Real Net Neutrality

Dec 15, 2017 4:55 AM

NicBramble

Views

238142

Likes

9432

Dislikes

191

Annnnnnd...the vote is over.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

A very nice post BUT ISPs could now package your Internet into subscriptions when nothing to stop them beyond people having better options.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Net truthality!

8 years ago | Likes 397 Dislikes 8

Net Friendship!

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

Net Babality!

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

I would downvote for bad pun but the post was su true i cant bring myself to do it. Upvote for you good sir!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Net Brutallity!

8 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Sounds like a new fatal Mortal Kombat move. Except its real.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Net Fatality!

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

Help us Ol Musky, you're our only hope!

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

He's planning on launching a fleet of Low Earth Orbit broadband satellites in the next few years. We can only hope that it works.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

DPI is already a thing in the UK, I assumed it would already be implemented in the USA as it's a pretty basic thing.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Dpi is a thing in the UK if you've been hacked. You talk so much shit your arsed is getting jealous.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

@kreebs123

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If ISPs choose services, hence content, should they take publishers' responsibility for traffic they carry? Might make them think twice...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This opens up so many ways to fuck people over, sad asf.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

We already have DPI in Russia. China also has it.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Rotten system, where sites and protocols could be blocked globally by the goverment with a court decision of some small town in Syberia.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There's supervisory authority exist, called RosCommNadzor, which often blocks resources by mistake.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Even though it would be unblocked later, the owner will loose lots of money and RosCommNadzor does not bear any responsibility.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Don't let this happen in the US too, comrades!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's not misinformation if it's also true. Yeah, these other issues are the bigger dangers, but a lot of people can't understand that. ->

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

-> So the lesser issue, that is far easier to understand, was used to get attention to the subject.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The problem with assuming that Americans are smart is that Trump is President.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There's also the inherent danger of ISPs controlling what the public is allowed to see. That's a lot of political power

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

This *is* the danger. All the other things are not really important, compared to this.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Before net neutrality in the EU (Hungary), some providers were blocking voip calls on mobile net

8 years ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 0

Well, VOIP traffic requires priority on congested networks... not sure where NN stood on allowing that for voice traffic..

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am for NN, I'm just stating I do not know what wording was around VOIP.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Let congestion caused quality loss be our problem. If customer wants qos, that could be a righteous charge for it

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

only of course if they don't fabricate the quality loss to urge qos purchase

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well, this is where we get into the difficulties of 2~ extra seconds of buffering in Netflix vs noticeable voice distortion.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I say noticeable voice distrotion, because voice quality is shit with VOIP compared to landline, but it doesn't generally reduce the exper

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They did the same in the USA. Google Skype and AT&T.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Or AT&T blocking Google Wallet on their phones...

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Which is hilarious "oh no that bank app takes up way too much data, but here's A YouTube optimized subscription and our own shitty bank app"

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Or AT&T blocking FaceTime from working.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Why are all the net neutrally mentions got a loading symbol next to them?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It still isn't about the money. They want to control the information so they can direct people's attention to or away from things, whenever.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

In New Zealand where there is no net neutrality they do need to pay more for Facebook, Twitter, etc... that is where that feat came from

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

But actually, in Portugal when NN wasn't enforced they used ZERO-RATING to, in effect, charge directly for access to youtube, twitter etc.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

wat

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I all-capped zero-rating so people could look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

TL;DR; Internet is made of tubes.

8 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 1

*Tosses a whole BOOK into the tubes*

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Uh no. I've spoken to The Elders of the Internet https://imgur.com/Uavc9GI

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

IT'S A SERIES OF TUBES.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

So you're saying it's not a big truck?

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I thought it was a small black box with a small red light???

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Suddenly we care about capitalism. How about that..

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

That's not capitalism, it's corporate cronyism; something that affects all systems of government

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The absence of a law is not cronyism. Protectionism is cronyism

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Repealing Net Neutrality is bad and wrong. It's badong.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 5

Ironically, this was handled in the least democratic way possible as well.

