Are conservatives actually against net neutrality?

I think often times politicians push policies and agendas that do not resonate with their voting base.
However in the next few weeks, Trump appointees are aiming to dismantle the current flow of the internet by allowing companies
to collect and sell data obtained through private use; deny or limit which sites you can visit, and even offer a multi tiered internet system.
Eventually it may get to a point where you are forced to use certain browsers or buy products through certain funnels. Even farther down the line you may be charged a minute to minute rate for something that is very cheap and unobstructed now.

I made this thread because earlier I crashed the live Alex Jones youtube feed and tried to warm people of what is happening. Instead of being supportive, I was insulted repeatedly and people were more interested in typing insults with the words Hillary or Obama in them. By the end at least 60 people engaged in insulting me in the most base partisan way, and were seemingly clueless or unconcerned about the future of the internet. The gave me the impression that the alt right crowd is more interested in keeping up appearances than really policing the bad things the government does. It was kind of depressing because these are the same people who claim to be against big government and NWO, however the group over the at Infowars seems to be complicit in killing the free internet. The few people who bothered to get a cogent response rattled on about corporations being businesses that are allowed to practice business how they please, however such an answer seems to be a full on assault to the notions of freedom and populism.

As my first thread I want to determine why anyone who claims they are for freedom or small government would advocate for private companies
turning their business whims into law? These companies and the president virtually install a puppet into power and he proceeds to create laws that
will reduce freedom of speech, internet access, freedom to explore the internet and freedom to transact business with whomever you'd like. To me this kind of running is a prime example of BIG GOVERNMENT, CRONY CAPITALISM, CORRUPTION and massive break with the public interest.

Do any of the resident conservatives here really think this is a good idea, or is this a case where you are too afraid to oppose Trump because you are afraid it might tarnish "conservative" appearances?

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I don't see how this policy benefits the people and it doesn't contribute to a more free society so I am highly opposed to what is going on in DC regarding net neutrality.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I could see conservs being for this if the internet doesn't meet their message, and it doesn't and it does.

Also if there is a buck to be made, buy browsers and the such, then conserv (and libs) will be for it because they will be lobbied to like it.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

If they are they are making a huge mistake.
We all know that the most of the media is ether liberal or leans to the left. That means the telecom companies are the same.
And if they decide bandwidth speeds who do you think will be the first to suffer if not breitbart and those like it.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I don't see how this policy benefits the people and it doesn't contribute to a more free society so I am highly opposed to what is going on in DC regarding net neutrality.

Thank you. I am too, I wish all of us could find a common ground on this issue and send a clear message. I do however think in this case Trump needs to hear from his people and that is why I feel disconcerted. IMO he and his people expect liberal opposition for everything, however they might listen if his voters spoke up.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I could see conservs being for this if the internet doesn't meet their message, and it doesn't and it does.

Also if there is a buck to be made, buy browsers and the such, then conserv (and libs) will be for it because they will be lobbied to like it.

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

Alternatively, I would strongly support true Net Neutrality, where NO ONE can censor anything....and before you go off screaming about potential misuse of such freedom, please remind yourself that there already are laws on the books to deal with this, such as laws against libel, laws against making death threats, etc.

There should not be any laws against "getting offended".

Grow up.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

If they are they are making a huge mistake.
We all know that the most of the media is ether liberal or leans to the left. That means the telecom companies are the same.
And if they decide bandwidth speeds who do you think will be the first to suffer if not breitbart and those like it.

I made this exact point on the Infowars live feed but all I got in return is that I am a cuck and "soy boy". I really think those guys at infowars are there to screw up our political system... In the end this policy can be highjacked and there may be a limit on what you can and cannot say. If that happened I can hear the libertarians say "your on their site, deal with it or make some smoke signals and communicate a different way".

Can anybody for or against whatever the issue is post up the actual proposal?

And maybe a side-by-side comparison of what ever the issues/changes will be.

Yeah. They don't seem to realize sites like ATS won't be part of their "budget internet xtreme" package.

The internet should be handled like a utility. Data should be metered like kilowatts of electricity and cubic feet of gas or gallons of water. The internet is such a critical part of an advanced industrial nation's economy and security that it shouldn't be hijacked and held hostage by corporations.

The next thing you know they'll claim libraries should be private too, and only people who buy passes should have access to books.

Look, if you want to live in a 3rd world *&^% hole, overrun by corrupt oligarchies and cronyism -- move to Russia.

I don't think this is an area conservatives have much sway in.

The last time this was a big issue conservatives crapped on it just because the Obama administration was for NN.

Sorry but the idea that ISPs can just limit my access to the internet and then sell me small chunks of it for a subscription fee is tyrannical and antithetical to the free exchange of information. This is corporations trying to wrest control of the internet and concentrate it in the hands of a few gatekeepers. Conservatives during the Obama admin called this "capitalism".

Imagine that.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

You seem to be the kind of person I encountered earlier... What doesn't make any sense about your statement is that the nuance in your position then allows the people who transmit the data to sensor anything they would like. It is very much like double speak because not only will Google, Facebook and others have the ability to censor information through the nature of their business, but you seem to be ok with adding room for yet another layer of censorship for the people who "give you access" to the net itself.

And no, you are not better off with no regulations, again double speak because the companies will then become the regulators of speech and the transmission of communications. Under this new scheme companies can then decrypt your data, sell what you say and do on Facebook and Google, and control even more of your online activities...

