Jesus Fuck, the front page of reddit has gone to shit.

Reddit View
December 1, 2017

It's a strange time we live in when you see coordinated efforts like /r/all today. Post after post about net neutrality and politics. All left-leaning of course.

Undoubtedly these are not organic posts. Reddit is entirely compromised.

Sexual assault is the buzzword of 2017. Everything TRP predicts is on full display. Will post on this later next week.

Just wanted a quick vent. Also, reminder that reddit is not your friend. I saw they recently added a "chat" feature on here. (Or maybe that RES?). Do NOT trust that your conversations are safe there. Assume admin can (and do) read them. Don't message me, I won't reply.

If you need a chat, head on over to and join the chat beta (which we will launch as soon as all the kinks are out). To join beta, just post a status with hashtag: #beta

Back to your daily scheduled programming.

Edit: For those interested in debating Net Neutrality:

Post Information
Title Jesus Fuck, the front page of reddit has gone to shit.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 36
Comments 128
Date 01 December 2017 06:44 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
betathe red pill

[–]ModeratorPaperStreetVilla[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (9 children) | Copy

OK fuck sticks, apparently y'all forgot about Rule 0.

I'm here to remind you, and kick the tourists out.

[–]Quizlyx63 points64 points  (5 children) | Copy

2014 was the year of "don't trust these hoes" in music at least

2015 was pretty chill

2016 was the year all the celebrities died

2017 is the year of sexual assault

[–]Luckyluke2321 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy

2016 was the year of the outrage... felt like everyone was outraged about something

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW162 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

2015 was pretty chill

What are you talking about? Reddit nearly melted down in 2015. The SJW princess Ellen Pao was this close to shutting down subs like TRP. She abused her power and pretty much the whole site was in open revolution until she stepped down.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

2018 the year of civil unrest 2019 the year of sparse ''riots'' 2020 civil war 2.0

[–]MrRaspberryJamz-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

2017 is also the year of playing the race card for anything conceivable.

[–]blindface13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hey mod, can you keep this stuff to theredpillright? I don't come here for the politics. If I wanted stupid political opinions, I'd visit T_D.

[–]pp-but-awalt 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't understand you cats who think NN needs to be a partisan issue. NN is common carrier for the internet, a relatively non-controversial way of regulating telecommunications to prevent censorship and discrimination. It seems a lot of conservatives are being pulled into the fight against NN by making it a partisan issue. Sure, NN is regulation, but it's very common sense regulation that makes it much harder to censor the internet. If the internet starts to become censored like in other countries, which views do you think they will be censoring? Yours or Lena Dunham's?

[–]lennoxonnell 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Not only will they be able to actively censor the internet, they will also add fees for visiting certain sites. So on top of paying for your internet plan and any other subscriptions you may have, you may be hit with even more fees for no other reason than that the ISPs want to milk you for everything. Paying $10+ monthly for Netflix? Think about having to pay your ISP another monthly fee just so you can access Netflix. Wanna watch some youtube? That may not be free anymore.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Google already censors information

[–]Hugh_Munghous20 points21 points  (17 children) | Copy

Honestly if it ever got to that point I would probably just abscond from the internet all together and just read more books. If I needed to use the web to pay bills or whatever I would just use a computer at the school library, etc.

[–]-ATLAS-_18 points19 points  (3 children) | Copy

Thing is though, go read about cable in its infant stages. Even Walt Disney himself thought it was the greatest thing that could happen to people because every home could have access to learning Spanish or to the best works of art and education that mankind has come up with...and yet it became the monster we see today where watching commercials is a normal experience. More people probably said they would never watch it if commercials and selective programming that's essentially gossip or garbage were a part of the experience, but yet here we are. If you want a commercial free experience, you have to pay extra for HBO or a movie channel. So it really isn't crazy to believe that the same people that pulled that off are interested in doing the same thing. I mean, they're the best experts at it based on experience tbh.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've had cable tv twice in my life. The first time was mid 90s, had it for five months. Nothing on after watching the shit I wanted to see, all reruns and drivel. Comcast harassed me until I showed then to give me free cable for 6 months, all I had was internet access through them. I never watched it, but my friends came over and watched it. They tried to make me pay for those 6 months when I shut it off and left the state. Had to invoke the soldiers and sailors act to get them off my ass. I moved to an area where they had no services for me, which meant I didn't have to give them a damn thing. More to it, but for brevity, that's the basics.

