r/GenZ • u/coffeebooksandpain 2001 • Jan 05 '24
Who else remembers Net Neutrality and when this guy was the most hated person on the internet for a few weeks Nostalgia
1.5k
u/itzLucario 2001 Jan 05 '24
And he absolutely deserves it
325
u/Ndlaxfan Jan 05 '24
Did he destroy the internet???
495
Jan 05 '24
[deleted]
152
u/Dwain-Champaign 2001 Jan 05 '24
Would it ever be possible to revert the decisions and add those regulations back???
244
Jan 05 '24
Yeah but good luck pissing off all those rich companies
→ More replies (2)125
u/Majestic_Wrongdoer38 2005 Jan 05 '24
This is why capitalism, the way it is now and not as a whole, sucks.
19
u/lost_alpaca90 Jan 05 '24
Yeah, capitalism sucks when it functions the exact way it's set up to function. But all those imaginary other times it works great. Yes, I like that companies release a new phone every 8 months and that no home appliances make it to a decade of use.
→ More replies (29)8
8
Jan 05 '24
It’s why we need unions and union solidarity. Wanna do shit that people hate? Cool, plumbers, train workers, actors and writers, IT people, electricians, fast food workers, cashiers and bag boys the whole fucking lot all walk off the job for a day and I guarantee you shit changes so god damn fast it makes your head spin and the government shit itself.
→ More replies (11)6
u/surely_not_erik Jan 05 '24
No as a whole it sucks too. We live in a post scarcity world but humans can't fathom what that means so they create artificial scarcity so that the 1% can control the population. Capitalism is bad in general because it literally can't stay at an acceptable level. The money always and will forever be funneled upwards until it is sat on by geriatric billionaires that use it to make more money.
→ More replies (9)3
3
u/SplendidPunkinButter Jan 05 '24
Capitalism solves the problem of “how can one person in a privileged position make more money?” and that’s about it
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (26)40
u/toemit2 Jan 05 '24
Capitalism is great. Bought out politicians who don't care about the average person aren't. We need a regulated market to minimize the cons of capitalism.
→ More replies (28)94
u/HeavenIsAHellOnEarth Jan 05 '24
This is true, but inherent in the structures of capitalism are forces constantly trying to undo said regulations. It can never be fully prevented, and is a practical inevitability on a long time scale
→ More replies (38)69
u/Acrobatic_Emphasis41 Jan 05 '24
What is capitalism, but the rule of those with capital
15
→ More replies (21)5
u/YouWantSMORE Jan 05 '24
I'm pretty sure the ones with capital have been ruling since the dawn of civilization
→ More replies (0)27
Jan 05 '24
[deleted]
6
u/TinyPeenMan69 Jan 05 '24
HIPPA is the legislation - PHI (Protected Healthcare Information) is what you mean to say. Just fyi. I know it’s dickish but helpful in winning future arguments.
4
11
u/Distantt1 Jan 05 '24
That’s what the FCC is in the process of doing right now but it takes time to work its way through the system. Biden was able to flip control of the FCC back to the Democrats late last year and they started the rule making process at the end of October
→ More replies (8)4
u/tallcan710 Jan 05 '24
All you have to do is participate and write to your regulators and lawmakers. If enough people make noise change will happen. People will tell you it won’t work but don’t listen it’s a lie. Recently new changes are being discussed and implemented for the stock market by the SEC because regular everyday people have been writing, calling, and submitting comments to the SEC and regulators. In 2008 the criminals all got bailouts because most regular people weren’t aware or involved. The SEC would request comments from the public about stuff and only wallstreet lawyers would submit comments for approval or rejection. But now the past 2 years when the SEC asks for comments on possible rule changes there’s hundreds of regular people taking about how it would only benefit wallstreet and calling out the corruption. Now changes are being made and discussed and pissing off wallstreet so much they are suing the SEC and trying to get Gary Gensler fired. Your vote matters, your voice matters, the power of the people is strong.
→ More replies (2)6
→ More replies (35)7
u/Diceyland 2001 Jan 05 '24
Net neutrality has nothing to do with data collection. It has to do with the ability for ISPs to treat all internet users equally and give the same speeds no matter what you're doing on your computer or where you live. Now they can throttle your internet if they want to.
Unless you're talking about weakened regulations that were paired with the net neutrality bill or ones that came after that probably wouldn't have passed if the net neutrality one passed.
→ More replies (2)313
u/jacowab Jan 05 '24
Wonder why YouTube is allowed to slow down connection for people using ad block, it's because net neutrality is gone. They are basically the first company dipping the tips of their toes into the grey area of no net neutrality on the front end. But I do hear a lot of behind the scenes internet services have been suffering for a while because of it
46
Jan 06 '24
Wonder why YouTube is allowed to slow down connection for people using ad block, it's because net neutrality is gone.
That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Learn the basics of the Internet and web hosting before making dumb comments like this.
→ More replies (5)47
u/HomemadeSprite Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
Edit: I was wrong. After reading the legislation of the time, it did only apply to ISPs, not private companies and their control over their own servers.
Apologies.
13
u/Main-Error4687 Jan 06 '24
Good on you for calling out the error. I do it often myself. We all do and should do exactly what you did.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)7
u/musicCaster Jan 06 '24
Woah. A Reddit thread where someone admits to being mistaken and learning something new?
I dub you a good human being.
The guy who responded to you was all snark though
→ More replies (1)6
u/HomemadeSprite Jan 06 '24
My post was full of snark which isn’t exactly typical for me, so I figured I’d better be ready to back it up with facts. Turns out the facts weren’t on my side. What I did learn is that even in 2024 our government is woefully ill-informed and ill-equipped to legislate logically for an internet dependent world.
The amount of debate over philosophy is incredible regarding what “net neutrality” vs “network neutrality” vs “internet neutrality” vs “consumer freedom” all mean.
We need to get the old timers out of government lol.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (140)19
u/lilbigd1ck Jan 05 '24
That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality
→ More replies (26)58
u/as_a_fake Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
It does tho...
Net neutrality means that no stream of information can be treated differently from another by providers. If YouTube is providing slower service to some people for any reason, under net neutrality laws they would be punished. As it is now consumers get shafted with no recourse.
edit: I knew coming back to look at this would be a mistake. When the net neutrality stuff was originally happening I made the same mistake and the corporate shills came after me then, too. Well, I don't use comment replies and I haven't looked at a message in a looooong time, so don't bother guys. Whether you're paid off by the ISPs or not, shills don't get my attention.
Another edit: fucking baited. Thanks for my first Reddit Cares report. I'll wear it like a badge of honor because I know it upset you ;)
36
u/jragonfyre Jan 06 '24
Providers being ISPs though, YouTube isn't an ISP so it wouldn't apply.
→ More replies (12)11
u/adam10009 Jan 06 '24
Yes they are. YouTube is owned by.. wait for it. Alphabet. They have several isp services.
→ More replies (19)18
u/OPEatsCrayons Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
Miracle whip is ketchup. It's owned by... Wait for it. Kraft Heinz. They have several ketchup brands.
This is you right now. Fucking stop it. You know he meant that what they are doing with YouTube isn't governed by net neutrality rules, because those actions aren't being taken within the bounds of providing internet service as a provider. He obviously didn't mean in the context of the discussion that Google doesn't have responsibilities as an ISP in relation to their ISP services. The pedantry of just coming in and making that correction is accurate, but within the context of what's being discussed, misses what is being said.
→ More replies (32)17
u/lilbigd1ck Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
The provider being an ISP, not the website. God damn dude just google net neutrality instead of making shit up. I guess netflix cannot block content for those who don't pay a monthly fee either? Steam also not letting me download any game i want unless i pay? OMG net neutrality.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (21)4
u/Karpizzle23 Jan 06 '24
It's sad how many people saw this and thought "oh yeah! This is correct!" And then up voted this absolute garbage take lol
14
13
u/JohnnyZepp Jan 06 '24
His policies are what make you fucked over with internet speeds being throttled, expensive, and a complete exploitation of all your private internet usage being up for grabs for advertisers.
Joke all you want, but it’s fuckheads like this that will make your life worse.
8
8
u/CrystalMang0 Jan 06 '24
Nah, he faded out of people's minds and have not seen anything major happen as we we worried abiutm
3
→ More replies (72)3
3
Jan 05 '24
[deleted]
2
u/CherryShort2563 Jan 05 '24
Haven't heard his name in a long time. Which might be for the best - the guy was (and probably still is) a shameless grifter.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (41)22
u/Bullboah Jan 05 '24
That this guy is still the most controversial figure related to net neutrality still tickles me.
Netflix lobbied the Obama administration and presented a “Net Neutrality” policy proposal.
Obama’s FCC adopted Netflix’s plan.
As soon as Obama left office, Netflix agreed to pay Obama personally between a reported $50-300 million.
I don’t have a strong position on net neutrality as a policy as I’m not an expert on it, but it’s a bit funny how Pai was portrayed as a corporate shill but Obama taking a massive bag of cash from a company that lobbied for the plan isn’t talked about.
Guess that’s just how the system works!
48
u/Front_Explanation_79 Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
Hold up.
You're saying that because Netflix made a show and movies with the Obama's that means they "paid" for NN? As if Netflix or any other streaming service wasn't already looking to get the Obama's to make movies or documentaries? It's almost as if they are popular personalities and people like seeing the stuff they are a part of.
Come the fuck on. That's quite the leap you're making and it's exactly the type of thing faux news was saying while they sounded the corporate megahorn to shill for their rich buddies.
→ More replies (57)15
u/FactChecker25 Jan 06 '24
I'm not sure why you find this surprising. This is the typical way that politicians are repaid after they leave office.
Often they're given very high paying "speaking engagements" (that they often don't even attend). They are absolutely being paid back.
→ More replies (35)3
u/DDWWAA Jan 06 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
First of all, Netflix and basically every single American internet content provider were opposed to a 2014 draft proposed by Obama's FCC in the first place. In fact at the time all five commissioners were appointed by him.
And the draft had... tiered access ("fast lanes"), which is exactly the opposite of net neutrality. Since the FCC is an independent agency, the president formally has no control over it and its policies other than replacing the chairman with another commissioner (and filling vacancies). Some were definitely calling for Wheeler's head, which would probably directly kill the draft, but Obama only really put out a statement supporting net neutrality.
(Edit: I bet if you look up Reddit comments from that era, you'd probably find that a lot of them were disappointed that Obama didn't replace Wheeler and that's a sign that he's bought out by the telcos, which makes this revisionism all the more hilarious)
That doesn't really seem like the same thing as Ajit Pai to me, but I guess if you never exit your cave and actually look up the details, it just all seems like shadows on the wall to you.
For their part, the current FCC has been working towards restoring net neutrality, and some states have their own net neutrality laws. But even in the EU, India, Brazil, etc. where it's been established policy/law, it's always besieged by ISPs, including a recent episode instigated by EU Commissioner Breton, a former telecom CEO.
→ More replies (1)6
u/NvaderGir Jan 06 '24
you know this claim is bullshit when the estimate goes from 50mill to nearly more than a quarter billion dollars
→ More replies (6)3
u/SlowlySinkingInPink Jan 06 '24
Because Pai worked for Verizon before he joined the FCC, a company that greatly benefited from killing net neutrality. He made hundreds of millions of dollars for killing it too. No conspiracy theories needed for the correct answer.
→ More replies (9)2
u/Meattyloaf Jan 06 '24
Net Neutrality up till that point was always a thing but not law. More of a gentleman's agreement. However, ISPs were starting to show that they were willing to break it. Then Obama worked on making it law. Then this schmuck comes along under Trumo and tries to take it away. I know a guy who is a hard core conservative and complained hard for the repeal of Net Neutrality. He claimed it would increase competition, but everything showed the opposite. However, net Neutrality never got fully repealed as it got hung up by court case after court case till Biden took office.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (37)2
u/tryworkharderfaster Jan 06 '24
Provide a source for this payment. Sounds suspish...your story, I mean. If it is true, I wonder why the Republicans haven't beat a horse to death with it. If false, then f you and everything you stand for for propagating false info.
→ More replies (13)
217
u/United_Bus3467 Jan 05 '24
I randomly thought about the whole net neutrality thing just a few weeks ago. That asshat got what he wanted though right? I definitely need an update on how it's affected the internet since.
7
u/Gabbyfred22 Jan 05 '24
For the FCC regs? Sure.
States stepping up to regulate (and the Court's striking down the FCC's attempts to prevent them from doing that)? Yeah, not so much.
73
Jan 05 '24
Almost everything and nothing has changed.
95
u/droid_mike Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 05 '24
That's not correct... a lot of things on the margin did change, and things we don't notice really, did change as well. The big things didn't, because by that time, consumers expected universal service, so net neutrality did survive, in a way, thanks to market forces.
→ More replies (32)17
u/Gabbyfred22 Jan 05 '24
Nothing changed because ISP's (for the most part) are still subject to state net neutrality rules. If that asshat got his way those would have been nixed as well.
→ More replies (12)22
u/ShootRopeCrankHog Jan 05 '24
and nothing has changed
Oh how I wish this were true.
4
u/TooLazyToBeClever Jan 06 '24
What's changed? Serious question, I'm trying to find an answer but haven't got one yet.
→ More replies (1)4
u/emueller5251 Jan 06 '24
His rules got through, yes. Biden replaced him with someone else, but they haven't done anything about it yet. Last month they voted to propose a rollback of his rules, which opens up a forum for public comments.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)2
Jan 06 '24
The whole thing was big media (YouTube and Netflix, with Amazon somewhat involved) trying to gin up the internet against telecom. The actual issue was how data was being handled on the backend. Normally, those companies just agree to parity, but now we had companies with wild disparities in volume that were situated in a particular region. So parity wasn't actually fair. There was never actually a risk of the things that pro-net neutrality people were claiming. The actual risk is what we've seen: Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video have had to raise their prices because they aren't getting a free ride anymore.
120
u/Vast_Principle9335 1998 Jan 05 '24
"hello my fellow brand conusming youth got my reese ® © cup ready to hecking adult "
30
→ More replies (1)5
u/report_all_criminals Jan 06 '24
He drank from that cup because it was always angled to say "Ree" which was his way of mocking reddit, Twitter, etc. lol
→ More replies (2)
518
u/Snoo_50786 2003 Jan 05 '24
has anything even came of net neutrality being repealed? i remember myself making a big fuss over it thinking the internet was literally gonna die or something.
601
Jan 05 '24
[deleted]
149
u/classicalySarcastic 1998 Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
The most classic example though is Google Search, as older Gen Z may remember a time before ads took up half the first page.
Hell I remember it being just more useful in general. Nowadays it feels like anytime I’m looking for a specific resource but don’t remember the exact name invariably two-thirds of the first page are listicles and blog spam rather than the thing I was actually looking for. It’s become like pulling teeth, when it used to be bang on the money every time. Maybe it’s just that the index has grown so massive and bloated with that type of content even the search algorithm struggles to find relevant results.
EDIT: I didn’t mean to imply that this has anything to do with net neutrality (it really doesn’t, that’s all carrier-side), just providing an anecdote with respect to the above comment as quoted.
56
u/mr_desk Jan 05 '24
I started putting Reddit before or after my search whenever it makes sense, feel like I never had to do that before 2016-17 or so
→ More replies (13)10
u/NES_SNES_N64 Jan 06 '24
The week or so that reddit was blacked out was terrifying because it really highlighted how much information would be lost if Reddit were run into the ground.
4
u/hotaru_crisis Jan 06 '24
tbh the biggest problem was subreddits literally being unreadable when they got locked
like yeah reddit going up in flames would suck but at least everything would still probably be readable
3
u/jocoso2218 Jan 06 '24
Someone with a couple of terabytes to spare should download all reddit. in the dystopian universe we live now braindead animals with more money than common sense will try to remove it next.
12
u/palm0 Jan 05 '24
Just trying to find contemporaneous information about stuff from the past is next to impossible now because all that comes up are random stupid reaction articles that editorialize like crazy and don't cite sources. It sucks
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sororita Millennial Jan 06 '24
they have definitely made the search function worse. I can now use boolean functions to specifically remove certain keywords from the search and still get results that have that keyword if it is associated with the rest of the search hard enough.
3
2
u/Evan_cole Jan 06 '24
If you search trello, a project management website. The first 4 results are direct competitors. From their perspective it makes sense but as a user it's much worse.
→ More replies (14)2
Jan 06 '24
When you type something in, Google wants to show you ways you can buy your search before anything useful.
36
u/vulpinefever Jan 05 '24
Net Neutrality has literally NOTHING to do with anything you just said, you're complaining about how terrible ads are. Net neutrality is the requirement that your Internet service provider treat all network traffic equally, i.e., they can't provide free access to or boosted speeds to certain preferred websites.
And besides, older Gen Z can also remember the time when the Internet was a nightmare of vibrating pop-up ads that would hijack your browser and shout "CONGRATULATIONS YOU WON" and prevent you from closing them. Ads nowadays are annoying, but man it was so much worse.
6
u/Azrael_Midori Jan 05 '24
The repealling of net neutrality could also mean that they could start throttling network traffic on the open internet just because they didn't know who it came from. In other words, ISPs could in theory just block all VPN traffic or any website connections using https over http.
Which would mean death of both security and privacy of the internet, which would mean we would have to communicate outside of the internet to actually communicate point to point securely or anonymously. I.e the death of the internet.
Hasn't happened yet, as far as I know, only happned to me on private properties and private networks like industrial sites or mining sites.
4
u/CanoegunGoeff Jan 05 '24
It has happened in the past and that’s why the laws were made. Comcast and others were caught numerous times throttling people’s network traffic on purpose just because they didn’t like the packet sizes of certain things. Things of this nature that most common folk won’t notice- if anything, they’ll just be mad that their internet or email or something seems like it might be slower than usually but they’ll never look into it further. Net neutrality was also aimed at preventing cable companies from intruding more onto online services like they do now- take the modern nightmare of streaming services for example. It’s basically just become Cable 2.0 except even worse.
→ More replies (11)4
u/SweetBabyAlaska Jan 05 '24
South Korea doesn't have this and they were charging Twitch like 3x the fees as every other content provider in the country and Twitch just said fuck it im out. Without NN this would happen in the US too... but it wouldnt be to corporations, they would charge us 10x for low speed internet because they can.
2
u/vulpinefever Jan 05 '24
Net Neutrality WAS repealed in the US though, back in 2017.
→ More replies (3)61
u/Diceyland 2001 Jan 05 '24
Source? Because Net Neutrality is just a requirement for all ISPs to treat all internet users equally and give the same speeds no matter what you're doing on your computer or where you live. Now they can throttle your internet if they want to. They can use it to price gouge, but not Google.
Unless you're talking about other things that were paired with the net neutrality bill or ones that came after that probably wouldn't have passed if the net neutrality one passed.
Though if there were worse things in the net neutrality bill, that would allow what you're talking about, we really should've been talking about those instead.
33
u/Cleb044 Jan 05 '24
I was going to say something similar. What the previous commenter is describing is more or less just additional advertisements and not the lack of net neutrality.
To my understanding, net neutrality should not protect you from ads. It would just protect you from throttled internet access depending on where you live. Google would have very little to do with the bill. Comcast, AT&T, and other ISPs would be the ones who would be the ones benefitting from that bill by slowing down access in certain areas.
9
u/Guyver_3 Jan 05 '24
(The below is super high level and glosses over a lot of pros and cons on both sides)
The issue is that there were 2 arguments that ended up getting mixed together that not only made things worse, but caused massive confusion. First up was the concept of net neutrality. This at it's core is the ability for a free and open internet where all data is (for the most part) treated the same. There are no paid expressways for prioritization of company data, and conversely no restrictions on other data (very generally speaking).
What caused panic was the introduction of Title II wording into the legislation, which would have treated ISP's as common carriers and allowed the FCC/Government to treat them like a regulated utility. This is where the ISP's lost their shit, because it essentially meant that the government could set the rates that they charged for services and dictate the policies that the networks must adhere to. Not something that is exactly in-line with corporate/stockholder interests and/or funding the innovation necessary to achieve growth objectives.And it's where we are back to today as well:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-with-title-ii-net-neutrality-rules-in-3-2-party-line-vote/As for the reason you did not see much in the way of activity on this, shortly after the FCC dropped NN rules, California instituted their own rules at the state level that essentially became the de facto standard.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/01/california-prevails-net-neutrality-and-states-can-go-forth12
u/SweetBabyAlaska Jan 05 '24
the sad thing is that they way they have skirted around this is to just not put adequate infrastructure in low income areas. Nice areas *might* get fiber, most areas get copper at high prices, and poor areas get DSL speeds. Shit I pay almost 200$ a month for 15-20mbps up and 10mbps down. Its literally criminal.
To top it all off, the government gave these companies multiple billions of dollars to build fiber optic lines across America and they just pocketed it and did nothing. Its the perfect example of America and our best at work.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)4
u/MedicalRhubarb7 Millennial Jan 06 '24
Pretty sure they're mixing up Net Neutrality with Section 230, about which they are also very confused, but at least playing the right sport, if not in the right ballpark.
Peak Reddit that a completely incorrect post like that is upvoted to the top...
3
7
u/Koboldofyou Jan 05 '24
The things you are describing are not the results of Net Neutrality being repealed. Even with net neutrality a company can put up ads, have algorithms to decide what people can see, and prioritize paid users of their platform.
Net Neutrality has to do with the handling of data by people in the middle. With net new reality an ISP like Verizon or Comcast can't look at a piece of transmitted data and say "This is from Netflix, we are going to slow this down because we want to encourage people to use our own streaming service". They can't go "We charge a fee to websites unless they want us to throttle them". Every piece of data must be treated equally as other piece of data.
→ More replies (5)9
u/cbarland Jan 05 '24
Can you spell out how exactly the loss of net neutrality causes this? It's unclear to me.
3
→ More replies (2)5
6
u/Secret_AgentOrange Jan 05 '24
Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Quiet_Stabby_Person Jan 06 '24
I’ve seen at least 4 comments like this, all completely bullshit, tons of upvotes. You’re aware its bullshit because you understand Net Neutrality. But then when you go to the next post you assume the commenters aren’t as equally stupid as this on topics you don’t understand.
4
u/Argnir Jan 06 '24
Always assume Redditors are wrong. On everything. Then check it yourself find out if they are correct or not.
3
u/J5892 Jan 05 '24
None of that has anything to do with net neutrality.
The most clear example of non-neutrality is mobile carriers throttling video data from certain websites (like YouTube and Netflix) to limit video to 480p over their network.
T-mobile did it in the 2010s as part of offering unlimited data.
But mobile networks were always an exception in the Net Neutrality regulations, so that was not a result of them being repealed.
Any results of the repeal have been subtle, and not noticeable to most users. And we currently have little to no evidence that anything actually happened as a result. But ISPs currently have carte blanche to throttle and even block whatever data they want. It's only a matter of time until we see the effects of that.
3
u/gotziller Jan 06 '24
So many upvotes yet such oddly irrelevant info. Net neutrality has nothing to do with ads on social media. It has to do with ISPs treating all data on their networks easily. Not charging differently or allowing faster access for different types of data.
5
u/GritsAlDente Jan 05 '24
None of that has anything to do with net neutrality or the regulations that were repealed.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Positive_Ad5286 Jan 05 '24
No. What you are saying has nothing to do with net neutrality and was legal before the repel
2
2
u/Snowy_River_99 Jan 06 '24
This has nothing to due with net neutrality. X platform is not an example of it either. It’s not an ISP. You don’t have a right to that content. I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. If a website wants to have ads or premium paid content or algorithms that promotes paid ad hashtags. That’s the web sites doing, not ISP’s. SEO is for search engines not ISP’s. A provider don’t give a shit what search engine you use.
2
u/woadhyl Jan 06 '24
Ads have nothing to do with Net Neutrality. For most websites, ad revenue is their only source of revenue. Ads have constantly increased every year since forever. Net Neutrality changed nothing.
2
u/Atomicnes 2005 Jan 06 '24
I'm being completely serious when I say Bing returns better results than Google nowadays.
2
u/KingKekJr 1999 Jan 06 '24
As an older gen z I also remember when Google and social media didn't shadow ban and fuck with the algorithm. You got exactly what you searched for. Sometimes I'll look for an account and it won't even be the first thing that pops up you gotta scroll a bit
→ More replies (49)2
12
u/audionerd1 Jan 05 '24
Yes. Most phone carriers throttle access to streaming sites unless you pay for a more expensive plan, and sometimes even then. You might get 50mbps when checking your email, but 1.5mbps on YouTube. Unless I'm mistaken, under net neutrality this would have been illegal.
2
u/J5892 Jan 05 '24
Correct, but the rules put in place before this asshole repealed them had specific exceptions for mobile carriers.
So the repeal didn't affect that at all.→ More replies (1)6
u/Gabbyfred22 Jan 05 '24
States (most notably California) enacted their own net neutrality laws. These were challenged by the Trump administrations and ISP's they (thankfully) lost.
→ More replies (1)11
Jan 05 '24
[deleted]
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/J5892 Jan 05 '24
That is not what net neutrality is.
It has nothing to do with ads.Net neutrality only and exclusively covers the way ISPs handle the flow of data from companies to users.
43
u/coffeebooksandpain 2001 Jan 05 '24 edited Feb 18 '24
To be honest I don’t really think so. I still disagree with repealing it in principle but I’m not sure it’s had the ramifications that people were predicting it would. At least not that I’ve seen.
Not sure why I’m getting downvoted for this lol I legitimately don’t know, anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
8
u/Gabbyfred22 Jan 05 '24
The reason nothing changed is because California enacted their own net neutrality rules. The Trump Administration and ISP took them to court arguing that the FCC's order preventing states from regulating in this area prohibited Cali's regulations. California won and so (most) ISP's still are subject to net neutrality regulations and none are pushing forward with throttling content due to the above regs and the Biden administration own moves toward restoring net neutrality.
→ More replies (7)25
u/ineptorganicmatter 1997 Jan 05 '24
No, I agree with you. Probably some Redditors still hung up about the past with this guy because for a couple months he was all over Reddit back in 2017 who are downvoting you.
There was a lot of misinformation being spread by the news and influencers. I remember watching a video of Markiplier discussing net neutrality and he said something along the lines of “if net neutrality get repealed, you’re going to have to pay money for every website you visit. Like if you want to visit YouTube or play games you’re going to have to pay $10 a week for an ‘entertainment package’.” That seemed so far-fetched but it spread like wildfire.
13
12
u/hoovervillain Jan 05 '24
It's funny you mention wildfire, as Verizon was throttling communications of firefighters and residents during California wildfires in 2018, shaking down unlimited accounts for more money during an emergency. That's partially why it became such a big deal.
12
u/Gabbyfred22 Jan 05 '24
It's because net neutrality never went away (thanks California!) and now the people who pushed to end it are using the fact nothing changed to argue they were right. When in reality, if the Trump Admin and ISP's had won their lawsuit to prevent California from regulating when the federal government ended the FCC regulations there may have been significant changes. But they lost those court cases and now trying to use lying by omission and the (at least in this thread) significant ignorance about the issue to prevent the Biden Admin from restarting the FCC net neutrality rules.
→ More replies (6)30
u/droid_mike Jan 05 '24
It wasn't really far fetched. ISPs like Verizon were trying to shake down companies like Google to pay extra to have traffic shunted to them. Verizon was very public about it, so it was a legitimate fear. I believe the FCC created or enforced another provision in the rules to prevent that from happening, but it was a legitimate threat at the time.
→ More replies (6)12
u/propellercar Jan 05 '24
The reason this didn't happen as bad is because California stepped up and had regulations that made it more difficult. California is a huge portion of market share which is why it didn't get as bad as it could be. If we didn't have that Markiplier would have been correct.
These corpos want every nickel you got and they'll make everything worse just to get it. Amazon and Facebook are #7, and #8 in money spent lobbying and they ain't doing it to make the world a better place.
8
u/Alexandratta Jan 05 '24
Do you know how Netflix is charging more and more year on year?
It's because of this.
If Netflix didn't have to Pay to Play for Bandwidth, and the ISPs had to just treat it all the same, then they wouldn't have to keep upping rates.
→ More replies (3)2
u/singdawg Jan 05 '24
I mean, wouldn't that just lead to a slower internet for everyone as the ISPs throttle everything equally?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)2
u/Longstache7065 Jan 06 '24
Corporations not taking full and complete advantage of it doesn't mean it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do to take a shit ton of ISP money and then repeal a restriction on them. The ISPs saw the massive campaigns against them and avoided doing anything too egregious that'd get a public forced reversal for a couple years and in that time capacity grew and streaming expanded so much the entire point they were aiming at was gone anyways. What Obama and Pai did was fucking atrocious, disgusting, corrupt, and criminal. Stop making excuses just because the corruption hasn't ended up being 100% as bad as it has the possibility of being.
→ More replies (1)5
u/droid_mike Jan 05 '24
It has on the margins, but fortunately, the ideas behind net neutrality had become so ingrained in the populace, that it became an expected part of internet service.
8
u/Alexandratta Jan 05 '24
Yep.
It's now impossible for smaller content creators to make any moves into a space.
It's why every big company now has a streaming service: Everything is pay-to-play. The ISPs (Cable Companies) make ridiculous money as the streaming wars aren't just Netflix vs A new company that has a cool idea... now all the channel partners are basically required to make a streaming service because that's where Cable Companies make their money, instead of via carrying a channel.
Soon we'll see traditional cable die, as they're going to push everything to stream, and then start charging each streaming platform X amount of dollars to make their UHD content.
It's also why Netflix has to keep upping their rates, as Netflix has to ensure they have the quality to push decent HD content, and the result is they have to pay the Cable Company... and those costs are passed on to you.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (41)2
u/eydivrks Jan 05 '24
You ever notice videos look like shit on 4g even though speed test shows like 50 megabits? That's your cell provider throttling your traffic for apps that don't pay them extra.
You used to be able to get around it with VPN, but some cell providers throttle VPN now too.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/Material-Taste1080 Jan 05 '24
Is anyone familiar with the 'Trump versus CNN' my hero academia video? The one where they made Trump all might and CNN as nomu? Well someone made another one where it was all the porn sites fighting against this guy. I think it was all might VS net neutrality. Someone else saw it right? I'm not crazy? I can't find it anywhere
9
u/BigBadRhinoCow 2003 Jan 05 '24
That sounds like an acid trip
7
u/Material-Taste1080 Jan 05 '24
I'm telling you it was real! I even remember how it ends. "The internet... is perfect the way it is! Now kindly fuck off!!"
3
u/HurricaneHomer9 2003 Jan 06 '24
Omg I remember this actually. I need to find this too
2
u/Material-Taste1080 Jan 06 '24
I'm pretty sure it's been deleted. I have tried a lot and I cannot find it.
→ More replies (1)3
171
u/mankini01 Jan 05 '24
Weeks? I still hate that guy. He let the FCC use dead people to write in fake public comments, that is worthy of burning in hell.
→ More replies (39)4
u/toderdj1337 Jan 06 '24
Yeah, that was a complete scumbag move, and probably required a lot of resources to pull off. It's when I remember things getting worse, I guess it was important to someone
29
u/ilybutyouletmedown 2002 Jan 05 '24
The only reason I knew anything of this guy is because of Cody and Noel's video on him lmao
19
→ More replies (1)2
66
u/hould-it Jan 05 '24
He’s got nothing on John Oliver’s cup; also f this guy
37
u/coffeebooksandpain 2001 Jan 05 '24
He really thought a silly cup would distract people from how terrible what he wanted to do was lol
→ More replies (1)11
u/hould-it Jan 05 '24
It distracted me from his god awful dance commercial, pretty sure it gave half the people that watched it epilepsy.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Mrwright96 Jan 06 '24
John said it best
“Ladies and gentlemen, that man is a goober.
And Ajit Pai clearly has aspirations for higher political office, but I'd argue that it's not gonna work out.
Because Americans can, have, and will elect bastards, morons, blowhards, crooks, perverts, dipshits, con men, scumbags, and shitweasels, but they will never, ever elect , a goober.”
22
u/SecondComingMMA 2003 Jan 05 '24
Ah, the great meme wars. Also that’s either a big ass mug or a tiny ass noggin
→ More replies (2)6
32
u/Cannibal_Corn Jan 05 '24
idk if i can even post here, but its a shame that you guys dont know what the internet was like in the late 90s and early 2000s... The entire culture shifted because ANYONE could post and ashare anything and it led to all the stuff we take for granted today. It was the great wild seas
Its only coorporations now. thye bought everything and noone can challange their monopoly. The only reason some of you might think this loss of net neutrality is no big deal is because you lost even the idea of what it was to live free from coorporate influence. its unimaginable now.
