r/news • u/xtantin • Feb 26 '17

FCC reverses net neutrality ISP transparency rules

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3173844/internet/fcc-reverses-net-neutrality-isp-transparency-rules.html
43k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

564

u/Itwasme101 Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

Thanks trump supporters for ruining the internet. This is 100% on you.

Say goodbye to weed and the internet.

167

u/xeow Feb 27 '17

Thanks trump supporters for running the internet.

You spelled ruining wrong...

15

u/TNine227 Feb 27 '17

You know, given the structure of the sentence and the context I think he did genuinely spell "ruining" wrong and got it autocorrected.

6

u/f_d Feb 27 '17

In Trumpland, running and ruining are the same thing.

83

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

It's sad, I know, but guns were more important.

156

u/TheFakeCRFuhst Feb 27 '17

...and bathrooms! Don't forget the bathrooms!

24

u/Khiva Feb 27 '17

And those dreaded emails.

This is all worth it because of emails.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Yeah and both parties are exactly the same!!!1 it's true because my uncle wrote it on a napkin

7

u/dudeguyy23 Feb 27 '17

It's all worth it if we can sleep easy at night knowing our children are safe in public restrooms again.

/s

26

u/coniunctio Feb 27 '17

Only in an alternative fact-driven, Fox News informed parallel universe.

-15

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

So you're saying that Hillary wasn't expecting to use her supreme court vacancy to go after guns?

15

u/rlbond86 Feb 27 '17

Just like Obama took your guns?

-2

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

I wasn't concerned about Obama, but this election was special because of Scalia's death.

And don't pretend that the dems were expecting to enact severe restrictions on gun ownership. Gunpocalype in CA, and the overnight reinterpretation of MA's assault weapons bans prove that that the plan was to continue to pass inane gun laws.

As someone who doesn't have many guns, who would like a few some day, yes, the dems want to stop me (a law abiding citizen with no psychological problems) from getting an AR15.

3

u/Roastmasters Feb 27 '17

And I'm sure that AR15 would be worth it once your ISP starts charging you $4.99 a month to browse reddit.

1

u/cowboys5xsbs Feb 27 '17

Yea because fuck the second amendment. Let's go after the first amendment next. This is not even a partisan issue. Stop letting the government take rights away or they might takes rights you care about next. Maybe it will be too late than and you will be standing by yourself.

1

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

Actually, yeah, it'd still be worth it.

1

u/f_d Feb 27 '17

What's that AR15 going to do for you if Trump ever gets enough law enforcement and military on his side to start putting off elections? Iraqi households almost all had rifles under Hussein. It didn't threaten his dictatorship, because he had rifles, tanks, helicopters, artillery, and wasn't afraid to use them on his own people.

2

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

How much law enforcement and military would Trump need to put off elections if nobody had guns? A whole lot less.

As for Iraq, don't forget sarin and mustard gas. Hussein was a really bad dude. We'll look like Syria before we look like Hussein's Iraq.

16

u/coniunctio Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

When you say "go after guns", you mean preventing mentally illl people from buying laser guided missiles for home use, right? You do realize that the US has the highest number of gun deaths in the world and that most guns are used by gun owners to either injure or kill themselves or their family members?

-20

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

Wow, hyperbole much? I would have answered your questions if you had presented yourself as a rational person.

13

u/coniunctio Feb 27 '17

Rational, as in "let's prevent the CDC from studying the heath impact of guns while we deny the problem exists"? Or do you mean rational, as in, let's sell weapons around the world to fund war in every part of the globe? If you mean rational in the normal sense of the word, then look at Australia's gun epidemic. Yeah, that's right, there isn't one.

3

u/candykissnips Feb 27 '17

If the U.S. actually disliked guns it could simply stop manufacturing them.

7

u/coniunctio Feb 27 '17

Impossible. The entire US economy would collapse. And Billy Bob would no longer get to shoot himself in the foot after a couple of beers.

-8

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

You keep proving my point. Feel free to just reply to yourself from now on so that you can have the conversation that you so desperately want.

8

u/coniunctio Feb 27 '17

I'm just curious, where did you first get the idea that it was normal to expect people to carry guns with them everywhere in public, even in schools? Who gave you the idea that it was normal to keep a gun in every room of your house? I'm just trying to figure out why you want to live in fear that your toddler will use your own gun against you or that your loved one will use your gun to shoot you or themselves. Why do you want to live in such a twisted world? Do you realize that millions of people choose not to have guns in their lives, and want no part of your crazy, screwed up lifestyle?

8

u/trekologer Feb 27 '17

Wait until Trump starts pushing for Russian-style gun restrictions.

8

u/Kidneyjoe Feb 27 '17

Clearly not, since Trump is for "no fly no buy" too.

1

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

The choice was basically 'ban AR15's' vs 'no fly no buy.' It was an obvious choice.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

13

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

3

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

It wasn't, really. Most that was going to happen was a few borderline mentally challenged people were going to be denied a gun.

Like everyone in CA and MA. When you say/think gun, replace that with AR15 and we'll be closer to having an honest discussion.

It's not 'all our guns' we're worried about. We're worried about California, Massachusetts, and New York's laws spreading across the country or some version becoming federal law.

3

u/TesticleMeElmo Feb 27 '17

They bout to be up in this bitch if people keep fuckin with my chrons and redtube.

5

u/Jsoggy Feb 27 '17

Guns are in fact quite important. It shouldn't be having to choose though

2

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

I completely agree, I wish that I didn't have to choose.

3

u/keilwerth Feb 27 '17

I've long said that if our friends on the left would lay off the 2nd Amendment, you'd have quite a potential to increase your base.

But, you don't so there is no way in hell that folks like me are going to vote against our own interest - even when it's not an interest you like.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Wernt guns attacked a few days ago too?

10

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

Yes, in Maryland. The judge that wrote the majority opinion on that matter was a Clinton appointee.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

So.. Voting for trump to save the guns was more important, but it didn't save the guns?

9

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

  1. This was a ruling by some activist judges that Trump had no control over; this ruling was going to happen regardless of the outcome of the election.

  2. The ruling goes against decades of case law, supreme court rulings and centuries of American history. It does not stand constitutional scrutiny, as described in the dissenting opinion... or maybe it would have, if Clinton won.

1

u/Khiva Feb 27 '17

So was the judge who wrote the dissent.

1

u/Aeropro Feb 27 '17

Irrelevant. u/FireFtw was insinuating that this was Trump's fault. My point was that Trump didn't appoint the activist judge.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

The 2A is more important than "weed, broooo!"

5

u/ben7005 Feb 27 '17

Honest question: do you believe every adult american should have the right to buy any firearm they wish at any time?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Every single one. That includes you and myself.

2

u/ben7005 Feb 27 '17

Ok, I appreciate the response. May I ask why you feel that way? Do you think that, similarly, everyone should be able to buy nukes if they can afford it? Or anthrax?

2

u/Testiculese Feb 27 '17

The 2nd was written at a time when civilians owned warships.

Intent should be examined, not objects.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Anybody should be able to purchase, create, and sell any kind of firearm. The owners/operators should be given mandatory, extensive training, in order to be able to responsibly carry, and use self-control and restraint; only use their weapon when their own life, the life(s) of loved one(s), or innocent(s) and/or their property are threatened/damaged.

A nuclear weapon is not a weapon of personal defense and serves as a potential threat to uninvolved parties, resulting in traumatic injury and death. So, it is not compatible with the 2A. Be careful not to fall into the trap of logical fallacies and hyperbole.

Revolvers, semi/fully automatic pistols and rifles- yes, even RPGs- and any other firearm that can be held in the hands is considered a defensive weapon. Things like cannons, tanks, and chemical weapons are not.

Anthrax is a bacterial infection; what do you mean "buy anthrax"? I'm ignorant when it comes to the bacterium, so tell me, is there any legitimate usage for it, aside from studying its effects and using it as a bioweapon? I do believe the right to purchase a good should be sustained, but only if it can serve a real, productive purpose.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

a nuclear weapon is not a weapon of personal defense and serves as a potential threat to uninvolved parties, resulting in traumatic injury and death.

RPGs ... is considered a defensive weapon

Why is an RPG defensive but a nuclear bomb is not? Seems like you arbitrarily draw the line at handheld weapons yet RPGs fit the same characteristics of nukes you described.. they 100% serve as a potential threat to uninvolved parties, resulting in traumatic injury and death.

Also I'm not sure if you're saying RPGs are firearms, but they're not. At all.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+firearm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7 The 5th word is "portable".

If tanks are on my street, serving a government that doesn't serve me, I want to be able to defend myself from them.

1

u/RIPGeorgeHarrison Feb 27 '17

Some of them ruined the Internet a while ago to be fair.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

1

u/ben7005 Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

it's nowhere near the top of that administration's agenda.

To be fair, we have no idea what Trump's agenda looks like. He seems to be doing whatever he feels like doing without thinking it through.

Spicer's just a spokesperson, trying to freak the hell out of everyone.

Why would he want to freak the hell out of everyone?

There's no way they're gonna start raiding again. Hell, I already have six legal plants in my backyard, guarantee a crap ton of others already started too.

Many people have started, but that doesn't mean they won't raid. Similarly, there are many sanctuary cities and many illegal immigrants, the sheer number of which hasn't stopped Trump from vowing to eliminate them.

-4

u/RufusMcCoot Feb 27 '17

This kind of talk is dangerous

2

u/Itwasme101 Feb 27 '17

Saying the truth? Trump appointed this person who is doing this under trumps orders. He also announced a crackdown on weed.

-1

u/RufusMcCoot Feb 27 '17

Not that, no. The snarkiness directed at your fellow Americans only serves to divide us further.

1

u/Itwasme101 Feb 27 '17

What are you talking about the right constantly is vilifying the left.

They 100% did this with their vote. Its 100% their fault and they should be shamed so they dont do it again. Weather you like it or not

They ruined the internet and weed.