If I want to watch something, I do so online. Mostly though, I don't watch tv. Barely seen any movies in the last 15 years as well.

Fuck Hollywood and the media, I can live easily without their propaganda.

[–]-ATLAS-_1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Fuck yeah. I always tell people I've never seen so many movies, and the absolute worst thing that happens is I don't understand a single joke or reference and they tell me I should watch a movie. If enough people tell me, then I end up watching a movie that's already highly recommended and I usually enjoy it and don't feel like I wasted my time. Honestly it started because I saw some James Bond movie that was supposed to be good and was all hyped up, and it was terrible and the whole time I just thought how unrealistic and over the top it was (that sounds obvious, but as an armed forces member you probably understand what I mean when it's obvious certain tactics in the movies would never happen (or the classic example of Rambo guys shooting guns from the hip or hackers just having a nice clickable system to break passwords). Essentially I don't want to introduce anything that isn't based on the truth into my reality so that I can make good decisions and it's worked out well for me so far. Not watching movies or TV is extremely high on the "avoid list" in order to achieve that.

[–]Endorsed ContributorThotwrecker1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, they won't stop until we are fully optimized as consumers. Stuck into various mediums where every second we are force fed targetted ads. It's not crazy to believe; cable was the single biggest thing in consumerism for it's time, a vehicle that oriented and shaped people's habits and behaviors around consumerism, particularly women's. And everyone knows that the internet + always online + interconnected age means a nearly infinite potential to condition people towards buying shit. Everyone is fighting at a high level over control of the internet, because cable no longer gives them access to the masses' behavior like it used to. The internet does.

[–]lennoxonnell8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy

I hope it never comes to that. But I imagine if the bill passes then a lot of people will do the same. Me included.

[–]Hugh_Munghous14 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy

Pretty much. I mean Facebook and Reddit are nice I guess, but I view them sort of like the free "newspapers" you pick up on the street; I'd never actually pay for them. A lot of people are probably similar, that might be why a lot of these tech companies are freaking out about net neutrality.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Oh, that would be the destruction of the internet as we know it. We would need a new telecommunications revolution to get back to where we are today (for example, mesh communications without centralized infrastructure).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Something new and neutral would eventually emerge.

[–]lennoxonnell8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

Eventually. But no one wants to have to wait for "eventually." We just want to keep the internet the way it is. It's not perfect, but at least I don't have to calculate what websites i use into my monthly budget.

[–]1Soarinc3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

Preventative legislation plays on people's fears like Netflix being throttled. Let the internet be lightly regulated like it was 1979 - 2015:

[–]2comment 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

That's great and all, but ISPs and their regional monopolies are a problem. When people try to build community fiber, as was done in communities in Europe, the regional ISP comes riding in with the power of government and court orders to block it. But when they have rules regulating fairness, guess who is the first to cry? The ISP.

America has some of the highest internet costs in the world and the slowest access to a huge amount of people. The ISPs were given over $400B in tax money to build it out, and guess what? They mostly just pocketed it and did nothing.

Ajit Pai is a corporate shill.

and a million news article like it.

[–]Soarinc 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

When people try to build community fiber, as was done in communities in Europe, the regional ISP comes riding in with the power of government and court orders to block it.

You mean everyday people? Like regular joe the pizza delivery driver?

[–]Reunn4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

But Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and various others are already censoring or deweighting conservatives...

[–]1Soarinc4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

to prevent censorship and discrimination

Same way that minimum wage laws help poor people right?

The internet was perfectly fine from 1979 until 2015, and we want repeal of N.N. to go back to 2015 "light touch" regulations rather than this heavy-handed shit Obama pushed the FCC to pass.

