I expected this from someone else, not you.

Have you not been watching? Soros is one of the hated good guys whether you like it or not. Our government (here in America) are against Soros for a reason.

Soros literally funds everything that our neocon government doesn't want to happen. There is a reason for this. There is a new gang in town and they are a necessary evil for without them, our government will devour us. I suppose people will understand this when it all starts to happen.

Soros is one of the hated good guys

No. Just no.

I know, because life is about perspective, it will never make sense to your eyes. For the LORD has put a difference and everyone has their lots.

We are not suppose to see the same outcome because there is a spiritual barrier that denies us the privilege. I know why Soros is hated by this community and much of the conspiracy realm. It's pretty damn obvious but I still like to put it out there for the people who see things from the other side.

Cognitive Dissonance

Is it even possible right now to read all the NN documentation? I just saw a comment that made me think we don't have access to the actual wording, just the requests for public comment on the interpreted goals of NN. The comment was basically calling this a Pelosi, where we have to pass it to see what's in it.

Has the entire doc describing NN been released yet? And if so, where is it at please?

Here is current.

Here is fact sheet on future.

Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015. "Title II" is the second part of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. This is the same act that gives the FCC jurisdiction content control over TV and radio.

Meanwhile, the FTC are actual experts at this and kicking ass every day in every other industry except phone companies.

our government likes to pass acts like "the patriot act"

Because the USA Patriot Act was named by Republicans who also named things Orwellian like

Protect America Act

Help America Vote Act

Tax Cuts and JOBS Act

Also, ending Net Neutrality is not an "Act."

blindly siding with George Soros

George Soros funds Open Secrets and provides the main source of campaign funding information for all major politicians. I side with George Soros on that too, and it is not blind.

research the other side of the issue

We the people have researched it. We don't like it for many reasons including the fact that consolidated companies will cheat to push their own integrated services ahead of everyone else's, the fact that ISPs will charge content providers opening a whole new source of income to replace actually building more bandwidth, and the fact that we like independent conspiracy sites which will be the last ones capable of paying the content provider fees especially since they were all thrown off Google AdSense.

"Affordable Healthcare Act"

That goes both ways man.

The increase of rates in insurance slowed after the PPACA.

Also, you can thank Republican Marco Rubio for taking away some of the funding in a must pass budget bill in 2015. At the time, he boasted that higher rates would hit just before the 2016 election.

Now, Republican Donald Trump is deliberately "collapsing" the program without providing his "terrific" health plan that was going to cover everyone for less.

Keep down voting true facts.

I didn't down vote anything lol.

Amazing to me how you can blame republicans for a bit they all voted no on. Just amazing.

You can blame conservative state govts for sabotaging the exchanges and the Medicare expansion that would have kept poor, sick people off the exchanges and helped keep rates down.

We know man just blame everybody else for a shitty plan. Can't own anything right?

The plan wasn't great and could be improved. Or the Reps could make it worse. They chose to make it worse for political points.

NN is 3 years old, dummy. This is about repealing it, not enacting it.

Okay, in what ways? How do those ways relate to NN?

You are not going to get a reaction from this guy, as he is a T_D guy, that comes here every now and then to push shit from that subreddit. However I can probably tell you what he hates about it. He feels like conservatives are being censored because of NN, and he believes that freeing up the market will increase competition to Comcast. I cannot tell you how he thinks that scrapping NN will lead to less censoring or how prizes for internet will go up rapidly, because every single statistic ever points against either of these points.

In what ways has NN made the internet a shit show?

Censorship and shills.

Apart from the people on the internet tearing you apart, what has been a shit show? Its speed? What you can access? The price gouging? What is it?

Censorship and shills galore!

Interestingly late response.

Ron Paul states the obvious, "it means more government".

You're a fucking idiot if you measure the value of regulations in quantity.

Do you call anyone who disagrees with you antifa? Because I don't actually think antifa has a position on this matter to be completely honest. Their name kind of gives away their political position. They are anti-fascist, no more and no less.

Convenient. Means you can just attack the messenger and ignore the message.

Super great comeback dude.

You're off the deep end dude. I talked to you about all of this like a year ago and now it is coming to pass and you've squared that circle once again. Stay away from T_D.

I would actually rather call it the blindspot of liberatians. The ever continuing problem with monopolies. The idea that removing government regulations always creates more competition has been proven false so many times, and the answer to this problem has still not been found by libertarians.

Actually youre just saying the argument is false when it's not. You just stated the libertarian argument and declared it false on your own.

The conspiracy community was well aware net neurality was shit back when it was introduced. I guess we've either gone full retard or we're being astroturfed to death.

Ron Paul states the obvious, "it means more government".

totally unregulated free markets always, without fail, end up fucking over the average person.

some regulation of the markets is required, or it just slides back into some sort of neo-feudalism. the question is, how much regs do you want?

Ha! That is laughable. Can you show me any other thing in history besides the free market that has raised so many people out of poverty in such a short amount of time?

Everyone, rich and poor, had their quality of living raised by free market practices, but nice blanket statement you got there.

But Muh GREED! Corporations will always find a way to fuck up the product you're paying them for. Good thing the government is always on the side of the consumer!

Then don't buy from them. They can't sustain that kind of business practice without your money. I mean between your sincere comment and your sarcastic one you landed on the real issue, corporations paying to be protected by the government. But that doesn't mean anything about free market.

My whole comment was mocking the left.

without regulations on the free market, the world would still be stuck in the gilded age, where corporations treated their workers little better than slaves, the environment was being raped and destroyed with reckless abandonment, and consumers had no protection against scams, fraud, or faulty products.

You need to do more research. Those things were on the way out long before government stepped in. Government just jumped on the bandwagon.

i think you are the one that needs to do your research. organized labor, aka unions, led the fight against all those practices.

but the corps would literally just hire mercenaries to be "union busters" to straight up attack, intimidate, and even kill labor activists.

government protections were key to giving those unions the upper hand in that fight, and in lobbying the government for laws that would protect them.

Meat packing industry. Mmmm

totally unregulated free markets always, without fail, end up fucking over the average person.

[citation needed]

Look at your ISP bill.

Regional monopolies granted by state and city government are the root cause of ISPs' bad behavior. In areas where multiple ISPs compete, prices and service levels are much more reasonable.

I agree but wether a monopoly happens by competition or collusion the outcome is the same.

In a free system, if two companies collude to set prices higher or service levels lower, they leave themselves wide open to some new competitor offering lower prices or better service. Only when governments prevent competition (directly, like with ISP regional monopoly grants, or indirectly by subsidies, tarriffs, regulations, and other means) is that kind of collusion possible.

Until 5G gigabit wireless becomes standard there is no way for anyone new to enter the market. They can't just lay fiber wherever they want. Even with wireless tech there is limited bandwidth that must be purchased from the govt.

Free market infrastructure is impossible and to pretend it can be on principle is just ignoring reality.

“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world."

“But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation."

“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate."

“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy."

Here is current.

Here is fact sheet on future.

Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015. "Title II" is the second part of the Telecommunications Act of 1934. This is the same act that gives the FCC jurisdiction content control over TV and radio.

Meanwhile, the FTC are actual experts at this and kicking ass every day in every other industry except phone companies.

Soros is one of the hated good guys

No. Just no.