8 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 2

Unfortunately, that's how net neutrality was setup though. Small singular authority put it in, and a small singular authority took it out.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's almost as if the US is actually a... democratic republic.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Home of the free

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Holy crap, a nuanced opinion on net neutrality

8 years ago | Likes 1944 Dislikes 27

It's essentially the EFF's position. It's a good position.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

...is accuracy nuance?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

how the fuck do you call debunking false info with facts an "opinion" ??????? That's like if I say SCUBA is an acronym for 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

self contained underwater breathing apparatus and you say "what a nuanced opinion" ...just, no.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I didn't see a single point of opinion in that message. All just objective facts.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Now if only we can get people to address the peering issue.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Here is a more in depth look: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/net-neutrality-debate/

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Very good read. Thanks for the share!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Great article!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

here’s a more nuanced opinion: net neutrality is only necessary because of telecom monopolies in the first place.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

Don't look for nuance in 140 character posts, unless of course it's a chain of 50 of them, as above.

8 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 0

The thing with this and the memes is that the memes are obviously directed to people who cares more about twitter than anything else 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 216 Dislikes 2

If you show them this they will literally tell you that you either tldr it or that they won’t read it, that’s why they joke with memes

8 years ago | Likes 144 Dislikes 2

But I agree with the statement made on the post, we need to educate ourselves about the real issue and not just some meme boi about Twitter

8 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 0

It's good to educate but our voice is much louder with many people chiming in, it gets a lot more people talking about it. However having1/2

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

A balanced diet of long thoughtful posts and shit posts is necessary to get multiple demographics talking about the topic.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It's about fairness, privacy, but most of all, democracy.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Yes, but anybody with a brain knew this. These examples are for those who cannot conceive the problem in a logical fashion.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 23

I'm so glad you're here to make everyone else feel inferior to your vast knowledge o wise one

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The majority don't read past the title. They will stop caring when the 19.99 thing doesn't happen, despite the real bad shit still happening

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

If the majority had a brain America you wouldn't have Trump as president.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

How does this not create an even stronger grip on a monopoly, for an already monopolized system?

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that a monopoly is when only one company controls an item or service. (1/2)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There are multiple internet providers, even if they all suck. (2/2)

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I and something like 75% of the rest of the country have one option for internet. It's a localized monopoly.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The ISPs are deliberately colluding to not overlap in each other's territory, so it is monopolized.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

They are a monopoly in their respective locations however. They pretty much don't compete in other's areas and block others from competing.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

People like to say Communism doesn't work due to greed, I'd say it's exactly the same with Capitalism too.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

No, you are wrong. Capitalism works exactly because of greed. It's just that the US sees unfettered capitalism as something absolutely 1/n

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

I believe that the best system is a capitalist democratic system with appropriate regulations on business w/ some socialist principles

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

positive. But the truth is, that capitalism favors those with power and money. It makes everyone who isn't rich and powerful a slave. 2/n

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

While the US, in general, looks down on Europe (not just the EU, but all countries) and their, sometimes, quite heavy regulations, it's 3/n

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

exactly those regulations, that keeps the 1% from gaining too much power through money. And thus keeps people free from the whim of 4/n

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

those that think more about _their_ bottom line and not the country or the society as a whole. 5/5

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Why can’t the Supreme Court step in and say that the FCCs decision is unconstitutional and doesn’t allow for free media to the public??

8 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 4

Shame they dumped it off to the FTC. (Federal Trading Commission)

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It may yet. Dozens of States are planning to sue the FCC.

8 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

They have to be sued first. The Supreme Court doesn't just jump in whenever they want.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

First a court case would actually have to go through several lesser courts and appeals before it could reach the SCOTUS.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

The First Amendment only applies to government restrictions on speech. Repealing NN doesn't led to any additional *government* restrictions.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

If the states are going to win their suit, it's going to be on some procedural irregularity that violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It's not unconstitutional. And the supreme court doesn't just step in.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

as unpopular as this opinion is it is likely right; courts haven't even agreed that internet is a utility

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Facts are usually unpopular. Especially on social media.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The problem is the average internet user will say "I don't see how this affects me."

