Trump Repeals Net Neutrality, Putting the Internet at the Mercy of Corporations

38
363


On February 26, 2015, President Obama passed one of the most progressive pieces of internet legislation in cyber history regarding Net Neutrality, delighting informed progressives and tech-savvy spectacle-wearing internet users who read wired magazine and buzzfeed. Net Neutrality was all about fighting telecommunications companies like Verizon who might try to block, slow down or throttle traffic to specific websites, based on their size and popularity, forcing them to treat every website equally. The act also cleverly allowed the internet to be regulated by the FCC, who can be trusted to be fair and not censor anything that doesn’t deserve to be censored, unlike corporations, who can’t be trusted because they only care about money and power. Yesterday, however, Trump repealed these amazing regulations, handing CORPORATIONS total power to choose which services they provide to their customers and reducing the FCC’s power to regulate the internet!

The entire accredited media is up in arms over this corporate power grab, including CNN, the Guardian, the New York Times and the Huffington Post. Very rarely do ALL accredited media outlets express the same view in unison, so we know this must be a really bad thing! The variety of progressive news outlets and grass roots progressive campaigns with scary red backgrounds popping up on progressive sites like Wikipedia has created a tidal wave of progressive support for net neutrality from people who DON’T LIKE STINKIN’ CORPORATIONS OK??

The Verizon shill behind this decision, Ajit Pai, is Trump’s fascist FCC chairman. When Obama was about to pass Net Neutrality in 2015, Ajit said that:

“President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

A total lie! Look at this “libertarian” shill explain to corporate apologists “reason TV” that handing over total power to CORPORATIONS to manage the internet is s good idea:

Wrong, wrong, wrong Ajit! We can’t trust corporations to be fair! “FAIRNESS” is a GOOD WORD, “NEUTRALITY” is a GOOD WORD, and “CORPORATION“is a BAD WORD! We CAN, however, trust the FCC to be totally fair and not start licensing people to have websites and servers, or censor things their special interests don’t like. We should give them total power, just like we gave the government power over healthcare with Obamacare and over retirement planning with social security – both great successes! In each case, we complained about corporations, and the public agreed with us, but now we have a FASCIST administration who doesn’t even care about hundreds of warnings about ending net neutrality with RED BACKGROUNDS!

Get informed, and stay vigilant, because the internet is under attack. We need the mask-wearing hackers, Anonymous, to save us from these telecommunications companies and put us back under the control of the FCC, where we can be safe and protected. Without this law, we will be forced to go back to the way the internet was in early 2015! Can you imagine what a disaster that will be?? Make your voice heard, and let Trump know that you don’t support corporations and you want to be regulated by the FCC! So all together now, let’s chant: Set us free! FCC! Give us net neutrality!

Pbier

The Huffington Post headline says it all for me: “How Net Neutrality Repeal Could Silence Women And People Of Color.”

On the other hand, I am a born optimist and have come to understand it is actually extermely difficult to silence womyn when they want to be heard.

Black Lives Matter

WE NEED TO HIT THE STREETS! IMPEACH TRUMP!

trav777

I, for one, am totally confused.

I thought net neutrality was about allowing huge corporations like Google (Youtube) and Facebook and Amazon to have a free ride for pushing tons of content across the fiber backhaul.

I also thought that these companies, through their subsidiaries, were at the FOREFRONT of actually censoring content. I’ve heard of not one instance of a bankhaul provider like Comcast ever having censored anything, yet Cloudflare stood up and opposed net neutrality on the basis that companies like it and Google, major corporations, were able to censor internet content (such as DailyStormer) at will and that this situation was wrong. I also thought that the major corporations that were the beneficiaries of net neutrality (like a subsidy) were substantially larger and more influential than the much smaller corporations that provide the actual line capability.

In addition, I seem to have to pay more as a consumer for faster access, so I was totally confused by the people who claimed that “the rich” would have faster internet. I would certainly like it if Verizon would give me 300mbps for free but I can only afford 75. AND I have to pay for it. I don’t know where the free internet the net neutrality defenders speak of is, but I clearly am being oppressed by not having access to it.

I thought all these things and then I read that headline that people of color would be silenced and I forgot ALL of those things and just checked my privilege as a progressive and went along with the crowd!

Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat

The repeal of net neutrality if a travesty. Without net neutrality, Internet consumers will be FORCED to choose what they can access and will be required to pay more if they choose to access the Accredited Times. My head is going to explode with rage.