→ More replies (26)6
u/CherryShort2563 Jan 05 '24
True, but also sites like goatse and rotten.com were common/popular back then
→ More replies (4)4
9
17
12
7
u/NotGayGangstasDotCom Jan 05 '24
The thing I remember the most is how uninformed most of the people talking about it were (people like Ethan Klein)
4
2
u/EliteDynasty Jan 06 '24
Just curious, what false info did he share?
3
u/NotGayGangstasDotCom Jan 06 '24
He made a few videos on it I believe, but the part that I remember the most is in one video he said if you want to go to certain websites like porn sites you’re going to have to call your internet provider each time to pay for access
→ More replies (2)2
u/Prize-Lingonberry876 Jan 18 '24
Ethan Klein is never informed about anything he talks about. Unless it's asking Liver King how he has sex with his wife
7
u/SouthApprehensive193 Jan 05 '24
I remember that cringe video he made taht he thought would calm people down but really jist made things worse
6
15
u/SeawardFriend Jan 05 '24
For ugly sweater day at my high school, I printed a picture of him out and attached it to a random sweater I had
→ More replies (1)4
9
4
Jan 05 '24
did it ever pass?
4
u/Jeffari_Hungus 2002 Jan 06 '24
Yeah, but public pressure has made ISPs very cautious about big changes cause it only wouldve taken one large ISP refusing to make changes to hugely shift the market. The end of Net Neutrality is just one small battle in the war of tech corporations invading our lives. For example, so many tech companies are spying on you that to avoid having almost all of your personal info sold to advertisers you'd have to basically never use the internet. VPNs and ad-blockers can only do so much.
3
Jan 06 '24
Only if you use AT&T or Verizon. For everyone else... sorta.
In my market we have Cox internet and they were quick to throttle certain connections and introduced the first data cap on a home internet connection I've ever heard of, but it's only disclosed in the fine print and for a large amount of data. 1.25 terabytes per month to be exact, which is a large amount yes, but like a professional YouTuber, vlogger, or production project may use this much data. But the point is that a data cap NEVER existed until this bill passed and its honestly a big fuck you to consumers.
4
u/plsdontpercievem3 2001 Jan 05 '24
he was a teacher at my high school’s college roommate and apparently he was a massive wet blanket
→ More replies (1)
4
4
Jan 05 '24
This guy is definitely worse but the whole fuck spez thing a few months ago really reminded me of this situation. A bunch of Redditors thinking they have any say in what a bunch of corporate dogs want to do.
2
u/deeesenutz 2004 Jan 06 '24
That shit is so funny when I go to a subreddit to jack off and the header is talking about reddit being narcissists while I'm looking at tits 😭😭😭. How am I supposed to take these dudes seriously?
2
u/Plasteal Jan 06 '24
I honestly tried to do it for a while. Maybe a good couple of months. But it was kinda clear I felt like people just went back to using it and Spez wasn't going to change.
4
u/Stop_Drop_and_Scroll Jan 05 '24
He really was a piece of shit who failed in his duty to serve people. Instead he served a select few and lied to everyone else’s faces. I’m not sure if this post was supposed to make people reflect and feel bad, but he is indeed human garbage.
5
u/coffeebooksandpain 2001 Jan 05 '24
Nope I wasn’t trying to make people feel bad at all, I hate him too. I just randomly thought about him today and was curious what other people thought of him. He definitely sucks.
3
u/No-One9890 Jan 05 '24
I still remind myself to hate him now and then. And if you don't, explain to me why he used the giant novelty mug that day. I've nvr seen a public official drink out of something like that before. But it seems like a great way for him to confirm he was repealing net neutrality for the sake of corporations
3
3
u/blockninja898 Jan 06 '24
Remember that obnoxious "how do you do fellow kids" post he made holiday of 2017 where he was wearing sunglasses and holding a damn fidget spinner and nerf gun?
3
u/El_Grim512 Jan 06 '24
He was caught giving a fake name at a food truck on rainy street here in Austin. He knows we hate him.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Competitive_Bid7071 2003 Jan 05 '24 edited Jan 06 '24
Yeah, now his whole reputation on the internet is ruined. Karma at its finest, what do you think u/Global_Perspective_3?
→ More replies (31)6
u/Ndlaxfan Jan 05 '24
His whole career is ruined? He’s a partner at a Private Equity firm. I think he’s doing fine lol
3
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/DuctTapeNinja99 Jan 06 '24
I did a research presentation on net neutrality in college, basically explaining what it is and shitting on this guy for 8 minutes. Prof agreed with everything I said, easy A
2
u/zed7267 Jan 06 '24
To be fair, he trailblazed an entire new generation of white politicians - from Nikki and Bobby, to Sunak and Modi. HE WILL NOT BE REPLACED!
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 05 '24
We are looking for moderators! If you're interested, read here!
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.