2
44

[–] WhereWeLiveNow 2 points 44 points (+46|-2) ago  (edited ago)

TEXT VERSION SO IT IS EASIER TO READ

Long before fake news or Net Neutrality (N.N.) became major media topics, the U.S. government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news.

N.N. was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the internet. A sequence that happened so slowly none of you noticed it happening at all. After all, Net Neutrality wasn't even all that bad, right? Sure the internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn't really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right?

But is anything ever that simple?

Ask yourself why N.N. came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it?

Now ask yourself what sequence led up to N.N. and who led it to there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama's final month in office, the internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election.

This is a long piece, and the beginning will cover some material that you already know but it is crucial to understand the big picture. I split this into two posts, the first one covers the two-decade buildup to Net Neutrality, which I will summarize below for those who are lazy.

1950 - Education

U.S. House of Representatives commissions the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator, Norman Dodd, published the final report in which he discovers that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote "moral relativism" and "internationalism" to the end of "oligarchic collectivism." In other words, globalism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down. 1980 - Civil Society Sector

The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn't anymore, and hasn't been for decades. By 1980 all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a "covert role in foaming up-risings," and that "they are doing things the CIA cannot do." 1990 - Media

Bill Clinton's Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalizes the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just six. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck six strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, CBS, and still shrinking. 2000 - Social Media

This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user.

"If you happen to have a right-wing perspective, Google puts your search results on the 10th page, Youtube demonetizes your videos (or removes them), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed." /u/spydiggity

2010 - The Internet

The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit: the internet itself.

Already controlling much of the internet's media and all the social media platforms that propagate it, the only thing left for the globalists to control is the infrastructure itself that comprises the internet. That's why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open-Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization).

Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules they need to re-classify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as "common carriers", effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title II, ISPs need to apply for Broadcasting Licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.

The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit's outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for Broadcasting Licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because Broadcasting Licenses become the globalist's most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation.

Three judges presided over the case, two Democrats, one Republican:

Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)

David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title II classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the internet must receive a Broadcasting License. The FCC is stumped and can't really figure out what to do next... So Obama comes in to save the day. He pressures them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move is quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as... Net Neutrality. Surprise!

The public is told that they are saving the internet! But saving it from whom? Hahaha from the very people who are telling them to save it! Whether by intent or by circumstance, the globalists ended up playing both sides and winning. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v. FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape.

Now here's where the story picks up…

Net Neutrality invokes Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides internet service to register for Broadcasting Licenses from the government and regularly renew them.

Well... what if the FCC doesn't want to renew them? Ah but that's crazy talk, the FCC can't just revoke Broadcasting Licenses on a whim. It would be taken to court within seconds!

But imagine what happens when you're appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC, and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules your timeline. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it's violating federal law. Well, you'd probably say "fuck you I voted for Trump" and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together.

1
24

[–] WhereWeLiveNow 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You're about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you-

"Why don't they just call it 'The InfoWars Act’?"

Your lawyer simply closes his eyes, as if with erotic satisfaction, and quickly whispers under his breath "...Bill Clinton is a rapist." You look back at the InfoWars Act to read its mission statement.

...counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department..."

That's so bizarre, you think to yourself. Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you're literally going to house it in the White House?

interagency center

Okay so it's a center, of multiple agencies. In the White House...

p. 1399 - The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President.

...that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts

Wait what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening shitposts on T_D? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined? Huh, that's strange... there's no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just... call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up to your lawyer, "How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?"

Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar.

"He didn't."

The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,

"He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it."

"Ohhhh shit yeah this is that fuckin propaganda thing that Obama legalized I always see it get reposted on The Donald! God, what a Kenyan pedophile thing to do, amirite?"

"So you've already read through it?"

"Oh... yeah no I'm a simple guy I just see a grey arrow and I make it orange."

"Jesus Christ." The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in pdf format).

SEC. 1287. GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER.

"This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they're going to be doing."

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation

"Clandestine special operators?? That's like some Tom Clancey shit!"

"Not even Tom Clancey would write something like this. Earlier you called this a 'Kenyan' thing to do. But even Kenyans have never sent secret agents to brainwash their people. Really let that sink in."

"Yeah... Malik Obama would never do that."

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists...

"But just when it couldn't get worse... it gets way fucking worse."

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government... provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government...

