Message from @Vertig0ne

Discord ID: 385108741651169284


2017-11-28 03:31:54 UTC  

dummyism

2017-11-28 03:33:45 UTC  

Abboism

2017-11-28 08:04:55 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 12:38:09 UTC  

Yup

2017-11-28 14:43:01 UTC  

>ideologue
>actually care about people

2017-11-28 14:43:06 UTC  

Hmmm πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”πŸ€”

2017-11-28 15:05:51 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 15:06:49 UTC  

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.

2017-11-28 15:07:22 UTC  

"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."

2017-11-28 16:27:13 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:40:52 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:41:14 UTC  

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"

2017-11-28 16:41:35 UTC  

be it via route

2017-11-28 16:41:57 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:42:11 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:44:04 UTC  

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"

2017-11-28 16:44:18 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:44:31 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 16:44:38 UTC  

so their service gets limited to 2mbps

2017-11-28 16:45:02 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 17:56:43 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 17:57:26 UTC  

encrpytion wouldnt matter at that point

2017-11-28 17:57:34 UTC  

Tor

2017-11-28 17:57:50 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 17:58:03 UTC  

but you could just throttle all tor traffic

2017-11-28 17:58:23 UTC  

regardless of source or destination

2017-11-28 17:58:31 UTC  

Yeah, throttle with whitelisting.

2017-11-28 17:59:46 UTC  

but this already sounds like a longer fight

2017-11-28 17:59:51 UTC  

when its far easier to just stop it πŸ˜›

2017-11-28 18:19:22 UTC  

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.

2017-11-28 18:20:35 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 18:23:39 UTC  

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

2017-11-28 20:18:58 UTC  

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

2017-11-29 00:40:34 UTC  

^ 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.

2017-11-29 00:56:23 UTC  

What law?

2017-11-29 00:57:06 UTC  

This was a fcc regulation

2017-11-29 00:57:23 UTC  

I'm not just talking about America.

2017-11-29 00:57:48 UTC  

But the FCC killing net neutrality would definitely set a precedent.

2017-11-29 00:58:27 UTC  

Wut