/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>95462
THanks for the link. Let's see how this goes.

Lets hope for the best. What would happen to this site if it gets passed?

>>95467
To be honest the site might be semi safe the site is hosted in Canada so it would mostly affect the burgers.

>>95469

I forgot the site was hosted in Canada, that's good.

Why the fuck is she talking about Healthcare?

>>95471
IDK I don't care about this shit I care about my fucking internet!

>>95471
This stream is also covering other subjects, including healthcare. Just waiting for the NN ruling.

Now look at this NET

Found the agenda for today.

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2017/12/december-2017-open-commission-meeting

>>95475

So it's the 4th topic for today

Restoring Internet Freedom
The Commission will consider a Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order that will restore Internet Freedom by returning broadband Internet access service to its prior classification as an information service, and reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service. The item also will eliminate the Commission’s vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard, along with the bright-line rules. Additionally, it will modify the transparency rule to promote additional transparency, while eliminating burdensome and unnecessary requirements. (WC Docket No. 17-108)

>>95467
nothing, were ISPs pulling sites off the internet in 2014?

Did he just say Twilight Tower?

>>95480
Nope! But got to make sure!

>>95482
Yes… Yes he did.

>>95474
>my screencap

T-thanks

In case anybody cares about them.

A twilight towers – communications structures built between 2001 and 2005 that did not go through the section 106 review process required by the National Historic Preservation Act

>>95486
It has Twilight in it's name SO I CARE!

>>95487
Here is another twilight tower.

The reason why we are here should be next.

>>95483
technically your ISP could block access to a specific site, but that's true now with NN and has been for decades also right now services like cloud flare and google can take down a site on a whim.

>>95490
Well if this passes. They HAVE to be open as to how they handle and control the services they provide.

>>95491
yes that's also true, this includes rules where the FTC forces ISP Transparency

>>95471
I'm not even watching this but let me guess: "confused Democrat puppet nigress forgets what they're talking about and starts rambling about various unrelated virtue signaling talking points?"

Have any of them started trying to read from a script on live TV yet?

>>95494
Yes and… Yes

>>95495
Ok. Sounds like an ordinary day in DC then.

Do me a favor and let me know if they have any "I'm worried about capsizing Guam" tier fuck ups.

https://youtu.be/bs23CjIWMgA

>>95497
No Guam yet, but apparently honey badgers will call people potatoes through comments on the internet.

What just happened?

Stream stopped for security reasons?

What happened?

inb4 threat was made and they had to shut it down

>>95504
>>95503
let's start digging we might have a habbening on our hands boys!

For those reading this thread later.

The stream was JUST shutdown for mysterious reasons.

Security came in and demanded everyone to empty all pockets and leave belongings where they are

Bomb threat eh?

ITS BACK!

Did he just admit that the internet is not a series of pipes and tubes?

(Sorry I keep posting)

It passed! More of the Obama-era is gone!

victory for capitalism

>>95511
Excellent

>>95506
No, it was a break session

>>95505
No habbening.

>>95512
WOOT!

>>95517
Nope, not this time. We still won though…

>>95515
Check the link here.

>>95507

>>95480
The political climate has changed a lot since 2014

As a non-american, repealing net neutrality seems like an unquestionably bad thing. Could you explain what good do you expect to come from this?

>>95524
Net neutrality set the stage for massive government censorship of the internet. I don't have the relevant passages on hand, but basically they could label anyone as a propagandist and demand that isps pull that person's content. If the ISP refuses then the government could revoke their broadcasting license and forcibly prevent them from providing any service.

They were basically keeping that little feature of net neutrality secret until they could stack the Supreme Court with more "living document" liberals who would gladly ignore the first amendment as long as they're fighting evil nazis bigots.

>>95526
That's something I've never heard about. Is there proof about that, and would repealing net neutrality stop them or the ISPs themselves from doing that?

Victory! But expect YouTube to whine about this for days on end. I’ve seen people unironically say that schools will magically be unable to use the Internet and “PEOPLE WILL DIE” if Net Neutrality is repealed. Stuff that’s like the NN equivalent of “if Trump’s elected he’ll kill all the Mexicans and gays!!!”

>”reading YouTube comments”
In the Current Year, they’re probably the best (or least bad) mainstream political hub if you find the right videos.

>>95541
>Google already controls the content you see first
>Cloudflare can still kill sites on demand
>These are the people voting for NN
>We just want an internet WITHOUT censorship!
Really makes you think.

>>95538
>That's something I've never heard about.
That's intended. They didn't want people to know about their memory hole.

>Is there proof about that, and would repealing net neutrality stop them or the ISPs themselves from doing that?
Pic related goes over it. Steel your stomach before reading. It's a post plagiarized from reddit, and it was formatted with a silly story to help put the information within a context that redditors could understand. That means shitty jokes every 10 seconds to maintain a redditor's attention so that they don't get bored and flip to the next browser tab. Abhorrent as it is, it's useful for explaining the issue to normies.

Basically the crux of it is that net neutrality required ISPs to hold government issued broadcasting licenses in order to do business. When combined with another separate act about countering information warfare, the president, with the aid of a few controlled fact checkers like Snopes, could declare someone a propagandist without the need to take them to court. The government can then demand that the ISP blocks the so called propagandist. If the ISP refuses, then that is considered aiding a propagandist and is grounds for having the ISP's broadcasting license revoked. This essentially would immediately put the ISP out of business.

Repealing net neutrality stops this because it removes the need for ISPs to need government issued broadcasting licenses to do business.

Yes, ISP's can still be shitty on their own. However heavy censorship is undesirable and opens up an opportunity for a competitor to steal your customers.

I'd rather deal with the demons at the ISPs than allow an Orwellian memory hole to remain intact.

>>95541
The salt from this is just too good. Its Trumps victory all over again, but now we also have twice the tears because even the right is mad.

>>95586
>Yes, ISP's can still be shitty on their own. However heavy censorship is undesirable and opens up an opportunity for a competitor to steal your customers.
Easier to change your ISP, than change your government.