"They call in their globalist friends from some "totally neutral third-party" and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who's been flagged by a third-party "fact-checker" without having to take them to court. "

"Oh fuck."

"Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term "fake news" to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of "neutral third-parties" policing online content. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google, all the tech companies, and the White House itself were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet. "

"Fuckin' Snopes.”

"It's brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them."

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations...

And that's it ladies and gentlemen.

That's why passing Net Neutrality is so important.

The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.

STORY TIME IS OVER THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL

Are you imagining how real this is?

They can physically shut down your access to the internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you shitpost on The_Donald! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, The_Donald, 4chan, Voat, and any other right-wing website that pops up to replace it! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years, like they always do, so that nobody would notice until it's too late! They could've taken us down one buy one, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions!

And it was 100% legal! They passed every law they needed to do it!

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO HAVE WON THE ELECTION BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN.

AND NOW ONE FINAL QUOTE:

p.1446 - "The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

They thought she would win.

[LAUGHS IN KENYAN]

11
-10

0
9

[–] BarbarianRedScourge 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Jesus, I hope you OCR'd that.

Thank you for this.

0
5

[–] TheTrigger 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I just, annoyingly, sideways-scrolled through that entire pic (on my phone), just to see this as the top comment. Ugh, thanks anyways.

0
28

[–] Metanoiac 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

What really needs to be done is for ISPs to lose their monopolies in various districts across the US. Prices will come down hard and service will improve.

Here in the French market, I have a 5 Mb connection (fiber optic isn't available through my provider, but another has it for roughly the same price in my neighborhood) for about 40 USD a month, this includes a TV tuner box (that I don't use) with about 100 channels and phone service with free international calls. I have 6 to 8 options for internet access. It was the same when I lived downtown. Right now I live in a small town about 45 minutes from a major city.

When I was still in the US, i had 1 choice by DSL and 1 choice by cable, both priced around 70 USD. And it was the same in 4 major cities I lived in.

Competition is the consumer's best friend.

0
6

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Yes. That's the biggest change we need.

0
4

[–] Braulio237 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Im getting 100 Mb for $60 a month in Milwaukee. Times have changed.

0
2

[–] AvariciousNose 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I get 300 down for 100$ a month in Florida. Fuck Spectrum though, they bought out my old provider.

0
1

[–] jaceame 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How many providers can you choose from in your area?

0
0

[–] Reverse-Flash 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Seriously?

0
2

[–] RadialSkid 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Two providers in my area. Both are satellite, both are about $80 per month, and both cap monthly usage at 50 GB.

I have no idea why one doesn't lower its price, or raise its data cap. But neither does. They just offer the same service at the same price, and have been for years now.

0
7

[–] wylan 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It's because they have a silent cartel. Colluding with each other to maintain the status quo.

0
20

[–] YouKnowItIKnowIt 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

ISPs currently have to register for a broadcasting license that can be revoked?

1
10

[–] Rakosman 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

My understanding is that that requirement was dropped a couple years ago. Which destroys literally the entire conspiracy. And for all the people that think free market will take care of it if we just add competition - take a look at mobile carriers (in the US.) They all jumped on data caps and multi-tiered access at the same time. There are half a dozen mobile companies and they are all the same.

0
3

[–] Braulio237 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

All mobile carriers are switching to unlimited. Hell, T-Mobile is throwing in Netflix for free now.

2
3

[–] lucifirius 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Data caps are the only way to be economical when you can't make Netflix pay for the infrastructure upgrades needed to move their high bandwidth data.

0
2

[–] firex726 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

In regards to the free market bit, also consider it costs a shit ton to lay fiber lines; when Google was doing their roll-out years ago was around $93mil for one city. That is a-lot of money to invest upfront, and is why you only see the big companies who already had lines laid (cable/phone) or guys like Google doing it.

The few cities that have tried have used tax subsidies to offset the cost.

Sadly internet is not the type of free market enterprise that a couple guys with a router and and a VC can make an ISP to compete with the established cartels.

1
1

[–] Charlez6 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

They all jumped on data caps

Even the free market cannot defy physics. What's wrong with caps? They're upfront and honest about it, nobody is being conned.

And what are you comparing this to? Do you really believe that less competition would improve this situation?

and multi-tiered access

This makes perfect sense. Why should the granny who just wants to check Facebook occasionally be forced onto the same premium plan as a twenty something who is sending a thousand Snapchats a day in between streaming HD Netflix and listening to music?