You logic is mired in some sort of myopia as you are really advocating for compounding the things you don't like about Obama's policies.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

This.

For me to support Net Neutrality, I need to be sure that it not only keeps the internet open, but also has safeguards in place that prevents one administration or another from changing it to suit "their side".

If this cannot be achieved then there is no reason for it

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

I just don't see how a single person besides a shareholder gets anything out of this deal. I mean it really sucks, you might wanna go to Amazon but your browser supports eBay... I think this is the genie that cannot be put back

If it worked out that way, there would be a massive push back and it would change real fast. Millions of people use both Amazon and ebay, those same shareholders will worry about that bottom line. Not only that, you'd cut your own ad revenue in half doing that.

I'm telling you guys...

Independent sites like ATS would disappear.

a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Yes you fools.

100% Totally against it.

Here is why. Net Neutrality Is Not What You Think It Is !!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The whole purpose of "internet legislation" is to PREVENT you from having the choice because they will regulate ALL of the providers into the same system of THEIR choosing. And by "they" I mean the BIG political lobbyist. The Big Telcos have hired an army of lobbyist which include 18 former members of congress to lobby for their "NEW" Net Neutrality laws that "They" get to write. BAIT & SWITCH and the uninformed will buy into it hook, line, and sinker and "support" it because they are unaware of what has happened.

www.techdirt.com...

As much as we believe in the importance of a neutral network, we've pointed out over and over again that the last thing people should want is for specific net neutrality rules to be written by the government. For a while now, we've warned that once the lobbyists took over, people supporting net neutrality wouldn't like the results. And, of course, everything has been playing out following just that script.

The telcos hired a ton of high-power lobbyists to cover net neutrality, including eighteen former members of Congress. And, despite arguing for years that net neutrality was evil, the telcos "miraculously" admitted last month they "might agree" to regulations... just as long as they got to write the details Given that, there was a lot of outrage last month for a series of secret meetings between telco/cable execs and the FCC.

You would think that, given the public beating the FCC got over those meetings it would know better than to hold more. No such luck. Apparently they're right back at it. As important as the concept of a neutral network might be, what comes out of this sausage making process is going to favor the very companies net neutrality regulations are supposed to keep in line.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: M5xaz

Obama was a tool . however no such thing as obamas version of net neutrality. that is pure political brainwashing by the right to demonize net neutrality principles.

originally posted by: Truthturtlehead

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Truthturtlehead

Conservatives oppose Obama's version of net neutrality, which gives the FCC the power to regulate the Internet like "common carriers", with exceptions made for Google, Facebook and others.

In essence, it gives Google for example the ability to censor what they don't like ( such as is already happening with youtube videos) while forcing carriers like AT&T to carry that censored traffic.

By definition then, you are better off with NO regulation than regulations which benefit one side.

You seem to be the kind of person I encountered earlier... What doesn't make any sense about your statement is that the nuance in your position then allows the people who transmit the data to sensor anything they would like. It is very much like double speak because not only will Google, Facebook and others have the ability to censor information through the nature of their business, but you seem to be ok with adding room for yet another layer of censorship for the people who "give you access" to the net itself.

And no, you are not better off with no regulations, again double speak because the companies will then become the regulators of speech and the transmission of communications. Under this new scheme companies can then decrypt your data, sell what you say and do on Facebook and Google, and control even more of your online activities...

You logic is mired in some sort of myopia as you are really advocating for compounding the things you don't like about Obama's policies.

Nope.

If you read again what I posted above, I would strongly support a Net Neutrality where NO ONE can censor anything.

If on the other hand, the current Obama-esque Net Neutrality ends, if I am a Mom and Pop ISP, I could decide not to carry YouTube videos anymore as a protest until Google stops censorship. If enough ISPs join in, Google censorship would end.

Obviously, doing that might not be good for business and my customers might leave me because of it but that is MY choice.

Freedom.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Can anybody for or against whatever the issue is post up the actual proposal?

And maybe a side-by-side comparison of what ever the issues/changes will be.

No, because in true lobbyist fashion, the new regulatory head does not want to tip his hand. It is not a good sign that
he worked for the telecoms trying to dismantle Net Neutrality. He litigated in the past that ISP should have the right to mine and sell data and slow the speeds users experience if the company sees fit. This amounts to letting ISPs manipulate load times and suggest alternative sites that they partner with to capture revenue.

It's basically the end of the internet we know here

originally posted by: projectvxn
I don't think this is an area conservatives have much sway in.

The last time this was a big issue conservatives crapped on it just because the Obama administration was for NN.

Sorry but the idea that ISPs can just limit my access to the internet and then sell me small chunks of it for a subscription fee is tyrannical and antithetical to the free exchange of information. This is corporations trying to wrest control of the internet and concentrate it in the hands of a few gatekeepers. Conservatives during the Obama admin called this "capitalism".

Imagine that.

I think you guys really need to make yourselves heard, just like lobbyists they care if you are all pissed enough

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: M5xaz

Obama was a tool . however no such thing as obamas version of net neutrality. that is pure political brainwashing by the right to demonize net neutrality principles.

And another thing...these conservatives better watch all the porn/adult content they can NOW if they really want this to pass.

If they get their way, access to adult-themed websites would be treated like the Playboy channel or adult pay-per-view movies on cable TV.

Yo wife is gonna know you're watching porn ... because you have to "subscribe" to it!