Could this put an end to sites like this?

[Jeffrey Smither]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1DL21A

If fake news outlets like Comcast (owns NBC) can control the content, could the essentially deny access to websites such as VNN? Or charge very high amounts in order to access websites such as this.

We could then become North Korea where all content is filtered.

[cillian]

No.


..................

[C. Grady Tucker]

Absolutely it can. This is what sucks about Republitards. The ISPs and the Gatekeepers like Google and Twitter should absolutely be treated as public utilities.

[Jeffrey Smither]

Originally Posted by C. Grady Tucker

Absolutely it can. This is what sucks about Republitards. The ISPs and the Gatekeepers like Google and Twitter should absolutely be treated as public utilities.

At this stage they should because of the sheer size of the internet and how the internet like electric and water is now essential to just about every person now.

Just what we need is a controlled internet.

The jews would have a field day with this is the Jew ran companies and ZOG are able to control and filter content.

VNN could essentially be shutdown OR companies like NBC Comcast would charge thousands to be able to access WN sites.

Republicunts are just as bad a democraps. In some ways worse with war mongering and the trickle down Reagan bullshit.

[WayneW67]

Extremely concerned about this. Talking with a fried who is IT for a big coorperation in the area. Internet providers are loving this. They will now be able to control content based on economic factors. They can radically change the nature of the internet providing service for only those rich enough to afford quality internet.

[Jeffrey Smither]

Originally Posted by WayneW67

Extremely concerned about this. Talking with a fried who is IT for a big coorperation in the area. Internet providers are loving this. They will now be able to control content based on economic factors. They can radically change the nature of the internet providing service for only those rich enough to afford quality internet.

Means basically ZOG will be able to control the masses much easier and basically it can be like North Korea where only politicians and educators, researches and elite get the full internet while the 85 percent of the population gets a filtered intranet.

Hell, they can make it to where you would have to make 250k a year in order to be able to afford more access and 90 percent of the rest of the population who can't afford it is stuck with an extremely limited internet access to only Faux Jews and MSNBC.com and ESPN

VNN would become non existent and with most of the population now having limited access they will be even easier than it is now for ZOG control. After one generation they will have everyone brain washed just like in North Korea. People simply won't know what's really going on outside the KWA and will fall for phony wars and propaganda.

What you see in North Korea will be the KWA in about 30 years when it comes it information.

Stuff like this is why I and others on here were hoping for a Hillary and democrat sweep. To get things so bad that a revolution would happen and get rid of the Republicunts and democraps and get a new party like NSDAP.

[cillian]

Weev explains why net neutrality is bad.

weev on net neutrality

weev on net neutrality

[C. Grady Tucker]

We all know what happens with deregulation, which is why I don't always buy libertarian arguments to the contrary. Deregulation leads to concentration. it's just the nature of the capitalist beast.

Anyone shopped for cell phone service lately? How about airline tickets?

"in 1978 any ticket was fully refundable. You could change flights without penalties. You were often compensated for canceled flights. Seats had more legroom. Travelers were treated to free meals and a much less harried flight crew. And yes, we even had access to some things that no amount of money can buy a coach class passenger today, like a pillow and blanket."

Now you're lucky if you don't have to pay to check a bag.

but we'll see.

[Tony Boone]

Originally Posted by C. Grady Tucker

... the Gatekeepers like Google and Twitter should absolutely be treated as public utilities.

I agree. I can remember when Sergi Bren (sp) was being interviewed by the hosts of The Screen Savers, a program that later became Tech TV, on a new search engine called Google. This would have been around 1999 as best I remember.

They even mentioned how Bren and his partner secured seed money from the CIA in order to create Google.

[Dan Hadaway]

If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal

Net-neutrality advocates argue that this kind of model is dangerous because it risks creating a two-tier system that harms competition — people will just use the big-name apps included in the bundles they pay for, while upstart challengers will be left out in the cold.

http://www.businessinsider.com/net-n...ok-fcc-2017-11

I think that the base subscription should include everything that isn't a major corporate network. ie: facebook, twitter, etc. But I'm quite sure the kikes that run these places don't give a shit about my opinion. Also, what's to define what part of the internet should cost more? I would argue, it should be by file. If you're downloading files that are >1GB maybe you should be charged more. IDK...? I like the internet the way it is now, sans google/twitter/facebook/disqus/reddit/etc arbitration of who gets to post what.

