Do you guys remember how things used to be before we lost it all? I guess the lesson here is to never take things for granted
One year anniversary of Net Neutrality being repealed
Jaxon Davis
Other urls found in this thread:
eff.org
eff.org
techdirt.com
freepress.net
medium.com
hackernoon.com
yro.slashdot.org
guns.com
cs.stanford.edu
potsandpansbyccg.com
stopthecap.com
blog.cloudflare.com
twitter.com
Nathaniel Brown
Ajit Pai totally roasted those normies with that vid though lol
Alexander Jenkins
I am more curious why you guys didn't riot. I feel like most problems with the government could be solved with people destroying government property. I am not supportive of it in any way but I would of thought you guys would of done that when it passed.
Josiah Allen
The internet has completely gone down the drain thanks to corporations, normies and consumerism, to the point where I've gone back to reality only to find a barren wasteland.
Chase Fisher
Worst part is we didn't even get the aesthetics typically shown in hacker movies.
Instead it's suger coated "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!" error messages along with soft pastel colors, roundified and flattened design that's obviously phoned in, and privacy haemmoraging cross site scripting or third party program dependencies doing the same.
The least the gigacorporations could do is letting me find relief in neon noir, but they gotta cockblock me there too just to spite me.
Elijah Ross
Exactly, I don't understand why my computer and everything on it absolutely must have the look of a children's toy. And what's the point in theming engines when every theme is the same?
Jackson Jackson
Seriously, does ESR have FAS or something or is he just one ugly fuck
For me ARM SoCs with their poorly supported software environment (lacking drivers, outdated hacked up kernels that spam dmesg with chinglish "Hello world" driver equivalents) are somehow the perfect example what a shitshow tech has become. In an ideal world, we'd all have libre 5W computing devices on our desks with which we'd browse a mainly text based internet full of informative pages that'd load in an instant on these tiny computers.
Instead it's this absolute garbage, and the devices aren't libre, they're proprietary black boxes full of IP bloat. We could have it so much better. So, so much better. But hey, at least guys like Zuckerjew and that Bezos got filthy rich.
Gates also doesn't get nearly enough shit these days. He can act being the nice philanthropist all he wants but he's directly responsible for a lot of shit we have to deal with now.
Gavin Anderson
Net neutrality was always gay and was never going to solve the monopoly issue.
John Butler
I've witnessed no change. Has it actually affected anyone here?
Jacob Wood
because the money is in targeting adult children. That idiot wandering without an adblock who really thinks there are horny milfs in their area.
Camden Clark
Net neutrality was fucking dumb.
Until Amazon is legally required to stock bullshit from Target, then Sprint should be free to continue to tell Netflix to fuck off and stop congesting their network with jewry.
Ryan Bell
It'd make it hard to monetize people even with monopoly like conditions.
That's the whole point of it, nerfing big brother companies.
Jace Green
Nigger, every GloboHomo Corp was pro-NN. It had nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with them paying less for bandwidth. They were still going to shit all over you, and their competition, on their own platforms because muh private enterprise muh terms of service bullshit.
Luke Rogers
oh shit here we go again
one of those imaginary (but creative) "good" ideas that end up being used by corporations for their own end or governments to strangle the internet for "greater good"
Aiden Baker
Any effects already? Did they started to get people used to having less power over what they do on the Internet? Are prices higher? When they took away net neutrality from you I laughed, but now I'm sorry. Lobby is actually so strong it didn't really matter how many people are against.
25% of the EU population voted against filters and nothing have happened and we are going to have filters by 2021. Wonder how will one year anniversary of this will look like...
But hey, Netflix works, so normies are ok with it... Is there any chance both lack of net neutrality and censorship in the EU will make normies feel uncomfortable leading them to changing the current situation?
Alexander Watson
I can't tell if you're joking or >>>/reddit/
Adam Morales
Not until the can't afford food. that's the trick, slowly lower wages, remove social security, expand the police state etc. so that every small change is not worth rising up against.
Henry Anderson
I still remember a time when Cloudflare wasn't necessary for a page to exist and people actually had their own websites.
The last year really has been nothing compared to the havoc wreaked on the net the rest of this sorry millenium.
Brody Green
We didn't used to have Internet, we had privatized corporate shithole BBSs delivered via the pricegouging monopolized telephone company. Cheap open 'net access from the mid-'90s to the late '00s was an abberation.
That isn't entirely true. NN is still being partly protected in much of the country by court injunctions and legislation disputing Pajeet's FCC policy:
eff.org
As a result of this uneven demolition of NN, and public scrutiny on such issues resulting from it, burgerlard ISPs haven't quite gone full nuAOL like those in some other countries have:
eff.org
NN has zero to do with backend anything. Specifically, NN forces ISPs to charge users (frontend) the same for all sites, and deliver them all at the same speed, the proceeds of which ISPs are free to charge backend providers whatever they to facilitate that. In fact, NN actually causes peering agreements to be fairer:
techdirt.com
The actual history of NN was fought one lawsuit at a time as ISPs experimented with bolder and more abusive forms of overreach against an FCC regulatory regime far too outdated to protect the Internet:
freepress.net
Juan Lopez
cringe
Benjamin Hill
See the pics, that's where we're already back to.
Wyatt Stewart
Go to bed in your pile of stuffed brown envelopes shitpie
Dominic Allen
The problem is that there are always horny milfs in their area, or anything else they may want, but the horny milfs are also trapped by some other ad or platform engineered to lock their brains in, and no one ever does anything or goes anywhere, from here to eternity all castrated and spiritually mutilated by that same crap.
