Does this Anti-Net-Neutrality argument have a point or not? - General

Let me start by saying I'm a full-on proponent of Title 2, to the hilt, make no bones about it. The Internet is too important to risk it being crippled, and I feel people second guessing support for NN are playing with fire for stupid reasons and falling right into the mind games. But one of my... more or less friends on Discord is plenty conservative, and gets nettled every time NN gets mentioned, to the point of being a dick about it and complaining about websites warning about the fallout of its repeal. His refutations come down to this: [url=https://ibb.co/dVa8C6][img]https://preview.ibb.co/j1NYem/IMG_20171212_223937.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://ibb.co/iLodC6][img]https://preview.ibb.co/cuzUKm/IMG_20171212_224034.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://ibb.co/cGHS5R][img]https://preview.ibb.co/kFg9Km/IMG_20171212_224139.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://ibb.co/jrRn5R][img]https://preview.ibb.co/h3PJC6/IMG_20171212_224223.jpg[/img][/url] And he keeps linking to THESE articles. [url]https://funnyjunk.com/channel/FJNN/Actual+net+neutrality+document/jjauLww/[/url] [url]https://funnyjunk.com/channel/politics/Let+s+talk+internet/tifpLgv/[/url] Now me, I'm wary of even LOOKING at these. Partly from cowardice, partly from acknowledging that my legalese isn't terribly fluent, so I'm wary of falling into arguments tailor-made to SOUND reasonable while removing essential context, or skirting convenient details. And of course, if I'm wrong, I want to be triple sure before even APPROACHING a change of position. This is too important. Plus it seems impossible. With the current administration, and the money involved, the notion that ISP's are "doing the right thing" and not just lining pockets is an AMAZINGLY hard sell. Let alone it would mean an IMMENSE number of people on the Internet who I trust to be well researched would be talking out their asses. I leave this here, safe in the knowledge that Facepunch is pretty good at sniffing out bullshit, and since this place is so pro NN, it's unlikely these sentiments will go unchallenged.

So your friend is making three arguments: 1. "The ISP's didn't exploit a lack of net neutrality in the past, so they won't do it in the future." Here's some occasions where companies did exploit users by violating net neutrality: [URL="https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/"]https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/[/URL] [URL="https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/fcc-facetime-att"]https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/fcc-facetime-att[/URL] [URL="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863"]https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863[/URL] And even if they hadn't done so in the past, they still could do so in the future. Why leave the door open to exploitation when we can make it illegal to begin with. Give mega-corporations an inch and they take a mile. 2. "Companies have been selling your information even with net neutrality." That's a non-sequitur. Net neutrality has nothing to do with companies selling your information. Preventing privacy violations requires completely separate regulations. 3. "Current regulations have allowed monopolies to develop." Also a non-sequitur. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the existence of ISP monopolies per say.Those monopolies weren't formed because of net neutrality, they were formed because of a lack of other, entirely separate antitrust laws. The part of net neutrality that is relevant to monopolies is that it's a lot easier for existing monopolies to exploit people when net neutrality is not law. If your ISP introduces fast lanes or cuts speeds to websites that don't pay up, you can't just switch to another ISP, because they likely hold a monopoly over your area. My apartment ONLY can get centurylink. If they want to cut speeds to netflix or something, I have literally no recourse. Other people only have access to two or three, and if all of them decide to fuck you, you don't have any other options.

First off, if you have to go all the way to funnyjunk of all places to find something to support your argument, you already failed. im just going to cut out the middle man of "this is what the fcc is actually saying" and go right to the FCC publication they both reference [url]http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf[/url] by removing net neutrality, we are removing the governments ability to force ISPs to treat all data equally. this is the very definition of net neutrality, if your friend disagrees already at that point, then he might as well argue the earth is flat. But going to what he said. 1. yes, it was a problem before it passed. [URL="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/netflix-blog-on-internet-fast-lanes-2015-1"]services like netflix had to pay fees for normal access on the ISP networks[/URL]. it wasnt all fine and dandy before hand 2. the antimonopoly argument is that big net services youtube and netflix are consolidated because smaller sites cant pay the ISPs for the fast lane. it has nothing to do with ISPs merging, he is either confusing his arguments or being insincere 3. websites selling your web history is again irrelevant, net neutrality has nothing to do with it. in all honesty, your friends seem to be at that intellectual levels I see most middle schoolers at these days, where "macs cant get viruses" and pinging 8.8.8.8 in cmd is hacking.

Funnyjunk people posting some shit isn't an "article" btw

Tbh I wouldn't trust anything in funny junk, its the internet marketplace of trash I had to adblock the entire website from even opening just to stop dealing with all the bullshit I see in google searches

[IMG]https://image.ibb.co/kfxMX6/IMG_20171212_223937.jpg[/IMG] what is even their argument here?

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52972343][IMG]https://image.ibb.co/kfxMX6/IMG_20171212_223937.jpg[/IMG] what is even their argument here?[/QUOTE] "corporations didn't do anything exploitative (see: things corporations do) so there isn't a need for protections against exploitation"

[QUOTE=cynaraos;52972365]"corporations didn't do anything exploitative (see: things corporations do) so there isn't a need for protections against exploitation"[/QUOTE] all i'm seeing in it is "obama did it so its bad"