[–]2popthatpill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Net Neutrality" has nothing to do with internet censorship. Christ, the amount of bullshit you retards believe is shocking.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_20164 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

[–]EdAnt0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

That actually seems reasonable

[–]2comment 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

If you think Ajit Pai is anything but a corporate shill, remember what how he supports the gouging of prisoners for basic calls:

[–]EdAnt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

All I said was that that document seems reasonable. I never claimed anything else.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_20160 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


We don't have to believe everything Pai says, but if you listen to the shills on reddit or any other astroturfed social media site or MSM, you'd think Joseph Stalin was taking control of the Internet with the NN repeal when all they're doing is reverting back to the way things were for the past 20+ years.

[–]CuckedByTRUMP 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I'd argue with you but the shills just downvote everyone to negative. This entire site is infested with bots. Subs with 4000 subscribers have 30k upvoted posts on the front page right now. Yea, totally organic. Y'all are working for the globalists.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy

I am not working for the globalists. I am a regular at MGTOW. I also subscribe to TRP, because I like the can-do attitude around here. I agree that the reddit is a propaganda machine, but I am not part of that. This, what you are reading right now, is 100% organic. I am sitting at my computer, not paid for anyone (well, my employer is paying me, but not to do this!).

[–]TriggeringEveryone1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

common sense regulation that makes it much harder to censor the internet.

Oh, so would Net Neutrality get the Stormer its domains and hosting back?

I'm not worried about the US government censoring the internet, I'm worried about censorship from the handful of private companies that control most of the internet.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I said NN makes censorship harder, not impossible.

[–]CuckedByTRUMP1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well you are wrong and he just showed you how wrong you are. They have censorship for when they want to silence and then these laws to protect their own services. They will selectively enforce. That's the point of overregulation.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Google is currently censoring information

[–]whenfoom0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, just look at how reddit doesn't censor anything! Thanks net neutrality!

[–]sonder_one-2 points-1 points  (11 children) | Copy

Any time you begin a comment with "I don't understand", it means that the problem is you. Your ignorance is not other people's failing.

If you truly had an argument against something, you would say "I understand, and here's why you're wrong."

Since you seem to have the understanding of this issue that a left-wing blog wants you to have, rather than an accurate one, here's but a part of a better understanding:

[–]pp-but-awalt 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

You're accusing me of getting my views from a blog and they merely link out? I have a Masters Degree in Computer Science from a top-15 and have spent my 12 year career in computer networking and security. What are you credentials? Did you read low enough to where I explain the difference between NN and usage-based billing?

[–]AlexDr0ps10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lemme know when the chat has an alpha release and then I'll be interested

[–]Sirtimothyleary13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy

That f***ing speechless. If you want to lose all hope in humanity just head over there. Will take about 2 posts before you are trying to /wrists.

[–]Windforce7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

Imo the quality of every sub went down relatively in the past year. Same with TRP.

I think the main reason is the influx of teenagers and young adults everywhere.

[–]redsanto6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

i've said tha same (with another account) several times, here is my theory:

  • US candidacy/elections got a lot of attention of average people in an special subreddit
  • More people has access to smartphones and internet worldwide
  • If you pay attention, in summer(kids on vacations) is where a lot of subreddits went downhill.
  • when you type a question in the google search bar, reddit pop up in the front page more frequently, so more influx of average people.

i know that this subreddit and asktrp felt a bit ifferent since last year although it was very slowly but imo got worse in the beginnig of this year and summer.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (11 children) | Copy

Dude why are you telling me to go beta? Wtf is that shit

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 36 points37 points  (4 children) | Copy

If I can convince enough of you suckers to beta-up, all the womyns will be mine!

[–]3LiveAFTSOV6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm surprised NeoReactionSafe never tried to call TRP a grand conspiracy to give men the wrong information for gaming women

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

But smart people would know that was our ploy. So we outsmart them by using reverse psychology and we actually give good advice expecting smart people to do the opposite. 7-D Chess motherfuckers

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy


Pizza and Warcraft for everyone!