Joseph Turner
Wrong. Bandwidth-heavy companies create autonomous systems to peer with ISPs, then ISPs create infrastructure and lay fiber to accommodate them. The ISPs charge them more for bandwidth than they do residential customers because of the sheer amount of bandwidth they use AND because it's how these multi-million/billion dollar bandwidth-heavy companies earn their revenue.
These bandwidth-heavy companies don't like that so they make up all this "ISP censorship" propaganda and push it all over social media through their emissaries. They tell lies about ISPs censoring speech, they have never done that, all the while one of NN's chief sponsors, Google, pulls domain name registrations because they don't like the political affiliation of the site owner.
With NN, all bandwidth is treated the same and you can't charge differently based on the content (whether it's some residential customer playing games or YouTube delivering their shitty videos at 4K 60 fps). With NN, the FCC can set prices and force the ISPs to take a loss (yes, they would still have shit tons of profit but that's not the point) for being a service provider to bandwidth-heavy companies.
NN is not about getting rid of the ISP monopolies; that's what DOJ trust busting is for. NN is not about protecting online speech, its biggest sponsors already ban you for posting the word, "honk". NN is not about you being in the slow or fast lane depending on the content; its biggest sponsors already use a fast lane made for them. NN is not about lowering service or bandwidth prices; its about its corporate sponsors being greedy and using the law to swindle ISPs out of money.
You're defending laws and regulations that have nothing to do with your rights but rather pertain to one class of corporations trying to fuck over another class of corporations. Nice shilling.
Austin Thompson
Nothing has changed.
Joshua Roberts
Yes, under NN, everyone is charged strictly based on the amount of bandwidth/reliability/etc they want, to get equal access to every other customer of that ISP or of other ISPs via the Internet.
Facts aren't propaganda, read the Free Press link in my post, and you'll see ample examples confirmed in court going back to 2005 of ISPs strongarming websites, as well as attempting to upsell their own oligarchic competing services.
70% pro-NN:
medium.com
And that in the FCC's request for comment, nearly 100% of anti-NN comments were botspam, and nearly 100% of non-botspam was pro-NN:
hackernoon.com
Given those facts, you're the one far likelier to be a shill or corporate bootlicking dupe than I am.
Elijah Garcia
Yeah, shit.
I used to be able to post on Zig Forums all day, now i can only post on it all day.
Jace Reed
Fuck off Pajeet.
Jaxson Nelson
Any documented cases of an ISP refusing service to a customer based on _political beliefs_? The answer is no.
>
Julian Harris
That (content consolidation, pic related) is a mostly separate problem from NN, which seeks to prevent the giant content platforms from merging with ISPs to (re)create an utterly invincible abomination on par with AOL or Compuserve, minus the freedom of POTS dial-up that proved their downfall.
Aside from mature solutions such as antitrust, probably the best weapon against them would be to terminate their neither-fish-nor-fowl "safe harbor" exemption that allows them to simultaneously hotpocket their users, not explain (nor even require) rules for doing so, and remain free of any legal liability in spite of that. If they were legally required to either open themselves up for censorship lawsuits, or completely eliminate centralized moderation to remain immune to liability, that would almost entirely fix the problem.
Perhaps not in their capacity as ISPs (though I could've sworn several ISPs honored flimsy takedown requests by the LWs early in GG, maybe I misremembered), but these leviathan conglomerates do so as much as anyone else in their other divisions that are more closely concerned with content rather than networking:
yro.slashdot.org
guns.com
Indeed, back when early ISPs were still in their hybrid BBS stage as crucially involved in content, this was a regular occurrence:
cs.stanford.edu
For this reason, it is vital ISPs not be allowed to merge together their divisions in different industries, nor partner with firms in other industries, in anticompetitive ways.
It doesn't entirely solve either problem, but it does prevent it from being made tremendously worse.
First, that's false, as Comcast's Stream TV (and arguably all "double/triple-play") illustrates:
potsandpansbyccg.com
Second, landline in general is dying as part of a concerted scheme against (most especially local loop-unbundled DSL, and to a lesser extent cable/fiber) infrastructural construction, in favor of fixed cellular:
stopthecap.com
This is also why the fate of ILECs/CLECs in burgerstan is irrelevant, because the copper POTS network they competed in was intentionally destroyed through neglect so that telecom monopolies wouldn't be legally required to accommodate competitors.
...in burgerstan was entirely a result of corporate greed exploiting a weak regulatory regime to kill free nonprofit peering in favor of paid private transit, resulting in monopolization and massive profit for the network industry, unlike basically the entire rest of the planet:
blog.cloudflare.com
False, NN merely requires that they pay the same as anyone else, strictly on the basis of their bandwidth/QoS/etc needs, and nothing else. Moreover, that ISPs can't attempt to subsidize their own branded content on technologically false justifications.
Liam Reyes
Nothing actually changed, the corporations just have slightly less leverage in the realm of regulatory capture than they otherwise would.
Evan Brooks
When will redittors apologize for their scaremongering?
Owen Cox
No. That's the joke.
Julian Bennett
Honestly, what actually happened as a result of this, I'm a mick so I've kinda just watched it from afar, to my knowledge I don't think ISPs have been bundling websites in packages or shit that was foretold, but I don't really know.
Anthony Adams
As I pointed out upthread, NN isn't entirely dead (lawsuits, state legislation, inter-agency squabbles beyond the FCC, etc.) and the political furor over the NN issue has prevented ISPs from immediately going hog wild with abusive practices in light of continuing public attention focused on them.
Aside from the slow but steady rotting encroachment of caps, throttling, tiering, and neglect of landline "last mile" infrastructure, there probably won't be any big, sudden change.
For instance, look back at the history of what spurred "net neutrality" to become a political buzzword in the first place, back in the 2000s, ISPs tentatively nibbling away at any weak spot they could find:
freepress.net