I don’t want to hear about CDA Section 230 anymore.

But here I am, hearing about it.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is now saying that he has a plan to “move forward with an FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of Section 230.”

I intend to move forward with an @FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of #Section230.

Read my full statement below. pic.twitter.com/LhUz5XMdSC

— Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) October 15, 2020

For those who may not know: you should know. But as a reminder: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects “platforms” from legal liability for what is posted on their sites by users. Basically, a “platform” is differentiated from a “publisher,” because they are not curating the content that is posted on their site. This status as “platform” protects them from legal liability for the content posted on their sites.

What that means in real life is this: Nick Sandmann was able to successfully sue CNN because CNN allowed their journalists to attack and defame him as a racist on their TV channel.

If you’ll recall, there must have been a billion liberal journalists on Twitter making the same defamatory claims that CNN made, but Twitter was never subjected to legal jeopardy for hosting this same material, because they are a “platform” and not a “publisher.” Ironically, the law was created to enable freedom of speech and prevent the chilling effect of websites fearing legal problems because of their users.

This is the current plan of the Republicans: establish that Twitter is no longer a “platform” and instead a “publisher” because they’ve made so many editorial decisions by banning all of these people that they’ve banned. If they lost their status as a platform under Section 230, the plan goes, they would get hit with X number of defamation lawsuits, which would ultimately collapse the company.

Then, the theory goes, they would be replaced by a different company, which would have different rules about the way it moderated content, and there would be freedom again.

I think this is a lunatic plan.

Firstly, it obviously isn’t going to work. There is too much money involved. Secondly, Section 230 can’t be clarified.

There is no way to implement hard and fast rules for banning across the entire internet. The only thing you could do is say, “no one can ban anyone.” But that would mean that say, the Gamer Uprising forum would lose its 230 status for banning annoying neo-Nazis who ruin threads with edgy anti-social crap.

If you didn’t say “no one can ever be banned for content,” then what exactly would change? Twitter and the rest would just figure out ways to Jew whatever rules you came up with.

Frankly, it’s just a nonstarter and a waste of time.

I personally believe that even without an act of Congress, you could add the big tech companies – namely, Facebook, Twitter and Google – to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which guarantees universal service for common carriers.

Right now, based on the 1996 Act, no telephone company can listen in on your calls and cut your service if you say the n-word. Even if you say the n-word in public, they cannot cut your phone line, because you are guaranteed service of the common carrier.

In 1996, we were still using AOL or Compuserve dial-up internet, that went over a standard phone line. Shortly thereafter however, in the early 00s, broadband internet became a standard, using either a DSL or a cable line. According to the FCC website, they now consider broadband internet something that should have “universal service.” They added that using their own system of rules, without input from Congress, based on the 1996 Act. (As far as the FCC’s ability to make rules: Congress never voted on Net Neutrality, which was a massive overhaul of the way the internet works by the Obama Administration.)

So, it is my contention that it is the Telecommunications Act, and not the Communications Decency Act, that Pai needs to clarify. Obviously, a judge is going to block him if he says that the big three tech companies are now going to be regulated as common carrier communications channels on par with phone lines, but a clarification of CDA 230 would also be blocked by judges.

I think that the argument can be made that Facebook and Twitter are necessary services in the same way that a phone line was a necessary service in the last century. They are used just as widely as phones were used, and are in fact more important now than phones ever were, for people’s personal and professional lives. They are also obviously natural monopolies.

If you’re going to go to the Supreme Court to try to prevent tech censorship without an act from Congress, this is the way to go, no question. Stating that a monopoly communications website like Facebook or Twitter is a communications service which should be universal, in the same way that a road or the mail is universal, is most likely to come to the outcome we want.

This is also not a direct attack on the companies themselves, in the way that undermining CDA 230 is. Yes, these companies have a political agenda, and there are a lot of Jews involved, but if you can set up your attack in such a way that the other side conceding doesn’t cost them any money (and will in fact make them money), then you’re going to get a whole lot less pushback.

What I’ve laid out here is very similar to what is being argued for by Matthew Prince of Cloudflare. He banned me from his service. I was the first site he’d ever banned, and to this day, there are only two sites he’s ever banned (the second being 8chan). When he banned me, he said that he did it to start a conversation. This was in part just bullshit, but he did follow through. His position was that it is not his job to decide what content should be banned, and he said that the situation should be the same as it is with the phone company. He said that banning me from Cloudflare was no different than if Ma Bell had listened in on my phone conversation and banned me because they didn’t like what I said.

