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

Essentially they'd package it like cable from my understanding

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.

@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

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

Essentially yes

@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?

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?

Bingo

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

Net neutrality is imperative for these circles

Just watched that "Goodnight alt right" song lmao

BRING

IT

PUSSIES.

How is there not a noose emoji?!?!

Or a Long Knife Emoji?

<:bowlcut:330193760644497409>

the only emoji that matters

The bowlcut of St. Dylann Roof

@BryceB-ND NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFFFFFFF

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

I could see that happening as well

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

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

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.

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

Oops

Reverse that

People supporting* net neutrality

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.

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

The internet is the wild fucking west and I aim to keep it that way

Yep. Even if we need the government to force ISPs to keep it that way haha

The problem arises that Net neutrality AND the ICANN handover occurred at the same time. That combined is how they are really going to kike Daily Stormer, TRS, etc.

They are likely to start making sites pay to keep their domain registration and the UN or some other extra national body will selectively impose Hate Speech terms.

Well that's a whole other issue

Inter-related.

Watch this hand silly Goy, and notice not the other preparing to slit your throat.

Both hands are holding knives. One hand is immediately a threat, and something that can be stopped.

While the other is still killing you.