8 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 2

I don't have a problem with that statement. I have a problem with people saying that and then no effort into finding out how it would.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It won't affect a lot of them. It most likely won't affect me a huge extent either. But it's still an important issue, and if we don't fight

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

for it, there's no real reason for the people it does affect to fight, when it's something that will affect us. One shouldn't have to be

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

personally affected by a policy in order to care about it.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Exactly. "I don't worry about the NSA seeing my stuff, I got nothing to hide!" Same stupid argument. "I don't use this- why should anyone?"

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I'm so frustrated with my best friend over this. "It's not gonna effect us, we don't even need facebook" "It'll effect literally thousands

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

of people who's livelihoods depend on the internet. They can't just boycott like you and I can" "Yeah but that's not me. Half of them are

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

probably scammers anyways, not real businesses" I'm a little disgusted anyone I consider this close to me could have this attitude tbh

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Forget the average internet user. Think about the people you actually know. If one of them doesn't get how it'll affect them, relate it 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

to something that they care about. For me, I'd be like, "You know how my brother has a used car lot? Advertises his cars online? 2/3

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Repealing Net Neutrality could make it more expensive for him to do that. It would hurt his business." 3/3

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Serious question has NN made it easier since it passed in 2015?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No. IIRC NN came about not b/c telecoms were already favoring anybody, but b/c they wanted to try. It was preemptive.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In Portugal they charge just for snapchat or Google. Also neglecting to mention they could altogether halt access to competitors..

8 years ago | Likes 93 Dislikes 30

Well shit, how could you have let this happen, Portugal? Are other EU countries next on the line?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Those packages are for free traffic within those apps. you pay a monthly fee and don't pay anything else. And it's regarding mobile data.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yeah ive seen posts showing it from places thar dont have NN and they have to pay for certain website packages

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Those are mobile providers.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Lies. This only applies to mobile charges

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

the trade off is that internet speeds in Portugal tend to be better than the US, but then again, a lot of countries have faster speeds.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

The EU protects net neutrality. The Portugal thing is fake news. https://www.snopes.com/portugal-net-neutrality/

8 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

If you read that whole article I think snopes is actually wrong about this. Zero-rating has the exact same effect on user as charging more.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

EU

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Not true. It's for mobile internet, nothing else. Source: I lived there. When at home or public wifi, I did whatever the hell I pleased

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Right, so Verizon wouldn't do what they just did and let you pay $10 extra for more data cap, then slowly integrate favorite websites.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Of course other than wireless Portugal does have to abide by NN rules. Without NN any connection could be treated this way.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thank you for linking this. Net neutrality is vital, but let's not drag Portugal in the dirt.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Fucking THANK YOU.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

That's for data cap free usage, not to use it at all. Smaller countries get charged for international bandwidth. Since these services 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 1

That's zero-rating and it's the exact functional equivalent of charging for the service directly.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Primarily exist in the US it gets very expensive to "import" Netflix if your country doesn't have its own CDN. Mobile infrastructure is 2/3

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Expensive too, which is why you see similar data caps on US mobile plans 3/3

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

The problem is Paid pretending that corporations will do the right thing, which isn't there nature.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I wasn't debating that, the US residential infrastructure is trash, I was just providing info about how other countries have to pay for it

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2 the country using more than it sends has to pay a fee to the companies that own the undersea cables, a problem the US doesn't have

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm in Australia, we get hosed by ISPs because everything we use is hosted in the US and the cabling can't keep up, thus monthly data caps

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh you're good mate, we all are just sad inside since we're all kinda forced into this net neutrality, I'm not mad, just sad. http://i.imgur

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The goal of the meme wasn't to downplay what could happen, it was to get the point across to people that wouldn't otherwise understand.

8 years ago | Likes 534 Dislikes 36

Yup. Gotta sell the idea to populists too. They only listen to scandals.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Or even just to make it super easy and quick for everyone to understand, so the message would spread faster and further.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I really hate that

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Right? It compared it to paying for cable TV channels which everyone understands.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

This, it's to get people who have no idea what it is to actually care about it.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

But the pay wall is something that can happen....

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yet, it ultimately undermined the message, didn't it? It dissuaded potential allies due to "exaggeration", and allowed Pai to cry trolling.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Well obviously the point of those memes wasn't to downplay... They're bad because the opposition can use them to discredit the movement.

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

I mean, it will happen given the chance. The memes aren't wrong just not what is going to happen in the short term.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Or care to actually read up on what it would entail.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is it that hard to say Time Warner will block Netflix so you have to buy cable?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Exactly why I use that example for my parents dumb friends

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

So then you literally lie about what would happen because you thought people wouldnt be able to understand complex issues? Pathetic

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 5

An average really is never taught how networking works formally so you have to break it down to be easier to describe about their day to day

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's not breaking it down or describing. 'You'll have to pay for Twitter' is entirely different than 'WeldingWeb will be extremely slow.'

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I.e. the end note. Don't assume people are too stupid to understand if properly explained.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

I don't, I give them the benefit of the doubt so they can definitively let me down.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Have you met people?

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

I agree. At first glance this makes the whole thing look "oh it wont affect me"

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Isn't that the whole point of the last message that people will understand if you explain it to them?

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 9

That’s exactly what I thought when I read that comment. Was...sort of the point.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The problem is they don't want to take the time to listen to it. They don't get it immediately so they just shut the conversation down.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And his point is that it's wrong. An average person might understand the complexities, but they probably don't care enough to learn.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The "$9.99 basic web access package" concept is a technically correct oversimplification that my grandparents can (and need to) understand.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

They won't, especially if they don't care to understand.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Except, even reading that (very good) description, I know TONS of people who wouldn't get that.

8 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 1

Then those people don't need to get into the debate at all. If you don't know the facts don't cut corners and bullshit your way through.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 10

Don't know why this is downvoted, clueless idiots clouding up debate with bullshit is a major problem.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

This is why we got Trump - people prefer to keep it simple. Facts are simply ignored to populists. Gotta talk their language too.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

How many court dockets are you or the average person willing to read? You have to know about YEARS of legal cases to learn the nuances of

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

how we got to here when it comes to telecommunications regulations, Internet protocols & infrastructure and the history of ISP shenanigans.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"Deep packet inspection" is a phrase I could say to coworkers and they'd look at me with glazed over eyes and say "I have nothing to hide."

8 years ago | Likes 193 Dislikes 5

Explain that it's like USPS opening all your mail first. You want Verizon looking at and selling all of your financial information?

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

People literally answer: I got nothing to hide

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You should start telling them "good, that means you don't mind me selling what you don't have to hide"

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"I have nothing to hide"--I imagine these same people allowing their freedom of speech just slip away. "I have nothing to say."

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

That's exactly what they are doing. You may not have anything to hide but you should absolutely not want people snooping through your life.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

But holy shit if you tell them "Oh and you will probably have to pay extra to use facebook" you get their attention FAST.

8 years ago | Likes 145 Dislikes 6

The problem is that they *wont* have to pay extra to use facebook and so will think you were talking BS. It's the small guys that'll suffer.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

just ask them how "My Space" turned out. LOL

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I'd be so happy to see Facebook go the same way, on an unrelated note.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It was to communicate the issues to the layman, getting them onboard with the simple stuff instead of losing them to the deeper complexity.

8 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 3

Net Neutrality has some complex roots, its not just simply "all traffic is equal".Not something you can summarize accurately in 140/280>less

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

You get into blocking, throttling, prioritization and deprioritization of services, with previous infractions of ISPs wanting more money.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Sure it might get them behind the idea, but you do see the argument of that being borderline misinformation? It is a bit morally grey.

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Probably for the greater good ofc but still.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's absolute misinformation, and it weakens our argument when half the people fighting our side are arguing invalid points from ignorance.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Nobody will ever have to pay extra for Facebook. They'll have to pay extra to use alternatives to Facebook.

8 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

There's an alternate to Facebook?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It won't matter soon.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A bunch of 'em. They don't have the critical mass of users though.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If you get somebody's attention with information that turns out to be wrong, they'll pay you less attention in future.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

v

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

This just isn't truth. Take the Brexit Vote Leave "£350 million a week for the NHS". A lie, but Brexit voters still think they did right.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

Doesn't HTTPS prevent traffic between your computer and the website from being inspected by your ISP?

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Yes - until it's decrypted which is possible.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The content of the traffic may have some protection, but they still know every site you are visiting and can still throttle/block.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Sure, that was a bit fallacious. The correct analogy is for the postman to see which department the letter is addressed to.

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Not even by a longshot.. Hardware exist to decrypt, analyze and filter HTTPS at line speed up to 40 gbps easy..

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Not going to work if you don't have the right certificates on that hardware.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Guess again... http://ow.ly/1VIS30hi9px

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The CA system is a joke and fake certs have been caught being issued numerous times by actual cert authorities.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can create fake certs, but that doesn't allow you to decrypt real certs. You'd have to set up a man in the middle DNS cache poison attac

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Which is why I don't use ISP DNS servers

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

While I get his/her point, why does it matter what reason people are fight the repeal of NN? It’s a flat out wrong thing to do. If I am...

8 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 20

I think we should start using "singular they". No more his/her

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Because that's the same reasoning Republicans used to vote for Trump. You don't want the devil on your side, even if he's fighting for you.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Because people shouldn’t be ignorant just because they agree with something.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Because if they lie about the reasons it is bad they are LYING and LYING is also wrong.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because he doesn’t like false information being spread.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Because misinformation and propaganda is abhorrent. It would make us no better than Trump's fake news. We all think we're right.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes what does the truth matter? As long as it happens to follow your own agenda you dont need to know it! Ignorance to the people!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Because if you spout wrong information, you give your opponent ammunition to use against you and pick apart your argument.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Because we sound like a bunch of fucking ignorant children by bitching about the wrong thing. Which is exactly what they are seeing this as

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

We are bitching about stuff found to be illegal BEFORE the internet was put as a title II under the telecommunications act. This repeal is

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

putting the internet back the way it was before 2015... and every case being brought up were cases found to be illegal before 2015.

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Because at it's core, it's a political issue, and spouting bullshit to get people to vote your way for a political issue is wrong?

8 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

It's what politicians do and we are not politicians we are better.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Or at least we should be.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

As long as politicians think the public is ignorant and gullible, they get away with doing what they want. This is the same everywhere.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Well yes but have you seen the average person. That is the the dumbest waste of breathable air I have ever seen. In any country.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

2/2 and caring for us. Not exactly what their role is meant to be, but it's what it ended up being.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I mean, that's the point of politicians, right? Shit's too complicated for normal people to care, they simplify it by representing us 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Exactly why Trump is sitting in the goddamned WH. **smdh**

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fighting the same thing that someone else is also fighting, is why they’re fighting it, I just know we’re on the same side so fuck it.

8 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 17

If you are fighting for the wrong reason and that reason can easily be taken away then you won't be fighting for long.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

yes but there is more than one reason to continue fighting.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Because a large part of the fight is spreading the word, and it seems wrong to misinform others just to get them on your side.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

if they're already on your side though, then is it misinformation to get them on your side?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But its not misinforming people. The whole they can charge for access to certain site is a real threat as well.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

But it's unlikely, based off all the countries that don't have NN, and saying "Pay 15 bucks to pay reddit" isnt gonna happen.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yes, but wrongly applied to popular sites in the examples. Charging for access to news not biased a certain way the ISPs like, that's bad

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

No, this isn't repealing net neutrality as a whole. Its removing the article from the internet and repealing it to pre201t

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2015*. Which charging for access was already deemed illegal under its previous classification

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0