Also, speaking of Moore, it kinda fucks the Dems argument against him if they behave exactly the same way that (some) Reps are behaving in regards to defending Moore

Tribalism.

dummyism

Abboism

Not satire

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/

They don't actually give a shit about women, it's all about political power

Yup

>ideologue
>actually care about people

Hmmm 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian

Seems to strike on a few of the points I was talking about earlier today

Choice quote:

Here is what Google actually does. Google (and other large enterprises that deliver content to end users – think Netflix, Facebook) maintains its own global network infrastructure, and peers directly with ISPs at internet exchange points. Google explains this in more detail on their own website.

Google is connected to the New York International Exchange (NYIIX) and the London Internet Exchange (LINX). If you go to the websites of either one of these internet exchange points (New York, London) you can see their full list of members.

What does this mean?

This means that Google is not a customer of an ISP. Google simply connects to these internet exchange points, and here it peers with service providers.

This way, Google has far more control over how its content is delivered to users. If Google wants to treat YouTube video packets differently than the packets transferred for uploading Google Docs files, it can.

Net Neutrality laws will not affect Google because Google does not pay transit providers to deliver content to users. It peers with them.

"Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of."

Ive been trying to get this this throught some peoples 5ft thick skulls recently but they just cant understand it.

No, Net Neutralities protection is for the consumer end of it

so AT&T, Comcast, etc etc, cant see a packet coming from google and say "hey, they arent giving us any money for this, lets slow them down"

be it via route

Comcast would also peer with NYIIX in this example so they can receive content from google quickly

but once Comcast has that packet, it can treat it in any way it feels

because without net neutrality, a consumer ISP could decide a open a new business model by saying "lets charge the website themselves for the bandwidth their users consume"

send off a ton of bills to facebook, google, yahoo, bing, and all the other websites

obviously they see it as a joke and dont pay the bill

so their service gets limited to 2mbps

so any facebook packet, or google packet or whatever as soon as it hits comcast's network, gets slowed to 2mbps

In the end, we will have to obfuscate and encrypt traffic.

encrpytion wouldnt matter at that point

Tor

sure, something that hides the url you are trying to connect to

but you could just throttle all tor traffic

regardless of source or destination

Yeah, throttle with whitelisting.

but this already sounds like a longer fight

when its far easier to just stop it 😛

I'm still evaluating my position in NN after being a big supporter years ago, but this stuff http://www.dailywire.com/news/24009/net-neutrality-protesters-target-fcc-chairmans-hank-berrien crosses a line for me.

When people bring those who have nothing to with an issue in, especially their opponents family, I lose all respect for them.

When you become known as the guy who fucked everyone's internet, you better have bodyguards 24/7.

That's the problem with being on the same side of an issue with leftist sociopaths

^ I'm generally really conservative on some things, but I don't think this should have to become another "conservative v.s. liberal" issue.
I don't think it's very liberal to say that access to information is something people should receive equally.
And it really worries me that some people assume they don't need to speak up because someone else will do it for them, that's how these kinda things get made into laws.

What law?

This was a fcc regulation

I'm not just talking about America.