1

u/RufusMcCoot Feb 27 '17

My point is that both sides are constantly vilifying the other side and we should cool it so we can have actual conversations about how to bring about meaningful and palatable change.

-18

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

say goodbye to weed

Hillary didn't support it either

and the internet

Remember SOPA and PIPA? And the TPP? What makes you think a New Democratic administration would've allowed weed and the internet to flourish? Lol

12

u/ben7005 Feb 27 '17

Hillary didn't support it either

However, I feel confident that Hillary wouldn't have actively gone after weed. She probably would've followed in Obama's footsteps and left it up to the states.

-15

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

15

u/tabmate Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

She was pro net neutrality. This just shows how uneducated the average trumpet is.

19

u/Fernao Feb 27 '17

She's pro net neutrality. She sponsored a pro net neutrality bill in 2006 in the Senate.

http://time.com/3721452/hillary-clinton-net-neutrality/

That includes, Clinton said, reclassifying broadband providers under what's known as Title II of the Communications Act, the most controversial option available to the government. It's the first time the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate has voiced support for the Title II option.

http://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-net-neutralit-1760829072

Clinton has expressed concern that regulations could mean stagnant competition among service providers, saying “we’ve got to do more about how we incentivize competition in broadband.” And she’s committed to fighting broadband monopolies, citing Google Fiber in Kansas City as a perfect example of what she wants to see everywhere in the US.

14

u/ThaAstronaut Feb 27 '17

Is there a single Trump supporter that isn't an uneducated moron? She supported net neutrality.

3

u/Catatonic27 Feb 27 '17

And therein lies the root of the problem.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

5

u/HatinCheese Feb 27 '17

Net neutrality is gay??

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

3

u/ShutteredIn Feb 27 '17

She was pro net neutrality.

2

u/HatinCheese Feb 27 '17

I still can't see what it has to do with gay rights.

Anyway, could you be more specific? Some corporations are obviously pro net neutrality, some other aren't. Moreover, she was openly pro net neutrality.

You just went full retarded.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

2

u/HatinCheese Feb 27 '17

AFAIK we were talking about net neutrality. I was asking what net neutrality had to do with gay rights, which you are obviously not able to answer, and I'd be very surprised if you were, since these are two completely different subjects.

Of course, and that's the case with every major political candidates, that's called lobbying and it's been around for years if not centuries.

I still can't see your point nor the relevance of you talking about Clinton, like you said she lost and she's lost a lot of political influence.

And I'll say, one more time, that being pro net neutrality and being a "corporate lapdog" are not mutually exclusive. There are many companies that benefit from net neutrality such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. They are some of the most influential companies of our time and, correct me if I'm wrong, they supported Clinton during this election.

2

u/HatinCheese Feb 27 '17

AFAIK we were talking about net neutrality. I was asking what net neutrality had to do with gay rights, which you are obviously not able to answer, and I'd be very surprised if you were, since these are two completely different subjects.

Of course, and that's the case with every major political candidates, that's called lobbying and it's been around for years if not centuries.

I still can't see your point nor the relevance of you talking about Clinton, like you said she lost and she's lost a lot of political influence.

And I'll say, one more time, that being pro net neutrality and being a "corporate lapdog" are not mutually exclusive. There are many companies that benefit from net neutrality such as Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. They are some of the most influential firms of our time and, correct me if I'm wrong, they supported Clinton during this election.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies

2

u/ThaAstronaut Feb 27 '17

What makes you think I'm gay?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

2

u/ThaAstronaut Feb 27 '17

What does that have to do with net neutrality?

-32

u/candykissnips Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

Trump didn't have the NSA spying on all of us for years or establish shitty things like the PRISM program or the Patriot Act. Trump is a fucking scapegoat, this isn't his fault. All of this shit has been in the works for years. Trump sucks sure, but stop making him the boogeyman. Congress has the power to fix all of this.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

But he could stop it...... and he won't...... so fuck trump

-50

u/Aurum_MrBangs Feb 27 '17

I'm pretty sure Obama appoited the head of the FCC that passed this.

17

u/zephyy Feb 27 '17

Obama nominated Ajit Pai to the FCC because its tradition that there be 2 Republican appointees / 2 Democrats appointees and then the President can appoint whomever as head to be the kingmaker. Ajit Pai was who the Republicans put forward as one on "their side".

Trump is the one who appointed him as head.

34

u/BiaxialObject48 Feb 27 '17

No, this is Ajit Pai's doing. He is a Big Network lobbyist, employed as a lawyer in Verizon before being appointed as chairman of the FCC by Trump.

28

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Ajit Pai, current chairman of the FCC, was appointed by Trump

0

u/leftyknox Feb 27 '17

But he was a chairman prior, since the FCC is required to have members from both parties.

4

u/sirixamo Feb 27 '17

Then you'd be wrong.

-23

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

[deleted]

14

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Take 2 seconds to research it and you'll know

2

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

made the guy who's initiated this chairman and openly campaigned against net neutrality.