[Jeffrey Smither]

Originally Posted by Dan Hadaway

If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugalhttp://www.businessinsider.com/net-n...ok-fcc-2017-11

I think that the base subscription should include everything that isn't a major corporate network. ie: facebook, twitter, etc. But I'm quite sure the kikes that run these places don't give a shit about my opinion. Also, what's to define what part of the internet should cost more? I would argue, it should be by file. If you're downloading files that are >1GB maybe you should be charged more. IDK...? I like the internet the way it is now, sans google/twitter/facebook/disqus/reddit/etc arbitration of who gets to post what.

What about the fake news outlets like Comcast, owned by NBC? Would they filter it out so you only can access MSNBC and such unless you're very wealthy?

[NotFunny]

Originally Posted by WayneW67

Extremely concerned about this. Talking with a fried who is IT for a big coorperation in the area. Internet providers are loving this. They will now be able to control content based on economic factors. They can radically change the nature of the internet providing service for only those rich enough to afford quality internet.

citizens need to make sure their mayors are not bolshevik homosexual stooges. Then they can start building independent internet local infrastructures, which of course will be ravenously attacked by state and federal overlords. must be done as quietly, secretly as possible. local snitches, find ways to quietly eliminate them,etc, etc. the only way out is verrry slow, verry patient. we did not get where we are overnight. took hundreds of years.

[Emily Henderson]

Originally Posted by NotFunny

citizens need to make sure their mayors are not bolshevik homosexual stooges. Then they can start building independent internet local infrastructures, which of course will be ravenously attacked by state and federal overlords. must be done as quietly, secretly as possible. local snitches, find ways to quietly eliminate them,etc, etc. the only way out is verrry slow, verry patient. we did not get where we are overnight. took hundreds of years.

Please describe what you mean by 'eliminate local snitches quietly', if you are going to impart these ingenious plans you should be more thorough.

Also, what is 'ravenously'? There is ravenous, but not ravenously me don't thinks.

Maybe it's like in that movie 'My Cousin Vinny' when the lawyer says 'Hyena-ous crime' instead of 'heinous' crime. Good fucking lord.

Dis da internet. Dis why more often than not movements no completo anything of value-o. So horrid.

Go eat some goddamn turkey, it has lots of B6, which is an important brain vitamin.
http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/nutrit...8e35eb27492387

Here is a site you might like, being an 'alternative' speller and new word generator, they spell 'nutriment' as 'nootriment'. Explains dat B6:

https://nootriment.com/vitamin-b6/

If Tilton can grow midgets, lay your hands on the tv, NF. He can grow B6 surely!

[Jeffrey Smither]

So what happens if this is passed and eventually VNN for example can't be accessed unless you're a millionaire or an elite of society like politician?

What will happen to the WN movement then?

Especially here in Floriduh where it's hard to meet like minded people?

Would it be the end of WN?

[Erik T. White]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Smither

So what happens if this is passed and eventually VNN for example can't be accessed unless you're a millionaire or an elite of society like politician?

What will happen to the WN movement then?

Especially here in Floriduh where it's hard to meet like minded people?

Would it be the end of WN?

No. Someone sharper than I am will find a way for us to communicate.

I'll leave that up to the IT engineers who are definitely on WN forums.

14/88

Erik

[Emily Henderson]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Smither

So what happens if this is passed and eventually VNN for example can't be accessed unless you're a millionaire or an elite of society like politician?

What will happen to the WN movement then?

Especially here in Floriduh where it's hard to meet like minded people?

Would it be the end of WN?

What is more likely is that sites will be deliberately slowed down if they won't pay more, or buried to where they can't be found as easily on search engines, but not to the 'need to be millionaire to access' point.

White people had better vocabularies before compulsory schooling than they do today, partly because they had to want to learn independently to do so, education was driven more by wanting to learn than a forced, regimented thing.

They also got together more before the net, esp. if we go way back to the 'no tv' days. People who want to do something will find a way. TV can be a tool, internet an even better one, but look what people did before either one, a whole lot.

[Randolph Dilloway]

What will happen to the WN movement then?

Especially here in Floriduh where it's hard to meet like minded people?

Would it be the end of WN?

"White Nationalism" was coined by Frank L. DeSilva in 1983.

One can make an argument white nationalism, especially it's online variety, has turned whatever the so called white movement is today into a ghetto, incapable of inspiring our fellow Whites to defend their way of life.

White nationalism has failed. And good riddance. White nationalism is riddled with intellectual dreamers who talk a good game, but incapable of relating with fellow Whites in real life.

I have lived in nine different states over the past 15 years and never failed to meet up with like minded Whites. It is not that difficult, but most of you make it difficult by insisting on some type of white nationalist ideological purity. The most one can hope for with that approach is a handful of acolytes living in a rundown shack out in the sticks.

[Randolph Dilloway]

They also got together more before the net, esp. if we go way back to the 'no tv' days. People who want to do something will find a way. TV can be a tool, internet an even better one, but look what people did before either one, a whole lot.

A whole lot more than what is being accomplished today in front of computer screens.

Again, I have lived in several different areas of the United States and the best work of helping our fellow Whites becoming more racially aware is taking place outside of any white nationalist organization, face to face, among family, friends, coworkers and others.

Every now and then, I'll ask people if they heard of David Duke and others. Hardly anyone cares who David Duke and the others are.

Even Dr. Pierce's National Alliance has been a failure. With a $800,000 war chest, the NA never passed 2,000 members and supporters. That is not very impressive when one considers the time, effort, and money spent over a 30 year period.

[Randolph Dilloway]

Then they can start building independent internet local infrastructures, which of course will be ravenously attacked by state and federal overlords. must be done as quietly, secretly as possible. local snitches, find ways to quietly eliminate them,etc, etc. the only way out is verrry slow, verry patient. we did not get where we are overnight. took hundreds of years.

Comments like yours is the reason why I tell recently aware Whites to steer clear of white nationalism and concentrate within their own spear of influence.

Find ways to eliminate local snitches? A fine way to turn off the white people we need to reach out to. And again, let me point out that white nationalism is riddled with dreamers who lost any sense of reality years ago.

Then they can start building independent internet local infrastructures? Another bone head recommendation. The current United States police state is dependent on what intelligence they can gather from electronic comunications, why continue making it easy for them?

[Alex Linder]

What (((they))) would like to do for political/commercial reasons is create a two-tier System where all the so-called mainstream stuff (uniformly anti-white) would be easily available and affordable, but the "dark corners" of the internet, aka anything different, pro-white, valuable, would be accessible at a much slower speed or higher price.

Notice how 'they' always use 'dark corners' of the internet. This is alt-flat earth, as a metaphor. The internet doesn't have corners. That's what they hate about it: they can't impose the same scheme as they had with controlled tv for decades, where it's top down, there are only a handful (three) of sources, and they're all preaching the same message. You have enforced Gleichschaltung paid for by the customer-victim. What they hate is people who can't be forced to listen to (((them))) and pay for them. That's where the internet stole a march. Now they're trying to get it back.

But what is happening at the same time, apart from the regulation, is the rise of technology that allows every single visit or transaction or operation on the Internet to be decentralized - a la blockchain technology. I can't explain the technology. But the idea is there is no center, hence no control. Torba of Gab thinks this is the future of the Internet, and it will completely upset the control the main social media and political controllers are hoping for.

So that would leave the legal front, where the jews continue to try to force Whites into the same ideological prison they've already put most of Europe and all the rest of the Anglosphere in. We'll probably be ok under Trump, re first and second amendments, but the demographics are against us, Trump at most is slowing the brown roll, but unless there is active reversal, eventually the US will get bluer and someone like Hillary will win, and they'll get the kind of restrictions they seek.

You see SPLC agents like anti-White Dilloway encouraging you away from violence, and blaming Whites for failures that were created by outside illegal activity - his own employer being one of the main sources of same. So keep that in mind.