That was the claim perpetuated by Big Tech back in 2017 or so.
However Net Neutrality was already repealed and has been gone since Summer 2018. It's been almost 3 years and none of the doomsday predictions have happened.
My speculation is that Net Neutrality was being used by Big Tech to give themselves more power and unlimited bandwidth access at the expense of everyone else. But that's just my theory.
Oh Gotcha, well here's a quick breakdown from what I know:
Net Neutrality was an FCC regulation added to the internet in 2015. It required that all website traffic be treated equally, and that ISPs could not throttle bandwidth traffic from any one domain source. This includes giant streaming services like Netflix and Youtube.
Leftists and big tech corporations said that if it was repealed, the internet would become very restricted and would turn into some sort of subscription service with various packages (i.e. a social package would give you access to facebook & twitter, media package would give you Youtube and Vimeo, gaming package would give you access to steam) and that you would only be allowed to visit the websites for whatever packages you purchased. Keep in mind none of this was the case BEFORE net neutrality came into existence in 2015.
Anyone with common sense realized it was a ridiculous prediction, but if you spoke against you were deemed a shill for ISPs. It was later repealed and out of effect in 2018, and none of the big tech doomsday predictions involving various "internet bundle" packages came to existence. It was just more shilling from Big Tech to scare people into supporting it. Google, Reddit, Facebook, and others all shilled to support net neutrality, which is why I believe they would have been the key beneficiaries of keeping it in place. They would effectively not have to worry about the amount of data sent through ISPs because ISPs would be powerless to throttle them.
That's the best description of it I can give. Hope this is helpful
I remember the tax vote. I'm not sure she's who I'd pick but remember her district is in New York. The SALT changes were likely unpopular with her constituents who she represents. It's at least sorta understandable even tho I disagree. Net neutrality was total bullshit Noone should have supported. I think I remember her supporting it, tho I could be wrong.
Purity tests are important if you want to hold your leaders to a high standard.I don’t expect perfect leaders but I expect them to cover the basics of why they were voted.
Against net neutrality?
That was the right vote.
Wouldn’t ending net neutrality allow companies to slow down or block service to sites like this one or InfoWars?
That was the claim perpetuated by Big Tech back in 2017 or so.
However Net Neutrality was already repealed and has been gone since Summer 2018. It's been almost 3 years and none of the doomsday predictions have happened.
My speculation is that Net Neutrality was being used by Big Tech to give themselves more power and unlimited bandwidth access at the expense of everyone else. But that's just my theory.
I genuinely have no idea what net neutrality is still haha
This explains it in relatively lay terms: https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
Appreciate it
Oh Gotcha, well here's a quick breakdown from what I know:
Net Neutrality was an FCC regulation added to the internet in 2015. It required that all website traffic be treated equally, and that ISPs could not throttle bandwidth traffic from any one domain source. This includes giant streaming services like Netflix and Youtube.
Leftists and big tech corporations said that if it was repealed, the internet would become very restricted and would turn into some sort of subscription service with various packages (i.e. a social package would give you access to facebook & twitter, media package would give you Youtube and Vimeo, gaming package would give you access to steam) and that you would only be allowed to visit the websites for whatever packages you purchased. Keep in mind none of this was the case BEFORE net neutrality came into existence in 2015.
Anyone with common sense realized it was a ridiculous prediction, but if you spoke against you were deemed a shill for ISPs. It was later repealed and out of effect in 2018, and none of the big tech doomsday predictions involving various "internet bundle" packages came to existence. It was just more shilling from Big Tech to scare people into supporting it. Google, Reddit, Facebook, and others all shilled to support net neutrality, which is why I believe they would have been the key beneficiaries of keeping it in place. They would effectively not have to worry about the amount of data sent through ISPs because ISPs would be powerless to throttle them.
That's the best description of it I can give. Hope this is helpful
That was good! Thanks
Net Neutrality was an attempt by Netflix and other bandwidth hogs to destroy peering agreements.
Anyone with an IQ over 68 was against that net neutrality bullshit.
What is net neutrality?
Ever used a search engine before?
net neutrality kills the internet even more
Net neutrality is a win for big tech it's a liberal low information talking point
I'm going to hold my breath until they nominate tulsi gabbard or alyssa milano...
Tulsi way better than Liz!!!
They both voted for impeachment.
Swamp vs swamp
nah.
Ok warmonger
Salty warmongers down vote Why do they hate America?
Fuck this college aged idiot.
Turned on Trump with Ann Coulter claiming the wall wasn't being built.
Do any of y'all even pay attention?
I remember the tax vote. I'm not sure she's who I'd pick but remember her district is in New York. The SALT changes were likely unpopular with her constituents who she represents. It's at least sorta understandable even tho I disagree. Net neutrality was total bullshit Noone should have supported. I think I remember her supporting it, tho I could be wrong.
If you start holding purity tests, it won't be long before nobody can make your standard.
Purity tests are important if you want to hold your leaders to a high standard.I don’t expect perfect leaders but I expect them to cover the basics of why they were voted.