#NetNeutrality

If I had to sacrifice sites that aren't entirely necessary in order to take on one that would actually benefit my growth as a human being, I would. Yeah, I can see why they would do it for the money, but honestly, it would cause such outrage with the consumers that, in the long run, it wouldn't be a good business decision. I don't see how removing net neutrality doesn't foster competition. It just causes the ISPs to have to think outside the box a bit when it comes to getting people to buy their services.

 

restricting the bandwidth of websites that do not have the means to prioritize their traffic does not foster competition, not even a little. it's not that websites like nofap will cost more or will be on different basic plans -- websites like nofap may not even exist at all as they won't be able to reach the consumers equitably, which in turn affects the traffic and the number of people supporting the site

if you wanna see where this could potentially lead to, look no further than cable tv. basic cable? 20 bucks, but if you want access to any other entity outside of that package, than it'll cost you, big time. turns out, that's not so good for the small guys

 

You better believe it. You better believe that they will complete block you from going on certain sites too. Why do you think all of a sudden they do this? They want control.

 

I’m asking honestly because you seem to have done some research on this. What is going to be the difference right now versus pre-2015, before there was a Net Neutrality regulation?

 

When it comes to TV, you can just get an antenna. Sure you won't get channels like BBC America or ESPN, but I'm good with that. I've survived. It's not the end of the world if they start removing websites. The human race survived long before the internet, and I could argue it would be better if we weren't so reliant on the internet. My point is they could restrict the bandwidth/network connect/connection speed to various sites, but would it really benefit them in the long run? Sure, some people will pay the outrageous prices just to access the internet, but at least for me, and I think for a lot of people, they would just switch to a different provider who wouldn't, which would harm the original provider who blocked the site(s).

Everyone wants control. Net Neutrality enabled the government to control regulations on a free market of providing internet.

 

Its either you have internet or you dont. They will only show you what THEY want you to see. They will block anything eye opening and that shows the truth, like nofap and websites like naturalnews. You would be suprised how easily accessable porn will be. 1984

 

1984 is a book about the problems of government censorship, not about corporate censorship. In my mind, net neutrality is just the government controlling what the ISPs can do, and I don't agree with that. As far as I can tell, they don't really have a motive to do block though. As I said before, it's an awful business move to block your consumers from accessing the materials they're paying for.

 

Worst case scenario, you use a VPN. Yes, VPNs can be blocked by ISPs, but companies use VPNs frequently (and usually their own) for security purposes. Banning a VPN would also risk that company’s VPN, and that’s exactly what an ISP doesnt want. It’s nowhere near Orwellian; usually government will need to be involved before something is.

 

1984 is about oppression.. "Orwell's vision of a totalitarian state which has absolute control over every action and thought of its people through propaganda, secrecy, constant surveillance, and harsh punishment."
Too familiar lol. Idk orwell predicted the future.. or he simply knew. He died 2 months after the book was published everywhere. He was murdered in his own home.

 

I didn't have any problems with the internet before 2015 so I don't see what the big deal is.

Besides, plenty of sites were getting shutdown even with net neutrality.

 

"Totalitarian state" meaning a state which has total control. State as in Government, not corporations. I'm not saying that the corporations are perfect, I'm merely stating the fact that Orwell was strongly against the idea of a totalitarian government, not necessarily corporations

Also, I don't know where you gathered your information on his death, but from what I've read, the general consensus is he died from a burst artery in his lung after a long bout of tuberculosis.

 

Who do you think controls the corporations? Lmao. Same shit. The faces that hide behind the corporations are the same that hide behind the government.

Its not a coincidence he died right after writing that book. Thats what they tell you, idk where i read it ill find it and show.

 

1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are both banned books. Fahrenheit 451 is about book burning.. ironically they did book burning on a book about book burning.

 

Your proof for that would be...?

For some writers, the only reason they hold onto life is to finish a manuscript, even though they're dying. It could have been the case with Orwell.

 

What do you mean they're banned books?

 

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/05/who-killed-george-orwell/
..it would have taken him a while to die. He was close to nurses hospital etc.. lmao he was murdered.

 

Idk if now but for decades its been a banned book in schools and only very few actually show it in schools nowadays.

 

Look at the situation. Why does it get all of a sudden taken down?

 

Bankers control everything. Why do you think they call politicians puppets?
http://www.banderasnews.com/0908/eded-corpsaregovt.htm

 

This seems rather...weak I guess. I mean, yeah, it makes sense at face value. But murder? Soviet spy rings? I don't know. That seems weirdly far fetched. But that's not the point of this thread, so I'll let it slide.

Having had to read both for school, I don't see how it is a banned book. No book should really be banned, anywhere. Isn't that sort of restricting free speech?

Pardon my skepticism on this one. I mean, I know money is a huge motivator, but honestly? If bankers were truly in charge of the government, why would the US be in debt? Bankers have the financial sense to stay out of debt.

Needless to say, none of these topics of discussion have much to do with Net Neutrality. If you want, I'd be happy to continue a discussion on any of these in messages, but otherwise, I think it would be wise to keep the thread on topic.