Message from @BryceB-ND

Discord ID: 335062717272424448


2017-07-13 11:28:34 UTC  

Yeah unless it's literally Hitler and an SS division pol will counter signal it...hell they'd probably even counter signal literally Hitler as being controlled opposition

2017-07-13 12:56:36 UTC  

@Pharaoh Bearclaw III - FL Hitler wasn't controlled opposition to help the Jews fight an ethnically cleansing war and create the myth of the Holocaust?

2017-07-13 12:57:38 UTC  

Maybe I need to dial back my conspiracy mongering and paranoia a little.

2017-07-13 13:00:06 UTC  

I feel like someone on pol has ACTUALLY said that

2017-07-13 13:03:21 UTC  

I believe that about alot of Hitler's High Command maybe.. As Der Führer originally did wish to just neutralize them and send them away. But alot of his higher guys.. Along with Elite kikes who were happy to kill off some of their own to cook it all up... Certainly were con-op of some kind

2017-07-13 13:04:28 UTC  

There are lines between brutality and degenerate, Jew brutality lol

2017-07-13 13:34:57 UTC  

Kikes...

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/321378710265659393/335051477880012801/unknown.png

2017-07-13 13:37:59 UTC  

BTW "net neutrality" under Jews is BAD news.

2017-07-13 13:56:14 UTC  

By my understanding, without net neutrality, ISPs will be able to treat our websites and other internet activity pretty much the same way financial institutions treat Daily Stormer.

2017-07-13 13:57:23 UTC  

ie, Comcast could no-platform us without net neutrality. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2017-07-13 14:11:28 UTC  

Essentially they'd package it like cable from my understanding

2017-07-13 14:13:41 UTC  

The gist of it is that your ISP provides you equal access to all websites. You connect to the internet and everything you can publicly access is available to you. They are "neutral" in terms of the content you can access.

If they were not neutral, the internet would be more like cable TV. You'd have a "basic" subscription that allows you to access a bunch of sites, then would have to pay for expanded access to sites that use more bandwidth, like youtube. And companies could pay websites for exclusive access, like Time-Warner could angle for exclusive access to tumblr, or CenturyLink offering exclusive access to Amazon services, etc. Net access would no longer be "neutral", but tiered and gated according to what ISP want to provide and charge.

It's a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basics.

2017-07-13 14:14:34 UTC  

@Gavius Corvus @Pharaoh Bearclaw III - FL Net neutrality is the kikes making the Goy pick which way they are going to kike them. It's that simple

2017-07-13 14:15:06 UTC  

"Get the AltRight package, with your edgy favorites like RebelMedia and Gateway Pundit!"

2017-07-13 14:15:17 UTC  

Essentially yes

2017-07-13 14:16:08 UTC  

@Tyrone right now I can access daily stormer website just as easily as I can access CNN. In what way would allowing Comcast to restrict my access to that, or make me pay more for it, be better?

2017-07-13 14:17:22 UTC  

If I make a website called "allniggersmusthang.com" Comcast currently has to allow anyone who uses their service to access my website, no questions asked. How does giving them the right to not do so help us?

2017-07-13 14:17:54 UTC  

Bingo

2017-07-13 14:18:39 UTC  

"You can't blame us Goy, your leaders you elected chose this for you!"

2017-07-13 14:19:21 UTC  

Net neutrality is imperative for these circles

2017-07-13 14:19:36 UTC  

Just watched that "Goodnight alt right" song lmao

2017-07-13 14:19:38 UTC  

BRING

2017-07-13 14:19:38 UTC  

IT

2017-07-13 14:19:39 UTC  

PUSSIES.

2017-07-13 14:20:13 UTC  

How is there not a noose emoji?!?!

2017-07-13 14:20:50 UTC  

Or a Long Knife Emoji?

2017-07-13 14:20:52 UTC  

<:bowlcut:330193760644497409>

2017-07-13 14:21:19 UTC  

the only emoji that matters

2017-07-13 14:21:37 UTC  

The bowlcut of St. Dylann Roof

2017-07-13 14:22:38 UTC  

@BryceB-ND NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFFFFFFF

2017-07-13 14:28:14 UTC  

That's not what net neutrality is, I think. Afaik it's more along the lines of websites and services being able to pay ISPs to allow more bandwidth for their sites / ISPs being allowed to charge some websites and services more if they exceed a certain bandwidth

2017-07-13 14:28:57 UTC  

I could see that happening as well

2017-07-13 14:29:15 UTC  

It's not about blocking specific sites, but rather giving more resources to some. Net neutrality bill prevents ISPs from being able to do this

2017-07-13 14:30:55 UTC  

IE ISPs want to charge services like Netflix more and/or services like Netflix want to be able to pay a premium for higher bandwidth and net neutrality would prevent that

2017-07-13 14:34:31 UTC  

The reverse would also hold true though. Imagine daily stormer with massively throttled bandwidth, and having to pay ISPs to give readers more than 90s dialup speeds on the site.

2017-07-13 14:35:13 UTC  

Exactly. That is the type of thing people AGAINST net neutrality are worried about

2017-07-13 14:35:51 UTC  

Oops

2017-07-13 14:35:54 UTC  

Reverse that

2017-07-13 14:36:04 UTC  

People supporting* net neutrality

2017-07-13 14:36:29 UTC  

Axing net neutrality right now would be akin to repealing the first amendment tomorrow because the kikes benefit from free speech. Maybe so, but it's in our interests to have it right now.

2017-07-13 14:37:43 UTC  

It's in our interest that ISPs not be allowed to pick and choose which sites to dedicate more resources to