How does unregulated Internet access work in other countries? Certainly they are rioting in Kenya because of an unregulated Internet, yes?

trav777

I prefer having progressive vanguards like facebook determine what I can and should see on the internet!

What is this world coming to when google does not get to decide what my search results should be?!?!

TedCruz
TedCruz

“In Gov We Trust.” NOT.

Net neutrality is a euphamism, you pinkos. Or maybe a strawman. Did the Kenyan steal the internet via his Agency goose steppers? Not exactly, but FCC can’t usurp Congress, except in Kenya.

Bureaucrat
Bureaucrat

Net neutrality is freedom for all individuals and companies operating on the Internet. The word “neutral” also indicates that this is not a partisan agenda. Without net neutrality, the Trump administration will force corporations to silence progressive voices.

Black Lives Matter

It’s very simple. The words “government,” “corporation,” “business,” “union,” and “non-profit organization” all refer to groups of people, but PROGRESSIVE groups of people are good while NON-PROGRESSIVE groups of people are greedy and just want money. “Corporations” and “businesses” are bad. In contrast, “governments,” “unions,” and “non-profit organizations” are good, except for explicitly non-progressive non-profits, which are really not non-profits at all, as the IRS demonstrated under Obama.

The reason why corporations and businesses are bad is that they are motivated by greed for money. Corporations all seek monopolistic power over everyone to extract more money out of people. Although unions and governments also seek monopolistic power, they are clearly not greedy. Non-profit organizations like universities are also clearly not money-focused and instead teach students for reasonable tuition rates with professors and administrators barely scraping by on measly six- or seven-figure salaries. As a result, when George W. Bush gave no-bid monopoly contracts to Halliburton, that was bad, but when Democrats give no-bid monopoly contracts to unions, government organizations like the Fed, universities, or Robert Mueller, that is good.

Also, unions and democratic governments are controlled directly by WORKERS. Publicly traded corporations are also ultimately owned by shareholders, which consist almost entirely of would-be retirees (workers) and actual retirees (former workers), but a big difference is that unions and democratic governments are directly controlled by the workers. Of course, corporations could also be controlled directly by workers themselves given that they indirectly have the vast majority of shares, but we as progressive know that that would be a bad idea. As progressives, we need paternalistic governmental entities, like Democrat-controlled public unions via pension funds and banker-controlled financial institutions via 401(k) funds, to control worker savings. Also, as the Enron example illustrated, diversification of ownership interest is critical so that if a company goes under, its employees do not lose too much money. So diversification/competition is good as long as we call something a corporation but bad when we call something a government or a union.

If any of this is confusing, the main point is that TRUMP IS A RACIST.

Yuso Dum
Yuso Dum

Reporting from local Tea House in Kaesong

WOW I never realized how lucky we are here in NK. The Government has total control of our Internet.
Big news today is diversity on Kim’s regime. Discovered one of his staff is not Korean.
Televised lynching at 3p today.

Black Lives Matter

North Korea is making so many strides in diversity! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single white male there — that’s what I call progress.

Make my votes count
Make my votes count

OMG. I hope AT has a backup plan on how they will continue to operate in this new restrictive environment.
I can’t imagine not being able to access AT or cat videos.
How many more people have to Die before steps are taken to impeach Trump.

#accredited-times-pick

Make my votes count
Make my votes count

There has been a serious error. Anderson Coopers assistant sent out a post that should have been under my user name and for some reason it was posted under Yuso’s. Can this be fixed by an administrator?
As you know I am a big supporter of her and am working on getting her an Iphone 10 so she can tweet her cause.

Black Lives Matter

Fixed. That assistant needs to be FIRED. My assistant Shawntay has a sister in case your interested . . .

drb6

I am confused. Ajit Pai is not a FUCKING WHITE MALE!!! wtf????

Black Lives Matter

He looks like a white male to me. One ugly angry white male.

trav777

Like George Zimmerman, or any jew, when he does something objectionable to progressives he operates in his white context even if he is not apparently white nor has ever self-identified as white.

You see identity like gender is SELF described, but something like race which does not exist is only self-defined if you are doing something non-objectionable to progressives. If it is objectionable, you are WHITE plain and simple.

For example, had Obama robbed a liquor store or sexually harassed a womyn or misgendered a transsexual, he would have been a white black man.

drb6

I agree, but in case of St Obama the liquor store or womyn must have been asking for it – St. Obama can do no harm! Never!

wpDiscuz