Because in their heart of hearts, women LOVE Dad Bods.

[–]1SirKolbath1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

Beta testing, you simpleton.

[–]TRP_Only 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Should have renamed it Alpha testing. Like thats a thing! xD

[–]1SirKolbath2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm no software engineer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I think alpha testing is the first wave of tests and beta testing is the final before release.

[–]TRP_Only 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I'm sorry, I forgot my /sarcasm at the end. I was kidding, I used to do QA.

[–]1SirKolbath1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm sorry, I forgot my /sarcasm at the end. I was kidding, I used to do QA.

Ha! Sorry for being pedantic, then.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

You are clearly the simp in this situation

[–]gaki12323 points24 points  (16 children) | Copy

Why the fuck a mod's opinion (whatever dude, that's just like your opinion) is fixed as an announcement?

[–]-ATLAS-_9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

I don't understand why people dislike net neutrality? The guy who invented Reddit literally was one of the biggest proponents of it. Reddit was a tool to help discussion and keep the Internet free. That guy is dead now, but he impacted the Internet in the last ten years more than most everyone including standards like markdown. Why the hate against Net Neutrality?

[–]1Soarinc8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

N.N. is bullshit. This post sums it up nicely:


There's a reason that TRP and T_D are two of the only subreddits that has a sizable minority opposition to NN

[–]hominidlucy5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

TRP doesn't oppose NN, maybe some mods do and T_D would suck emperor Trump's dick if he asked.If you read through t_d comments you'd think it's one person commenting and everyone saying hear-hear.

[–]lennoxonnell 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Net neutrality is not a partisan issue. Dismantling Net Neutrality will effect everyone. There is a reason it's all over all, it's because no one wants to have to start paying more just so they can access the websites they want. If you aren't freaking out about the bill to dismantle net neutrality, it's because you have been lied to and are greatly misinformed.

[–]theadj123 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I believe you're the one that's greatly misinformed. We had no 'net neutrality' (shitty fake name as well) until 2015, we did not have any problem with the type of behavior you describe (in fact we had the opposite, we had content providers like Netflix trying to bait infrastructure providers into charging them more for resources to assist with 'forcing' over-regulation). Obama's FCC repeatedly overstepped its bounds and was corrected by the federal court system twice for it, overturning attempts to place limits on Title I providers. That's what led to the re-classification of internet providers as Title II, because that's clearly within the bounds of the FCC's purview. Additionally there is no 'bill' to dismantle net neutrality, that again shows your ignorance of the subject. All that is happening is that internet providers are being returned to Title I status, which means that the FTC can again regulate any misdeeds instead of the FCC (the FTC lacks regulatory power against Title II providers, that belongs to the FCC only).

That's all that happened, a re-classification of internet providers to over-regulate them based on Title II provisions when the previous 30 years of FCC guidance had been to regulate internet providers as Title I. There aren't any new 'laws' to govern net neutrality, it's a bunch of bullshit being spoon fed to dumb consumers to back something that they don't really understand. Additionally the FTC already monitored internet providers for anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. Keep in mind wireless providers are regulated under Title II and they are doing a lot of what would be considered against 'net neutrality' for internet providers. I don't necessarily know that there's a lot of benefit of moving from Title II to Title I beyond changing who is responsible for regulating providers, but it's most definitely not the end of how internet providers have been acting for the past 30+ years.

What we really need is more regulation being applied to content providers, not infrastructure providers. The Googles, Twitters, and Netflixs of the world are more likely to (and already do) do anti-consumer acts than internet providers will ever attempt. Since Title II was applied to internet providers, content providers have dramatically increased their censoring of content they disagree with and silencing voices of dissenters. I'd imagine anyone reading this sub with regularity would agree with that, if you're not a mainstream media darling or prattling their viewpoint you are a potential victim of this type of activity by content providers.

[–]myrodia 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I mean as a concept I disagree with net neutrality, but since the government is already providing these companies with a state sponsored monopoly, it is needed.

[–]lennoxonnell 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

as a concept I disagree with net neutrality

But why? What legitimate reason could you have to not agree with net neutrality?

[–]Hillarysdilddo_20163 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't know if you saw this RPS, but it's a short read from FCC chairman pai, regarding NN.

[–]THEnimble_mongoose5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's astroturfed by paid shills and propaganda.

[–]jef_snow1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I hope you fuckers secede - you're not welcome here.

[–]SavageCentipede1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I love NN!! It's my favorite regulation!!

Comment edited for quality.


[–]15640011 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm in favor of net neutrality. I am also in favor of nationalized medicine and a minimum income.

I am also in favor of realizing (in the sense of making real; actualizing) my masculinity. I treat this subreddit like every other source of information and opinion: I get the info, consider the opinions, and then make up my own mind.

And I don't need anyone's approval beyond that of an employer and a landlord (or bank manager).

[–]fraserPan1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

If you've ever wondered what government controlled internet looks like such as Vietnam China north Korea, look no further than reddit.

[–]Hillarysdilddo_20161 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

They're probably funded by the same parasites.

[–]FirstNamesMusic 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

To curtail more ignorance on ppl not understanding what this bill is actually affecting. It is trying to undo Obama era internet regulation. Trust me, this is a great thing. If you don't believe me read this.

And Obama gave ICANN over to the U.N. Does anybody really believe that Barry wants to protect the Internet? Hillary also supports NN. Do you think she supports a free and open Internet? Nobody can cite actual language in the 330 or so page regulation that keeps the Internet "free". As far as I'm concerned, the Internet is currently not free, with all the abuse and censorship the social media congolermate engages in. They are a monopoly, and no "liberal" ever cares to talk about corporate censorship. It's all virtue signaling! Reminds me of the KONY 2012 scam.

Everybody can read the Obama regulation here (note that this regulation has been called "Net Neutrality", but it's really Corporate Net Neutrality. Net neutrality as a concept for consumers is not what this is. The FCC has always stopped ISPs from doing what people say will happen to consumers without this regulation. Some people have been brainwashed into cheering for corporations):

TL;DR This regulation mainly benefits corporation who do not want to pay extra for their excessive bandwidth usage. Netflix, for example, is being subsidized by poor/middle class people (who may not even have Netflix) paying extra for their Internet because ISPs like Comcast need better infrastructure to meet the demand of high bandwidth applications used by corporations like Netflix and others, who are protected against additional costs by this regulation. Very little changes except for your increasing Internet bill. Nothing is done about the abuse by local government, who are the root cause of the monopolistic broadband Internet system, which limits access to more than one or two ISPs in a given area.

On the face, the FCC critizes draconian ISP behavior, but there are many caveats within the regulation. For example, everybody keeps saying that ISPs and mobile providers are totally against being regulated under Title II, but Sprint, Verizon, and others seem to have no problem with it, as admitted in the regulation.

Page 5795-5796:

Tellingly, major infrastructure providers have indicated that they will in fact continue to invest under the framework we adopt, despite suggesting otherwise in their filed comments in this proceeding.1220 For example, Sprint asserts in a letter in this proceeding that “[s]o long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.”1221 It adds that “Sprint does not believe that a light touch application of Title II, including appropriate forbearance, would harm the continued investment in, and deployment of, mobile broadband services.”1222 Verizon’s chief financial officer, Francis Shammo, told investors in a conference call in response to a question about the effect of “this move to Title II,” that “I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest. I mean we’re going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.”1223

Notice the bolded part; the broadband providers do not oppose it and can easily deal with the extra regulation. There are plenty of reasons why. Obviously, they can afford the lawyers. But NN also has exceptions to the rules.

For example, it allows broadband providers to circumvent the "no throttling" regulation by using the "network management" loophole. Verizon has used this to throttle Netflix streaming.

The ramifications on smaller and up and coming broadband providers is unknown, but there are numerous sections that try to downplay and soften the blow that this would have on competition, which is already almost nonexistent.

There is also a misconception about data caps. The FCC NN regulation does not disallow home broadband providers from capping your data.

Page 5668-5669:

The record also reflects differing views over some broadband providers’ practices with respect to usage allowances (also called “data caps”). Usage allowances place limits on the volume of data downloaded by the end user during a fixed period. Once a cap has been reached, the speed at which the end user can access the Internet may be reduced to a slower speed, or the end user may be charged for excess data. Usage allowances may benefit consumers by offering them more choices over a greater range of service options, and, for mobile broadband networks, such plans are the industry norm today, in part reflecting the different capacity issues on mobile networks. Conversely, some commenters have expressed concern that such practices can potentially be used by broadband providers to disadvantage competing over-the-top providers. Given the unresolved debate concerning the benefits and drawbacks of data allowances and usage-based pricing plans, we decline to make blanket findings about thesepractices and will address concerns under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage on a case-by- case basis.

These are just a few examples. You can read through yourself and understand that there is way more to this regulation than people are telling you. The "OMG THE INTERNET IS DEAD" hyperbole comes from people who simply did not read the regulation, or even know that there was something you could read.

It's important to understand that not all regulation is bad. But there is a reason why people say new regulations have the potential to be harmful, especially large ones. They are often vague and ambiguous, leaving room for broad discretion.

Also, corporations are the primary beneficiary of this regulation. It is not framed that way, which is why you have sheep touting the end of the world if it's repealed. What this actually does is continue allowing the same draconian behavior by ISPs, such as data caps, while disallowing data caps or extra charges on corporations like Netflix, who consume insane amounts of bandwidth. So the broadband providers can charge individuals more for access to more bandwidth, but not corporations. How is that fair? It's not. One could argue that the savings Netflix makes would be passed on to consumers, but Netflix has only raised their prices in the last couple of years. It's literally like selective corporate welfare, where broadband providers will have to spend tons of money to upgrade their infrastructure and backbones primarily because of a few corporations use so much of it. That is the essence of this regulation.

An even playing ground would have both internet service providers AND corporations that provide services on the Internet (like Google) to both be regulated under Title II. This shit is so much more complicated than it's made out to be. Seriously.

What makes me angry is people claiming this will allow ISPs to charge individual customers for access to select and low bandwidth websites e.g. Breitbart. That's not what is or has been happening, or even remotely the issue at hand. The broadband providers would and have been charging Netflix THE CORPORATION directly for their servers' large bandwidth consumption (NOT individual users of the ISP for access to Netflix). This lowers Netflix's profit margin, so this regulation seriously benefits them. Now Netflix doesn't have to raise their prices on its customers proportionate to their excessive bandwidth, allowing them to keep their profits and existing customers, and ISPs will just raise the cost of EVERYONE'S Internet (regardless of whether you have Netflix), instead of spreading it out among the corporations that use so much of it. Netflix is but one example. All the social media corporations like Reddit pushing this have much to benefit and a lot to lose without this regulation.

This regulation does not guarantee that corporations like Netflix will not be subject to extra charges, but it puts broadband providers under significant constraint, wondering whether they will be found in violation of a rule for putting the infrastructure cost burden on corporations that cause it.

The net result is a wash for consumers. ISPs continue operating essentially the same as before with regard to individual customers, but are heavily regulated from discriminating against corporations and their excessive bandwidth usage. The reason why broadband providers like Sprint and Verizon shrug their shoulders at Title II regulation is because they will simply raise their prices on consumers, who have little to no choice when it comes to ISPs in the first place.

[–]Mescalean-4 points-3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Hey just so you all know... Really watch what you say online now.

Everyones post history is already fucked. AI supposedly hit singularity this last week. Not to be all tin foil hat, but all this "data collection" is for something much darker than just manipulating your buying habits through advertisement...

Picture a total recall-esque future where you all are hunted down for your patriarchal views. Yes I will be lynched.

[–]Rad_Thibodeaux5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's better than you might think.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I will not use a beta chat. Only alpha chats please

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter