In 2017, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed net neutrality. At the time, it was a major controversy between internet service providers and the public, as getting rid of net neutrality gave businesses the ability to alter and throttle customers' internet speed depending on the websites they visited. Years later, under a new administration, the FCC has reinstated net neutrality, after a 3-2 vote. This change allows for the FCC to step in, oversee, and ensure that internet providers are offering an "open internet experience" to broadband consumers.

Reacting to the ruling, David Greer, Director of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit organization that campaigned heavily for net neutrality, said the following,

Telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast have spent millions on lobbying and used every dirty trick in the book to try to prevent the return of net neutrality. But they keep losing. Because people from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly agree they don’t want their phone company to dictate how they use the internet, or screw them over more than they already do.

Meanwhile, Brendan Carr, a commissioner of the FCC who voted against net neutrality had an opposing view to the decision, stating,

My concern is that there's no reason for the government to go down this path of granting itself more powers to second guess all the decisions about the internet functions. So my worry is that it's a power grab without any need or justification, and it's very difficult to predict the harms that could ultimately flow from that

Source

 

[KingVamp]

Humanity is healing, just ever so slightly

As someone said, let's see how November goes.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

the reason they did this was AI. u peons are being enslaved and dont even know it. it will be illegal not to use AI and now u net nuetrality forces everyone to adopt AI.

anyone saying this is a good thing I bet has a bunch of IOT devices in there house like a dumbass

...What?

 

[AndorfRequissa]

...What?

net neutrality makes it illegal for any business to treat AI traffic any different than human traffic. you cannot ban or throttle AI.

theres levels to understanding what is really going on right now and most people have never been exposed to what oligarchs want out of AI.

full spectrum dominance cannot be without net nuetrality forcing governance of the internet that will be monitored/policed by AI

 

[The Real Jdbye]

net neutrality makes it illegal for any business to treat AI traffic any different than human traffic. you cannot ban or throttle AI.

theres levels to understanding what is really going on right now and most people have never been exposed to what oligarchs want out of AI.

full spectrum dominance cannot be without net nuetrality forcing governance of the internet that will be monitored/policed by AI

If they want to ban AI they'll just ban it. They don't have to do anything to the traffic. They'll just tell companies to stop, and fine them if they continue. Not that that will stop individual users. AI is unstoppable.

Anyways, nice conspiracy theory.

 

[BraveDragonWolf]

Is this why my shit was fuckin' up lately?

 

[JeepX87]

Hey ISP, you can't block my favorite website - GBATemp anymore.

 

[ZeroFX]

American stuff, teehee

 

[Xzi]

The Saving Democracy™ crowd is cheering the unelected bureaucrats of the executive branch making laws instead of democratically elected Congress. I know, I know, this is (D)ifferent.

So much dumb in so few sentences. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, and net neutrality was always a regulatory statute which fell within their wheelhouse. It was the FCC under Trump who repealed it in the first place, not congress.

 

[TraderPatTX]

So much dumb in so few sentences. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, and net neutrality was always a regulatory statute which fell within their wheelhouse. It was the FCC under Trump who repealed it in the first place, not congress.

Regardless, isn't democracy where the Congress, who we elect, makes laws instead of unelected bureaucrats? Explain how bypassing Congress is saving democracy. I dare you, but everybody here knows you won't. Maybe your butt buddy who will be here any minute can defend it.

 

[Xzi]

Regardless, isn't democracy where the Congress, who we elect, makes laws instead of unelected bureaucrats? Explain how bypassing Congress is saving democracy.

I really have to explain the role of government regulatory agencies to you? Congress is not efficient enough to deal with these types of issues as they arise, nor can certain congresspersons be trusted with the responsibility of overseeing corporations which provide them kickbacks via lobbyists. Besides, the president and their administration appoint the heads of these agencies, which means they fall under the same sort of representative democracy that we have at all levels of American politics. They're unelected themselves, but hand picked by people we did choose to elect.

As an example, imagine how many people would die if we had to rely on Ted Cruz to announce food and drug recalls instead of the FDA. Ideally individuals appointed to these positions are non-partisan.

 

[KingVamp]

Tbf, I do think we need the ability to vote these assigned guys out, but assigning everyone to every job by vote is unrealistic.

 

[Xzi]

Tbf, I do think we need the ability to vote these assigned guys out, but assigning everyone to every job by vote is unrealistic.

Would be nice if there was some mechanism for recalling them when they fail to adequately perform their duties. Ajit Pai, Louis DeJoy, and others sided with corporate overreach when their job was supposed to be the opposite: protecting people from it.