You wouldn't complain about multi-tiered health insurance plans, because it makes sense that an obese smoker should pay more for comprehensive coverage than a fit, healthy young man who just wants basic emergency cover.

3
17

[–] Trogdor300 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

So NN is just the government take over of free speech?

7
8

[–] MuscularMayor 7 points 8 points (+15|-7) ago 

More than that- they can shut down your connection for wrong thing

1
6

[–] Trogdor300 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

But yet if there isn't govt control then the ISP will bend everyone over and shove data packages up our asses right?

3
1

[–] SoloPoloVision 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

Wrong! nn is what prevents your isp from blocking your favorite website you shill fuckhead

4
1

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

No NN does not allow that. Please show me the specific language where that is possible.

0
0

[–] worthlesshope 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It kinda makes sense if NN was actually something that allowed social media outlets to collect money for censoring and spreading political ideas. Perhaps this was already allowed on advertising laws and other contract laws though..

But what also doesn't make sense about the post is Trump is now president, he should be able to control such an organization to spread information in his favor. It's not exactly right, but it'd just be using past evils to your own advantage to correct those same past evils.

1
-1

[–] Rainy-Day-Dream 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

nope, of the internet as a whole

27
-19

2
10

[–] 11357333? 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

I wish I could kiss whoever made this post. This is what I've been getting at with NN, but in a much more idiotic way.

NN is literally the government takeover of the internet. Always has been. It should have made anyone with any sense stop in their tracks at the idea that Goolag and Twitter were all in for NN. This was, is and always has been a left/right issue. Those too young to remember when this shit really reared its ugly head in 2007, but was quashed, would do well to heed what OP has to say.

2
10

[–] freshmeat 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

told you guys (((net neutrality))) was bullshit

2
5

[–] 11357359? 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

I've been saying the same thing, but found it fell on deaf ears. I wish everyone in America could see this post though.

2
2

[–] SoloPoloVision 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Nothing like a big wall of shill talking point lies to distract people while they get fucked over eh?

5
-3

[–] WedgeSerif 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

You're both ignorant assholes. Why don't you ask someone with a computer science degree what net neutrality actually is?

Because you'd be proven wrong, and your tiny little dicks couldn't handle the trauma, that's why.

Fuck you both.

2
9

[–] MetalAegis 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I know about NN, but even if I didn't all I would need to know to make up my mind is that ((George Soros)) is in favor of it, along with all the traitorous, anti-right, anti-white, monopolistic companies, such as Google, FB, Twitter, etc.

The main reason those companies are in favor of NN is because at the end of the day they pay less for using massive amounts of bandwidth, while Voat for example which uses much less bandwith pays the same as Google, those costs are forwarded to the ISP's, so it's no surprise they are in favor of repealing NN.

0
2

[–] worthlesshope 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I was also thinking this too. That it was simply a fight between internet providers and internet services. With NN rules internet services won.. Without them Internet providers win.

It's pretty much which organization "ruled" people better.. And those liberal cucks in the bay area which control most of the internet services were doing a horrible job. While before internet providers were doing a fine job in reigning in ignorance.

Perhaps if the internet providers are right wing they can now oversee the internet services section and prevent them from spreading stupid ideas like they have been past 2 years.

3
0

[–] SoloPoloVision 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

None of that is true you idiot. nn prevents ISPs from charging websites extra not to throttle them or give them more restrictive bandwidth caps. All your favorite "anti-white" sites like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc will have no problem paying that, think voat can afford it?

Who do you trust more, Steve Woz or Verizon? Netflix or Comcast?

0
2

[–] MetalAegis 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Without NN sites will be charged fairly for their bandwidth usage, Google and co. can afford it, but it'll cost them a lot. Smaller sites wont even be worth charging inordinate fees towards because they wont be able to afford it, it's more profitable to charge them for the bandwidth they use, while making bank off of the monopolies, besides, the 'much hated' FCC chairman Ajit Pai recently accused twitter of censoring and discriminating right wing voices, couple that with EVERY FUCKING ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH throwing everything they have in favor of NN is enough for me to make up my mind...

Do I trust ISP's to play fair? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because I certainly do not trust the peoples and companies in favor of NN, and the free market will decide the rest.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Perhaps it was meant as a compliment at the time. Were you on reddit? They love shills and corporate dick suckers!

load more comments ▼ (21 remaining)