>>552165 (previous)

>AT&T is a contractor for NSA

NOW. they are now. that doesn't mean they will ALWAYS be the good guys. controlling government is easy. think about what you want the government to do - then think about what that same power would give in the hands of your political enemies who have authority over you. more government is always bad. this is exactly what america is founded on. LESS government.

i'm done talking about this. it's fucking concerning, and i don't trust it at face value. anyone can take a shit and wrap it up with a colorful box and a bit bow. it's still a piece of shit with a fancy wrapper

if this is going to be a cult where we blindly comply, i'm fucking out

>>552255

>I signed the petition on the basis of Qs input.

>How is this different than net neutrality?

checked

>>552283

i'm not part of a cult. i'm part of an unorganized chaos well known for not trusting, for verifying the accuracy of a claim myself. where is this internet bill of rights? can i verify its integrity? can i make sure it's not adding more regulation - expanding government instead of shrinking it? no i fucking can't. as of yet, all that exists is a feel-good letter from a CEO

>>552359

>Internet Bill of Rights, introduced by Congress, would be beneficial if passed

the point i've been trying to make, and what i'm apparently getting called a fucking shill/glowing for, is that it depends on exactly how it's implemented. it depends how that shit is worded whether or not it's beneficial. i don't want bakers to have bake cakes for fags if they don't want to. i'm not sure how this is so hard to understand or why it makes me a glowing cia nigger

>>552434

show me the proposed legislation, anon. until that is tangible, it's a figment of the imagination that could go either way

>>552801

that's why i like the graveyard shift better. it's /comfy/