/news/ - News

News & Current Events + Happenings

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Drawing x size canvas

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

News & Current Events + Happenings
/news/ deserves actual news. Declaring agendas are not news. Do not post trolling bait threads.
Post quality threads only, and it's voluntary to crosspost them to /pol/
Never mandatory.

Expand All Images

Why Do Major Corporations - Who Are Known For Censoring Their Social Platforms - Want Net Neutrality? Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 14:04:02 Id: d0bdeb [Preview] No. 3886
According to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai in a speech on Tuesday Internet giants such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter want to use net neutrality to “cement their dominance in the Internet economy.”

At his speech in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Pai defended his “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” that will repeal the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, and argued that content providers such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter serve as the most serious threat towards internet freedom.

Breitbart News reported that social media giants such as Google and Twitter may stifle Internet freedom more than Comcast or Verizon, largely due to their rampant censorship of alternative viewpoints.

Silicon Valley companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter criticized the FCC’s net neutrality repeal, arguing that it will allow Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon to block, throttle, and prefer content at will. Pai contends that not only have these companies repeatedly blocked conservative viewpoints, they also want net neutrality to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.


It is well known that companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter have censored many of their users and even censor search results. Below I will present a long archived list of these corporations doing just that:

Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 14:04:29 Id: d0bdeb [Preview] No.3887 del
Google will remove RT and Sputnik news from search engines: https://archive.fo/Yj2Fs
Google interfered with 2016 election, censoring negative news about Hillary Clinton: https://archive.fo/6PIB8
Google censored a leftist activist site that speaks out about corporate corruption: https://archive.fo/9W4wI
Both left wing and right wing users have complained about Google censoring search results: https://archive.fo/RU9yL
Europeans complain about Google censorship: https://archive.fo/38jkx
Alternative media complains about search result minipulation: https://archive.fo/p3NHR
Google is removing Free Speech Apps from their services: https://archive.fo/KCtbI
Google admitted to censoring legal pornography: https://archive.fo/087ZH
Google censors sites for "violating policy" which the company itself violates: https://archive.fo/eZtDx
Google has been removing politically incorrect videos on Youtube: http://archive.is/Mbciz

Twitter censors conservative tweets, caught, and now they admit this: https://archive.fo/XUXoG
'Twitter forces users to remove certain tweets and bans them if they refuse: https://archive.fo/daRw3
Twitter censors feeds after Islamic terrorist attacks: https://archive.fo/tprbZ
Twitter is working directly with governments to censor unwanted content: https://archive.fo/WL9ju
Twitter actually censored the to-be-president Donald Trump during campaign: https://archive.fo/Vrx7Q
Twitter is now heavily censored, expect many posts removed from search results: https://archive.fo/Rf7bF
Twitter has removed Wikileaks material before: https://archive.fo/qG0lB
Twitter censorship has raised global furor: https://archive.fo/pFWyy
Twitter censored Drudge Report comments - biggest news aggregator on the web: https://archive.fo/bUPxo

Researcher finds Facebook regularly suppresses conservative news websites: http://archive.is/e1bcf
Like Google - Facebook is censoring politically incorrect European news: http://archive.is/uUSeq
Facebook works with the Chinese government to censor news: http://archive.is/wD04T
Facebook works with the Israeli government to censor news: http://archive.is/qG4gV
Facebook is working with Italy to police "hate speech": http://archive.is/TPpAq
Wikileaks accused Facebook of censorship: http://archive.is/Cyj0I
Facebook employees quite over censorship of users: http://archive.is/fYCkc
Facebook censors anyone who mentions Facebook censorship: http://archive.is/OrNU9
Facebook censored memes and even satire: http://archive.is/mLJVM

Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 14:05:07 Id: d0bdeb [Preview] No.3888 del
The question is WHY do these companies - who openly promote censorship - push this 'Net Neutrality' agenda?

Are conservatives such as Ajit Pai on to something? Or is this all a big ruse to hand the government or corporations further control over the internet?

I'd love to hear from you anons!

Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 14:54:38 Id: 9b6918 [Preview] No.3889 del
Some conservatives I know support net neutrality, others tend to ask why Soros is supporting it.

I really do not know much about it other than the FCC wants to make sure providers will not discriminate against online traffic. Sounds good... but so did "The Affordable Care Act" before being passed into law so who knows.

Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 15:00:25 Id: 9b6918 [Preview] No.3890 del
PS: if NN stays law hopefully it won't turn into something like Bill Clinton's "Fairness Doctrine" which independent radio stations all over the country were forced to shut down and all the other major ones consolidated control over the airwaves. Did exactly the opposite of what it was intended for back in the 90s.

Very hard to trust government, they screw almost everything they touch up (likely on purpose too).

Reader 11/30/2017 (Thu) 23:38:19 Id: 49542c [Preview] No.3903 del
Meh. Internet existed before net neutrality, internet will exist after net neutrality. Honestly, if the entire internet exploded tomorrow in some digital cratering it would be a good thing.

Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 05:01:09 Id: bb43bd [Preview] No.3926 del
It is pretty easy to figure out really.

Content providers want net neutrality because it takes power away from network providers. The last thing Facekike or Jewgle want is some internet provider being able to dictate wether or not users can access their services at full speed (or at all for that matter). Net neutrality also enables small startup companies (something Silicon Valley is known for) to compete on an equal playing field, for them to be acquired by the big players when it is convenient. Without network neutrality, small companies would find it harder to get going without either consumers or content providers themselves paying ISP's a premium for fast enough connections to users. Without network neutrality, ISP's can continue to let their network links saturate during peak hours without bothering to upgrade their networks to handle the strain (this already happens regardless, the FCC does nothing even with current rules in place).

In the end it is less an argument about consumers vs corporations and moreso content providers vs network providers. No matter which side wins, the kikes win and we all lose.

Page 2 of this probably explains it far better: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/28/its_back_net_neutrality_nonsense_roundup/?page=2

In some ways indirectly it already has. Small ISP's that cannot afford to constantly upgrade hardware really struggle against the big incumbents without at least some sort of throttling. Most are being bought up or simply dying out. Plus there is the unrelated issue of big ISP's writing legislation for local governments to outright ban competition like municipal ISP's from existing.

You say that now, but just wait until ISP's are allowed to block content that they don't like or uses too much bandwidth (netflix, torrents, etc). Hell, some ISP's are owned by the "liberal media" (comcast owns NBC for example) and could simply start blocking/throttling websites that do not fit their agenda. They could also block proxies, vpn's, and alternate DNS services making circumvention nearly impossible. This is the sort of shit that is already happening in other tyrannical countries.

Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 06:40:18 Id: 2bc42f [Preview] No.3927 del
I really dislike the way you format your posts. Also, did you just use Breitbart as a source or what?

Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 16:19:05 Id: a6d39f [Preview] No.3941 del
No, breitbart article was used just to start off the discussion as to why certain tech companies (content providers) want net neutrality when they are known to abuse their own services and censor users: see documented sources here, >>3887

This makes a lot of sense. Very well put, never thought of this before. The whole thing was a scam to begin with to hand over control to one corrupt entity or another corrupt entity.

If people want to break these monopolies up, we need to demand Anti-trust laws be put to use.

Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 19:37:36 Id: de4c19 [Preview] No.3951 del
I'll make it so simple a baby can understand it.

Your side wants to give companies the new power to charge you more or less depending on the specific websites you visit rather than continuing to charge you just on how much you download or upload. Their lawyers might pretend certain kinds of data are more costly to sway tech illiterate Republicans and to give senators talking points, but its all just the same 1s and 0s streaming in identical packets, its the total streamed that costs more. Charging more to download "video packets" is just a power grab to justify charging Netflicks more, or else Netflicks will suffer from hiccups and new degrees of lag.

You then throw your hat in with the alt-right conspiracy theorists and support price discrimination just because you're excessively blinded by hatred of Google and can't imagine their desires ever coinciding with what is best for the consumer. I'll put it this way: you drive to a library and the librarian tells you the library has a new policy that abolished librarian neutrality. She keeps most books free, but charges you $2 to rent [u]the Catcher in the Rye[/u] because she thinks it's a vulgar book and you can afford that. She says if you don't want to pay then you can still read the other books. That's the future we are marching toward.

Currently a more accurate analogy would be: all books are free, but if you want to read the Catcher in the Rye she will pussyfoot and argue with you delaying you by ten minutes, just like how it could become slower to download from video streaming websites or to play League of Legends when net neutrality has been abolished. Do you get it now? If not then read this:


Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 19:51:53 Id: de4c19 [Preview] No.3953 del
And the views expressed on either thread make me weep for humanity.

Reader 12/01/2017 (Fri) 22:55:01 Id: 24d2a6 [Preview] No.3957 del
Yah I get it, but quite frankly this whole issue should have never started in the first place. Nothing was wrong with the internet to begin with. There are multiple corrupt entities trying to grasp some kind of control over it and at this point it seems we are fucked no matter what - either the government will get full control over the bandwidth (make no mistake about it, they will start abusing their power just like they did with "The Fairness Doctrine" back in the 90s)... or the major ISPs will be given carte blanch control (and they will abuse their power at the expense of the consumer, likely end up charging us out the ass per website we visit).

Glad I've been pirating media all these years and backing shit up. I'll probably need to have it all stored offline before I cancel my internet service come 2020! God damn it, sometimes I fucking hate this country. I really just can't stand the level of corruption and insanity we have to put up with these days. The country that has created such a wonderful invention - the internet - is now out to sabotage it!

Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply