[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
That is a bit overblown. While we are definitely better off with Trump instead of Hillary and net neutrality as it has come to be defined as a political issue (with Title II designation for ISPs) is an abomination, this overstates, or at least misdescribes, the danger. After all, the FCC is still governed by the APA and courts would not only review its actions under the arbitrary and capricious standard of that body of law but also under Constitutional restrictions. While the danger of controlling content on the internet is real, it would be far more subtle than that suggests. At the end of the day, it is a lesser concern in the current regulatory arguments.
The bigger danger, frankly, is how it would affect the growth and improvement of the infrastructure. It would stifle it by removing normal entrepreneurial, competition based profit incentives to innovate and replace them with crony capitalist, regulated utility return on capital, tariff based profit incentives. There are already enough problems with ISPs to want to add more issues on top of it. Government involvement in their affairs needs to move the opposite direction. If the FCC wants to get involved it should reduce the ability of state and municipal governments to interfere with ISPs (such as by granting monopolies) on the basis of interstate commerce.
[–] VicariousJambi 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think the post was more about what the government made possible.
[–] thatguyiam [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Archive /pol/, goats. Ive seen many threads just dissappear
[–] wild-tangent ago
So it would have expired after eight years regardless...so what, then?
[–] AnotherRedditRefugee 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
If another globalist puppet president was elected (extremely likely because of vote rigging / globalist approved propaganda) then they would have just renewed it.