“Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea” Milo Yiannopoulos DESTROY Net Neutrality

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


“Net Neutrality Is A Bad Idea” Milo Yiannopoulos DESTROY Net Neutrality


Leon E says:

0:30– "You're all wrong, you think it's going to go to some corporate dystopian hell…"- except when those of us who support net neutrality talk about providers blocking competing content, we aren't theorizing. Look at the history of how the internet got title 2 protection in the first place. It stemmed entirely from a single court case where Verizon tried to do exactly that- block people who accessed the internet through their service from being able to use a competitor's product. It's already happened, and net neutrality being legally established is the only thing that stopped it.

0:45 He says "all it's going to do is take the internet back to where it was a few years ago anyway"- False. Net neutrality (all data traffic being treated equally) is a fundamental principle behind how the basic architecture of the internet works. Filtering data on that scale is not an easy thing to do. That's why it never really came up as an issue until a couple years ago- the technology hadn't reached a point where filtering all traffic through their system was financially feasible for ISP's to do.

1:09– "It prevents companies from selling you a service where netflix is faster." Also false. The internet quite simply doesn't work that way. You can't increase the speed of your connection to a single site. All you can do to create a connection where netflix runs faster than other sites is to increase the speed of your entire connection, then artificially slow down the data from the other sites. This requires computing power to do. It would cost an ISP more money to sell you service with double netflix speed and regular everything else than it would to just sell you a double speed internet connection. The only possible motivation to do this would be to then leverage more fees out of customers to remove the artificial slowing from the other data, or to force customers to use a service the ISP financially benefited from over a competing service.

1:26– "The FCC started this under Obama, this net neutrality"- Again, false. The FCC didn't start this. Google launched their mobile payment app called "google wallet". This directly competed with a verizon product called Isis. Verizon blocked google wallet from working on any device connected through verizon internet so that they wouldn't have to compete with it. Google sued them. The case went to the supreme court, and the judge ruled that since the internet was at that time regulated under title 1 protection, the FCC did not have the authority to prevent a company from blocking a competitor's product from functioning. It was only then that the FCC voted to reclassify the internet as a title 2 protected service. This wasn't some random government power grab. It was an emergency action to preserve marketplace stability and prevent monopolistic abuse.

1:48– "this George Soros funded… etc. It's better to let the market regulate itself, the government shouldn't control the internet"- The bulk of the push to preserve net neutrality comes from citizens like myself who understand the ramifications of what losing net neutrality would do. This contrasts with the driving force behind the push to repeal net neutrality, which is for the most part being funded (to the tune of millions of dollars) by major telecommunications firms, and enacted by the current head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, who was an attorney working for Verizon during the very lawsuit that resulted in title 2 status being imposed in the first place.

1:56: "It's up to the free market to decide what customers will bear, and to allow competition to produce the best results"- the entire purpose of net neutrality is to preserve competition. The entire purpose of repealing it is to allow ISP's to prevent customers from being able to access a competing product. His argument here is utter nonsense.

2:11– "They tell you this is all about having a free internet where everything is treated equally. That has never been the case." Patently and laughably false. That has always been the case.

2:30– "It will never work because it's impossible to enforce. ISP's have always manipulated and shaped data. You will never be able to eradicate it." This bit is just… wow… I mean… Do you have any IDEA how much of an undertaking it would be to do what he's describing? And how easy it would be to catch it? You can literally just ping a server and see your response time. Also, in regards to his overall argument, I'm sure that a lot of people who commit securities fraud never get caught, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have laws that forbid it.

2:35– "They're always going to send some things faster than others and that will never change." Again… THE INTERNET DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. This entire statement is a blatant untruth.

2:51– "All it does is give the federal government the right to wade in on the private relationship between customers and providers" I mean… in the same way anti-monopoly laws give the government the right to "wade in" and prevent major corporations from choking out all competition, sure I guess. But I don't see people up in arms to repeal those. Not ALL laws are bad.

3:02 "…and prevent providers from being able to offer richer, tailored packages. It's about government control over a critical utility." Yet again, the internet does not work that way. Like I said before, the only way to favor some traffic over other traffic is to artificially slow the "unfavored" traffic. There is literally no conceivable scenario where something would prevent a provider from offering a higher speed for ALL traffic as opposed to just SOME traffic. Creating a "tiered" internet service requires FAR more investment than a "flat" service. And yes, the internet IS a critical utility. We have laws preventing abuses by providers of OTHER critical utilities, why is the internet any different?

At that point he moves on to the next topic.

Jay Morgan says:

I hate how the alt right say because net neturality gives government the power to regulate the internet over the companies that is is a bad thing. The internet is one of the things that should be regulated by the goverment. Like seriously, would u trust Verizon, Comcast, or At&T to regulate the internet when they had a history of throttling websites such as Netflix. Right after the repeal Comcast already had a plan for fast lanes! I feel the only reason they support the repeal is because trump doesnt want it, and to go against the majority and seem smarter than the rest of us. You know the repeal its a bad thing when The Godfather of the internet is against it. Another thing, people say because google wants net neturality it is a bad thing. Do they not realize that Comcast, verizon, and atat support the repeal. Some of the greediest companies around. If someone wants to argue with me go ahead and tell me one good thing that the repeal does or why it should be repealed in the first place.

Boyuan Duan says:

Actually kys

Reinhart Alvaro says:

His religion bit is a bit silly, yes it is true that science is a product of human curiosity and religion it doesn't strengthen the case of religion, yes a lot of atheists and scientists especially who tries to disprove god convert to religion for their own reasons but it doesn't mean they're right, it's an opinion, just because some smart people do some things doesn't mean their opinion is better or right since it's an opinion

Also trying to disprove religion is as futile as trying to prove it, that's why atheists convert but not agnostics, also how can a person be religious in a religion that would burn you literally for your sexuality, I find it a bit odd

Reinhart Alvaro says:

While Milo has a point but this Net Neutrality thing is wrong in a sense that giving legal power to corporations to do whatever they want is a bad thing, just because they already do it doesn't mean it's bad

Rape is illegal and bad yet people do it, legalizing rape isn't the answer is it……

Raun Carswell says:

So, no one is going to comment on the fact he has Sunglasses on indoors even though he's not blind?

I don't even know or care who this guy is, and Net Neutrality is still the better idea.

Miguel Botero says:

"I'm going to get a bit technical…" proceeds to demonstrate his total lack of technical understanding.

BR says:

I don't know why anyone ever even gives thus guy the time of day. I really think a lot of right wing people just use him as a " see I don't hate gay people!" thing because everything he says is one sided and off and this time everything he says can be debunked easily. Also this is a really weird video of him mostly jerking himself off.

Kamuela boy says:

Somehow, he makes such a valid case out of a topic that is seems so one sided. Also, all your studies on religion show that christianity is the answer

Write a comment


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: