Pajeet Pai reads mean tweets

savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

Free speech on the internet advocates are between a hammer and an anvil.

That's an overly simplistic read of Smith, but whatever floats your boat. He wasn't completely against all regulatory measures, though if you listen to the stupidest of lolbertarians who haven't actually thouroughly read his works you'd think that was the case.
And besides, his laissez-faire "invisible hand" fails in the case of monopoly and oligopoly. Which is what these cable companies are.

What do you mean? Are you criticizing net neutrality because you disagree with one reason people have for supporting it?
For what it's worth, what you quoted is in support of freedom of speech, even if it happens to be speech you don't like. But then that's the point of freedom of speech, isn't it?

your system is shit, user.

No, what I mean is that on the one hand you have anti-free speech advocates who want ISPs to control the internet, and on the other you have anti-free speech advocates who want ISPs to leave the internet uncontrolled but who don't realize that some/many of the freedom of speech advocates who also want ISPs to leave the internet uncontrolled happen to have triggering views (alt-righters, gun rights supporters, some old people, racists, racial realists, etc.).

So if you're pro-freedom of speech and pro-free internet, you're fucked.

Who are you quoting?

Who are these "Who are you quoting?" people? Are why are they such blank fags?

Why is it a problem that people supporting the same cause happen to hold different opinions about other topics? If someone opposes freedom of speech that's a problem, but I don't see how it makes anything worse if they do support net neutrality.
But the quoted piece was in support of freedom of speech.

They say they're in support of freedom of speech.
Why dont you go to dearfcc.com and also email savetheinternet.com to tell them:

They are not pro-freedom of speech, and they are not your friends.

Their argument in favor of net neutrality was still in favor of free speech. Judging purely by the argument I think it's valid, and I think that labelling them as anti-free speech for it is definitely wrong. They really are treating it like a freedom of speech issue.
I don't know how many of them would support freedom of speech if it came to the freedom to document jewish subversion of western societies, but then again, I think a lot of the people on Holla Forums who claim to be pro-freedom of speech aren't actually in favor of the freedom to document the systematic oppression of proud trans-wymyn of color, even though that's part of freedom of speech too.

I'm not Holla Forums but nice adhom, I'm pro-freedom of speech.
Yes, they labeled their concerns as pro-free speech, but BBC and CNN also labeled themselves as objective, honest news outlets.

As I said above fill in the dearfcc form then email it to savetheinternet, post results.

I won't hold my breath of course, since there is literally no precedent for a hardcore SJW being a free-speech supporter.

I didn't mean it that way, sorry for not being clear.
Does Stallman count? He's pro-Black Lives Matter and hardcore pro-freedom of speech.

using greentext to describe the real world is quoting god, user.

Yes, Stallman is a unique person, he is a literal jew who somehow pioneered the idea of copyleft and of user privacy and freedom. He is also idealistic and principled as opposed to ruthlessly idealistic and materialistic. He also seems autistic.

Stallman is quite unique, and I doubt there are many like him.

Didn't he admit to having Asperger's?

Look up People's Computer Company, and Dr. Dobb's Journal. This goes back to the 70's, maybe earlier.

enjoy tiered internet and throttled access to any website that's not google, facebook, yahoo, microsoft, or netflix, or doesn't belong to your ISP.

Not him, but it's the retarded reasons they give which undermine the cause. Who gives a shit if an otherkin trans-nigger shemale lesbian's blog receives more visits as a result of net neutrality?

It's kind of the same reason people don't take free software seriously. If you say "software is a tool, not unlike a hammer or a screwdriver, and free software ensures users have the ability to study, adapt, modify, fix, and improve on said tools" and "See John Deere tractors, CatGenie litter boxes, HP printers, and Keurig coffee machines if you want to know what can happen when your devices run non-free software", it's a lot more palatable than saying "free software respects your freedumbs because freedumbs are important lol", as if freedom was an end in itself.

No I mean today, people were very different back in the 50s and 60s and even 70s.
It's all been rapidly going to shit since around 2008.

Most Punchable faces in order:

Ajit Pai
Trump
Martin Shrekli
People who talk loudly into their cell on trains

...

I'm sure the miraculous 'free market' will magically remove barriers to entry and dissolve oligopolies.
PS: "competition" is not the answer either; companies compete for who can screw customers out of their money the most, not for providing the best service

you redditcucks need to go

His autism makes him see the world on a standpoint of ultimate freedom.
That's why he'll say what he thinks about X thing on anything.
It happens a lot go see his website take your time read at least two months of posting and you'll get what kind of guy he is.

This.
ISPs and many other companies have showed that at some point when they are too big they don't about about quality (except for some few very big customers).
And again they don't give a shit if they are only two on the market if they literally own every line and every possible subscription they can do what ever they want to their customer it either going to monopoly 1 or monopoly 2 which isn't a choice.

Not the user you responded too
Proof or GFTO

What did I tell you, that leftists are anti-free speech?
freebeacon.com/issues/net-neutrality-supporters-want-ban-drudge/

You don't understand, it's the companies "free speech" to fuck you in the ass and agressively de-peer from other ISPs because of payment disputes. Because, apparently, rent seeking is free speech.

Title II is THE WAY to regulate ISPs. Peering, paid prioritization, etc.

These fucktards know exactly what they're doing. They aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're telecom/cable lobbyists. Pajeet "Streetshitter" Pai is a fucking Verizon lawyer.

Many leftists are anti-free speech. Many rightists are anti-free speech. And in both categories, many aren't. It's too bad that those particular protesters seem to hold those particular opinions, but I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make.

"Free speech" has been discussed so far in the context of pro-net neutrality arguments. The freedom for internet users to publish things online, not the "free speech" of ISPs.

Because he's a sociopath. Watch him in interviews sometime. He doesn't understand how normal humans act and he tries to ape them with mixed results.

...So you WANT to pay higher prices per websites? Lol, good ole Shillingsbergs.

Trust, he's not really intelligent. Guess what else is worth tech public enemy number fucking 1? He'll either run or retire soon. Cutting and running. Going out with a bang. Whatever you want to call it.