 

[SeventhSon7]

brb torrenting 1TB of hentai

 

[TraderPatTX]

I really have to explain the role of government regulatory agencies to you? Congress is not efficient enough to deal with these types of issues as they arise, nor can certain congresspersons be trusted with the responsibility of overseeing corporations which provide them kickbacks via lobbyists. Besides, the president and their administration appoint the heads of these agencies, which means they fall under the same sort of representative democracy that we have at all levels of American politics. They're unelected themselves, but hand picked by people we did choose to elect.

That's not believing in democracy with extra steps.

As an example, imagine how many people would die if we had to rely on Ted Cruz to announce food and drug recalls instead of the FDA. Ideally individuals appointed to these positions are non-partisan.

How many people die now because of Big Pharma? What company has paid the largest ever fine in U.S. history? What company did the U.S. then use to roll out the jab? What companies advertise on every propaganda media station 24/7 who then turn around and shill for said companies?

Thanks for pointing out that the left hates democracy and how these agencies are abject failures without even realizing that's what you are doing. You are a red pill machine today, lol!!!

 

[Xzi]

That's not believing in democracy with extra steps.

I'm sorry, were you under the delusion that the US is a direct democracy? We'd have to spend all our free time filling out ballots. I'd prefer that in specific, select instances, but I'm just being a realist about the country we actually live in, here.

How many people die now because of Big Pharma? What company has paid the largest ever fine in U.S. history? What company did the U.S. then use to roll out the jab? What companies advertise on every propaganda media station 24/7 who then turn around and shill for said companies?

All of big pharma's issues stem from the suits in finance being in charge. Including their campaign against weed and other natural painkillers.

Thanks for pointing out that the left hates democracy and how these agencies are abject failures without even realizing that's what you are doing. You are a red pill machine today, lol!!!

Only the right has a recent attempt at directly attacking democracy, so slow your roll there. Don't conflate liberals with leftists, only the former take no issue with licking corporate boot. It's also disingenuous to pretend these agencies have direct control over corporate operations, especially when Republicans have been pushing for their role to be diminished in the last couple decades. Neocons are pro big EVERYTHING, Trump included as a much bigger wasteful spender on corporate welfare than Biden.

 

[KingVamp]

Even more fake electors news just came out.

 

[TraderPatTX]

I'm sorry, were you under the delusion that the US is a direct democracy? We'd have to spend all our free time filling out ballots. I'd prefer that in specific, select instances, but I'm just being a realist about the country we actually live in, here.

Where did I say direct? The left are the ones crying about our precious democracy. What they are really crying about are the systems of that control us.

All of big pharma's issues stem from the suits in finance being in charge. Including their campaign against weed and other natural painkillers.

Yeah, that's their biggest issues while people are dying from being forced by the government to take their drugs. Keep taking your boosters, bootlicker.

Only the right has a recent attempt at directly attacking democracy, so slow your roll there. Don't conflate liberals with leftists, only the former take no issue with licking corporate boot. It's also disingenuous to pretend these agencies have direct control over corporate operations, especially when Republicans have been pushing for their role to be diminished in the last couple decades. Neocons are pro big EVERYTHING, Trump included as a much bigger wasteful spender on corporate welfare than Biden.

Let's ignore the times when Democrats/leftist/communists assassinated JFK and Lincoln and nearly assassinated Reagan. All were democratically elected presidents.

 

[linuxares]

Let's ignore the times when Democrats/leftist/communists assassinated JFK and Lincoln and nearly assassinated Reagan. All were democratically elected presidents.

Now that need a whole lot of sources that aint a random website but actual proof.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Even more fake electors news just came out.

It's 1876 and 2000 all over again. Weird that nobody was indicted back then. People act like this is the first time alternate slate of electors have been proposed in all of election history.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2781G4/

Nobody was indicted for election interference even though there were clear cut cases for it.

Post automatically merged: Apr 27, 2024

Now that need a whole lot of sources that aint a random website but actual proof.

So I need to use pre-approved websites, but you aren't going to provide that list.

I got this from a 2 second search. It's the first story on the first page. I had to dig really hard for it.

https://www.newsweek.com/lee-harvey-oswald-and-soviet-union-what-jfk-files-reveal-694441

Go have fun researching the others. I'm not here to hold your hand.

 

[linuxares]

It's 1876 and 2000 all over again. Weird that nobody was indicted back then. People act like this is the first time alternate slate of electors have been proposed in all of election history.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2781G4/

Nobody was indicted for election interference even though there were clear cut cases for it.

View attachment 434143

Post automatically merged: Apr 27, 2024

So I need to use pre-approved websites, but you aren't going to provide that list.

I got this from a 2 second search. It's the first story on the first page. I had to dig really hard for it.

https://www.newsweek.com/lee-harvey-oswald-and-soviet-union-what-jfk-files-reveal-694441

Go have fun researching the others. I'm not here to hold your hand.

Like some proper scientific or atleast FBI or such. Not QAnon stuff.
Plus you made the claim, I didn't.