two Democrats, one Republican:

Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)

David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title II classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the internet must receive a Broadcasting License. The FCC is stumped and can't really figure out what to do next... So Obama comes in to save the day. He pressures them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move is quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as... Net Neutrality. Surprise!

The public is told that they are saving the internet! But saving it from whom? Hahaha from the very people who are telling them to save it! Whether by intent or by circumstance, the globalists ended up playing both sides and winning. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v. FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape.

Now here's where the story picks up...

Net Neutrality invokes Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides internet service to register for Broadcasting Licenses from the government and regularly renew them.

Well... what if the FCC doesn't want to renew them? Ah but that's crazy talk, the FCC can't just revoke Broadcasting Licenses on a whim. It would be taken to court within seconds!

But imagine what happens when you're appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC, and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules your timeline. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it's violating federal law. Well, you'd probably say "fuck you I voted for Trump" and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together.

Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You're about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you-

"Why don't they just call it 'The InfoWars Act'?"

Your lawyer simply closes his eyes, as if with erotic satisfaction, and quickly whispers under his breath "...Bill Clinton is a rapist." You look back at the InfoWars Act to read its mission statement.

...counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department..."

That's so bizarre, you think to yourself. Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you're literally going to house it in the White House?

interagency center

Okay so it's a center, of multiple agencies. In the White House...

p. 1399 - The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President.

...that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts

Wait what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening shitposts on T_D? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined? Huh, that's strange... there's no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just... call it whatever they want. Incredible.

You look up to your lawyer, "How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?"

Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar.

"He didn't."

The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,

"He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it."

"Ohhhh shit yeah this is that fuckin propaganda thing that Obama legalized I always see it get reposted on The Donald! God, what a Kenyan pedophile thing to do, amirite?"

"So you've already read through it?"

"Oh... yeah no I'm a simple guy I just see a grey arrow and I make it orange."

"Jesus Christ." The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in pdf format).

SEC. 1287. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER.

"This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they're going to be doing."

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation

"Clandestine special operators?? That's like some Tom Clancey shit!"

"Not even Tom Clancey would write something like this. Earlier you called this a 'Kenyan' thing to do. But even Kenyans have never sent secret agents to brainwash their people. Really let that sink in."

"Yeah... Malik Obama would never do that."

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists...

"But just when it couldn't get worse... it gets way fucking worse."

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government... provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government...

"They call in their globalist friends from some "totally neutral third-party" and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who's been flagged by a third-party "fact-checker" without having to take them to court. "

"Oh fuck."

"Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term "fake news" to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of "neutral third-parties" policing online content. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google, all the tech companies, and the White House itself were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet. "

"Fuckin' Snopes."

"It's brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them."

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations...

And that's it ladies and gentlemen.

That's why passing Net Neutrality is so important.

The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.

STORY TIME IS OVER THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL

Are you imagining how real this is?

They can physically shut down your access to the internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you shitpost on The_Donald! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, The_Donald, 4chan, Voat, and any other right-wing website that pops up to replace it! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years, like they always do, so that nobody would notice until it's too late! They could've taken us down one buy one, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions!

And it was 100% legal! They passed every law they needed to do it!

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO HAVE WON THE ELECTION BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN.

AND NOW ONE FINAL QUOTE:

p.1446 - "The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

They thought she would win.

[LAUGHS IN KENYAN]

[mickmoranis]

Shout out to Washington state:

the state that is suddenly using libertariasim to manage themselves, DESPITE whatever the man in the white house says.

#libertariasm is the only form of goverment that makes any sense at all.

Funny how when it works for you, you love it. But when its a topic brought up by people who like fox news you HATE IT ITS THE DEVIL

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

for context i live right next to aaa game studios and some of the biggest tech companies in the world
before net neutrality i could get something like 30-40 different isp's to service my address. now i only have one choice. thx obama good job.

oh and the tiered internet plans people are screeching about? you're already subsidizing that anyways. that's why your cable bill's $70 now and it was $30 three years ago. those tiered internet plans, if they are to exist, wouldn't start at the current price you're paying. think of it this way: you're already paying for the most expensive package, and if ISP's end up doing that shit (they won't; they didn't for two decades and can barely do so with tv even but i'll entertain the notion) it means you'll be able to opt-out of paying for your neighbor's netflix traffic.

so basically, free market handles that censorship problem you're kvetching about. if an ISP wants to censor internet access, the consumer will have other choices in providers, and the market will dictate how much censorship it wants (i don't mind child porn and malicious sites getting filtered out for example)

reddit tier people: omg the sky is falling because the internets going back to how it always was except for a 2 year period where our country's internet plans universally got worse but also more expensive TOTAL COINCIDENCE!!11 the internet needs to be more like public radio!!1

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

for context i live right next to aaa game studios and some of the biggest tech companies in the world
before net neutrality i could get something like 30-40 different isp's to service my address. now i only have one choice. thx obama good job.

oh and the tiered internet plans people are screeching about? you're already subsidizing that anyways. that's why your cable bill's $70 now and it was $30 three years ago. those tiered internet plans, if they are to exist, wouldn't start at the current price you're paying. think of it this way: you're already paying for the most expensive package, and if ISP's end up doing that shit (they won't; they didn't for two decades and can barely do so with tv even but i'll entertain the notion) it means you'll be able to opt-out of paying for your neighbor's netflix traffic.

so basically, free market handles that censorship problem you're kvetching about. if an ISP wants to censor internet access, the consumer will have other choices in providers, and the market will dictate how much censorship it wants (i don't mind child porn and malicious sites getting filtered out for example)

reddit tier people: omg the sky is falling because the internets going back to how it always was except for a 2 year period where our country's internet plans universally got worse but also more expensive TOTAL COINCIDENCE!!11 the internet needs to be more like public radio!!1

yep, no need for a constitution, or laws, or any rules just let the FREE MURRKET handle our lives, durr

sometimes xankaa, when i read you or mickmoranis, i have a vertigo of emptiness.

[hyejin]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sometimes xankaa, when i read you or mickmoranis, i have a vertigo of emptiness.

marxist prose gives me nausea

[Patriam1066]

Net neutrality has no bearing on the number of internet service providers in your area. That's a function of local and state governments selling you out to the highest bidder