The press about net neutrality


61021356's avatar
Who read the press version of it and were last seen running for the hills?

The thing with the press is, in Europe its reanimated corpse is mostly kept alive by government funding (they try to force-feed the same stuffed business model to Hungary but Orban, this evil Nazi Fascist, doesn't want the press in his country financed by foreign powers... oddly enough); in the US it's kept alive by the fact 90% of it is owned by just 5 big corporations (who all donated to the Clinton campiagn which truly is a funny coincidence).

Now we already know big tech corporations' fierce opposition to the erasing of net neutrality, as well as their assiduity to Chinese censorfest meetings, but even disregarding that last bit, seriously, if big corporations want something, you should basically go for the opposite. Same, a hundred times more, for governments.

So yeah basically you have corporations, state-owned media, and big tech busy pandering to communist censors, now complaining about the free market. No shit they're trying to penetrate the Chinese market? :lol:

How much of this is pandering to communist censors?

So here's a question I've already asked but nobody answered yet : what do you think would happen first? China becomes free-er, or the West becomes more communist-China-like?

Well the repeal of net neutrality moves a pawn against the latterMeme (Popcorn) [V1]
Too bad for the Chinese, but a) America first and b) they will still have America to look up to.
That is, if America gets rid of its marxist infestation. qz.com/908922/chinese-students… Really? Chinese students don't want to be triggered by the Dalai Lama??
I know the Dalai Lama basically supports white nationalism www.independent.co.uk/news/peo… (HOLY SHIT Germany shouldn't become an arab country?? what's that NAZI RACISM???) but well, he's a refugee
Comments53
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
JCoolArts's avatar
What exact good for the average American, comes from repealing net neutrality? Have you seen the screwed video that Ajit peckerwood made about it? He's completely out of touch with why people are concerned.
For example, there are hundreds of creatives that are using patreon, etsy, portfolio sites, ebay, fineartamerica, etc to make a living. If ISPs even decide that an extra $1 should be paid to access those sites, that could impact those artists livelihood.

Already Comcast has removed the following from it's website:

  • We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content.
  • We believe in full transparency in our customer policies.
  • We are for sustainable and legally enforceable net neutrality protections for our customers.


But of course they say they have "no plans to change their services Yet"

Net Neutrality came 2 years ago, yes. But in it's coming, it got rid of pre-existing regulations. If those regulations are restored in the place of NN, great. But as it is now, their are no rules whatsoever.
61021356's avatar
If ISPs even decide that
keyword being "if"
Patreon already decided that fees under $100 a month weren't good enough. They stopped it because everyone hated it. That's how the free market works. Stop with the bullshit fear-mongering hypotheticals.
JCoolArts's avatar
Republicans have turned into SJWs on this particular issue. It's ironic because sites like breitbart and other Republican sites could be throttled next election depending on the ISPs political alignment.

Why wouldn't the ISP decide that? Deviantart raises it's prices at will, YouTube screwed over it's users, Patreon has forced additional charges just this month that I have not seen rolled back. Why is it fear mongering to think that large greedy companies, won't suddenly stop being greedy?
61021356's avatar
It's ironic because sites like breitbart and other Republican sites could be throttled next election depending on the ISPs political alignment
I'm confused, are you implying that the repealing was inevitable?

Deviantart raises it's prices at will, YouTube screwed over it's users, Patreon has forced additional charges just this month that I have not seen rolled back
and they all did that BEFORE the net neutrality "apocalypse". Is it supposed to be extra apocalypse now, or will it be business as usual?
JCoolArts's avatar
No I'm saying now, Democratic leaning internet providers have free reign to throttle Republican websites.

The companies that seek to profit off of the removal of NN, can now do so at will. NN didn't effect any individual person negatively did it?
61021356's avatar
NN didn't effect any individual person negatively did it?
well based on what you've just said about democratic leaning internet providers, it sure didn't prevent what it was supposed to prevent
JCoolArts's avatar
Well it makes me wonder now, if it is currently legal, for a politician to pay an internet providor under the table, to help sway elections based off of what content is throttled. Whether or not this type of thing already happened illegally.
Lytrigian's avatar
if big corporations want something, you should basically go for the opposite. Same, a hundred times more, for governments.

It's big corporations and the present government that wanted an end to net neutrality. You don't think this came out of nowhere, do you?
61021356's avatar
Big tech corporations, whose hands have recently been spotted jerking off the Chinese communist party, have all come out against the repeal. What corporations came out in favor of it?
Smithnikov's avatar
AT&T. Verizon. Spectrum. 
blackbook668's avatar
Communist? This move is made so the providers can make a bigger profit than they already do, communism doesn't enter the equation.
61021356's avatar
Yes it does. China has a communist political framework yet practices savage capitalism because communism in economics doesn't fucking work. Ergo, we have communist censors and a billion people market. That's the whole point. That's why I asked which would collapse first, the West's commitment to free speech or the chinese communist party's commitment to communism. That is to say, Western freedom or big tech's hunger for a 1 billion people market.
blackbook668's avatar
The Chinese effectively aren't communists the way they do trade you point this out yourself. The communist question got answered in the winter of 1989, move on already.
61021356's avatar
You didn't read.

China has an overreaching communist party in a one party system. They have communist censors dictating what cultural product can and can't air. The way they do trade is only the reason why I'm asking the question. If they kept to themselves like North Korea nobody would give a shit. They don't, because they want to make money (and communism is only good at sucking out money and going bankrupt). So it attracts foreign investors. The condition being, they have to agree to freedom-killing conditions. How fucking dense are you?
blackbook668's avatar
So you're saying China is using their influence in the global market to change international freedoms? Hmm... I don't buy it. Sounds like an interesting plot but not very solid given China not having already majorly influenced such things already.
61021356's avatar
Yes they do. They're very open about it as well.

China not having already majorly influenced such things already
one quick example : World War Z's original plot involved the organ trafficking scandal in China. They changed the scenario because they told them to do so. Result : there's no value to this movie. It's a failure. Nobody cares anymore. But people are slowly getting used to this pandering crap which doesn't hold values. They're turning us into mindless cattle.
blackbook668's avatar
Film changes don't really sound like a good example to me.
View all replies
piggies-go-moo's avatar
"The thing with the press is ... 90% of it is owned by just 5 big corporations"

Source? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cr… ?
61021356's avatar
Also your source already lists the 5 big corporations
piggies-go-moo's avatar
Scroll down. Notice all of the others media sources?

How big do you think Facebook's and Youtube's news has become since 2012?
61021356's avatar
Very big. Doesn't that support my point instead of undermining it?
piggies-go-moo's avatar
Where once there was almost total news dominance by TV or just Newspapers (with huge startup costs) now it's all going online where any person can create a news site or broadcast their news message to anyone else on an incredibly wide range of platforms. Hence for instance the rise in popularity of "Youtube Channels" for watching an incredibly wide range of user-created content and news. If anything it's easier than ever for some person or little startup to make news and gather an audience worldwide.
61021356's avatar
Yes, and what we're witnessing now is the legacy media striking back. They know they're losing. They want to colonize the internet. Under the free market, they can't do that because their approval is at an all-time low. But hey, what if they can get to decide what gets censored? that would change everything... and communist censors come in handy for that
piggies-go-moo's avatar
Except that it's so-called Conservatives right now who want to allow for such censorship with the repeal of regulations that prohibit monopoly ISPs like Comcast from throttling or blocking content.
View all replies