Hilariously, after I was banned, Prince could no longer use the “we don’t ban anyone, ever” excuse when harassed by copyright trolls, and immediately got majorly sued.

After the judge allowed the fact that I was banned to be entered as evidence, Prince ended up being forced to settle, and has continued to be sued over and over again for copyright. I’m glad that banning me cost him however many tens of millions of dollars, but ultimately, it cost me in relative terms a lot more than it cost him. My biggest single expense right now comes from paying for the services I have to use to replace Cloudflare. (People ask me how much, but I never answer because I will just be accused of lying. By the way, please remember to donate.)

If these companies were not either run by Jews or under immense pressure from Jews, none of them would want to censor people, as it makes zero financial sense. Getting sued for copyright is the least of it – as we’ve seen, once you start banning, you are then morally responsible for everything you don’t ban. I pointed out after being banned by Cloudflare that they also host ISIS terrorist sites and pedophile websites that have boards discussing how to target children for sex. If they banned me because I was just too immoral, then the fact that they allow ISIS and pedophiles means that they approve of their morality.

Obviously, Jews don’t care about ISIS or pedophilia, but after Twitter and Facebook started banning, the Jews absolutely exploited the situation, saying that if they banned “Nazis,” then it must mean that they approve of everything they’re not banning. (Which is actually a completely sound argument.) That does tie back to the CDC 230 thing.

After the fiasco of agreeing to ban me, Prince went to meet with lawmakers about an agenda to transfer content regulation from the industry to the government, but as I understand it, they didn’t show much interest. I’m not sure to what extent he is still involved in pushing for regulation, but he would be a very good person for Trump to call on here.

The other way for things to go is for Congress to simply pass a law saying that internet monopolies must respect the First Amendment, in every case. But as we well know, the Congress is totally bought off, and there is zero chance that the current Congress, even if we win big in November, would be willing to do this. We would need to start replacing them through the primary system, which we will not have an opportunity to do until 2022.

I was locked out my account for twelve hours for stating something that was a standard line in Trump's 2016 rallies.

Where is the GOP?

Silent. Hiding under their desks.

This is why we lose.

— Lauren Witzke (@LaurenWitzkeDE) October 11, 2020

Current Republicans aren’t going to do anything. They are bought and paid for.

Right now, my impression is that if we get through this election and Trump stays in office, a lot of good things we didn’t expect to happen are going to start happening. I don’t think they will outweigh the bad things that we know are going to happen. But there will be things to be excited about, and things to look forward to.

Soon, you’re gonna need a cup this big to contain all your freedoms.

The noble Indian leader of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has issued a clear declaration of war against the wretched Jewish social media overlords.

In no uncertain terms, he wrote that social media companies should be held to strict standards of transparency, which is to say that their obscure schemes will be brought to light.

Transparency is to the Jew as light is to the vampires.

The Verge:

The leader of the Federal Communications Commission says that major web companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have offered little transparency into how they work — and it’s time to seriously consider forcing them to tell us.

YES.

Bring these kikes to heel!

In a blog post today, FCC chairman Ajit Pai calls out a long list of algorithmic and moderation decisions by web companies (including Twitter choosing not to ban New York Times columnist Sarah Jeong, a former Verge writer) and says that “consumers have virtually no insight” into how or why they happen. The same goes for privacy issues around how and where our data is used, Pai says.

“The public deserves to know more about how these companies operate,” he writes. “And we need to seriously think about whether the time has come for these companies to abide by new transparency obligations.”

Basically, here’s how decisions are probably made at all major social media companies.

The decision is put before a panel consisting of a Jew, a tranny, a fat sheboon and a communist. If any of them is offended by the idea, it’s rejected.

Same goes for bans, post deletions and other forms of censorship.

In other words, it functions exactly like Hollywood.

A. Wyatt Mann is a seer.

Pai’s blog post is timed to a congressional hearing that will see Facebook and Twitter executives sitting in front of a House committee tomorrow to answer questions around transparency. (Google was invited, but declined to appear.) The fact that Pai is even weighing in here is unusual: web companies make great use of the networks his agency regulates, but he does not regulate these web companies.

On top of that, Pai actively fought and stripped away similar regulations on the companies that he does regulate — internet providers. Privacy rules covering the vast amounts of data that your internet provider is capable of seeing were among the first things he scrapped after taking charge of the commission.

More net neutrality whining. We already covered this. It’s complete bullshit – all the people responsible for censorship were in favor of net neutrality, while the net infrastructure companies – who never censored anybody, and can’t legally do so – were against it.

The points Pai makes about tech companies are not altogether wrong. How the algorithms behind major websites work and what’s happening to our data are increasingly considered critical questions, and the demand for transparency is growing.

But Pai comes at it from the same approach as President Trump, cherry-picking examples to make it seem like these are liberal companies out to silence conservative voices, rather than platforms keeping their sites safe.

“Keeping their sites safe.”

Safe from what? Opinions they disagree with?

No one is safe from memes.

Jews, of course, are always characterizing speech they disagree with as “violence.” Conversely, they characterize antifa throwing bricks at people as “freedom of expression.”

One example he pulls out is YouTube demonetizing videos from PragerU, a nonprofit (which is not a university) that the Southern Poverty Law Center described as offering “dog whistles to the extreme right.” Among the videos pulled were several with Islamophobic titles like “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

PragerU are such hardcore racists that they had some kind of Somali on to criticize Islam.

It’s actually a totally Jewish organization pushing civic nationalism and support for Israel. But even that’s going too far for the Jews at the SPLC.

Ajit Pai actually presents other, more interesting examples to illustrate social media censorship:

We still don’t know. Recently, for instance, The New York Times hired a left-wing editorial board member who used racially incendiary language in a plethora of tweets. Those tweets remained on the platform until they were deleted by the user, and she was never suspended. Last month, a conservative commentator took some of those same tweets, substituted a religious group for the racial category in order to, she argued, underscore the original tweets’ repugnance — and was promptly suspended.

He’s talking about that bitch Sarah Jeong, of course.

He also mentions how even politicians are getting censored.

And many Twitter users said their online messages were restricted without explanation, such as Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn’s video announcing her campaign for the U.S. Senate […].

These examples show that this is being taken very seriously, and Pai’s sentiments are probably in line with Trump’s thinking.

As such, things are looking very good for the future of our internet freedoms.

What kind of deranged maniac could want to hurt such a wonderful man?

What you have to understand about bugmen is that they are as devoid of a heart as they are of a soul. As such, they can get worked up into a murderous frenzy by the idea of corporate regulations which might inconvenience their favorite entertainment providers.

Yes, only a bugman would threaten to kill a man’s entire family because he has different ideas about how ISP payment structures should be handled by the law.

The Verge:

A 33-year-old resident of Norwalk, California was arrested today for sending threatening emails to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai last year, according to the US Department of Justice. The threats, sent by an individual named Makara Man, were made primarily in the second of three messages sent to Pai’s official FCC email accounts in late December, just days after the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality protections.

Who is this “Makara Man?”

Is that his supervillain name? Is his special power being a complete faggot?

Makara Man hits you with the power of limp-wristedness! It’s super effective!

The first email allegedly accused Pai of causing the suicide of a teenager through his actions that led to the net neutrality vote. The second email contained an explicit threat against members of Pai’s family, as well as a listing of three locations in and around Arlington, Virginia where Pai is said to live. The third email allegedly contained a photo of Pai and a separate photo of Pai and his family.

If some teenager killed himself because of net neutrality, then he probably would have done it sooner or later as a result of other stupid shit. Like, the passing of the wrong trade regulations in the EU, or maybe the death of his favorite ant or whatever.

I won’t live in a world without sufficient FCC controls over the internet.

According to the Justice Department, the FBI traced the emails to Man’s home, where he acknowledged sending the threats. He also confirmed his use of an email alias,”Stubblemanliness@gmail.com,” allegedly because the alias would make him seem “tougher,” according to the affidavit. Apparently, Man intended to “scare” Pai because he was “anger” over the repealing of net neutrality protections, the affidavit reads.

Yes, this bugman thought sending an email from an address named “Stubblemanliness” would make him seem “tough.”

Yeah, real intimidating screen handle, there, dude.

Man is being charged with threatening to murder a family member of an acting US official with the intent of interfering with said official’s job performance and duties, or threatening to retaliative against a US official for their specific job performance. The charge carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Since Pai’s controversial stance on net neutrality directly resulted in a successful vote to remove the Title II classification for internet service providers in December of last year, the chairman has been subjected to a fair amount of heated criticism online and off.

The gloves are coming off.

Shitlibs of all stripes – including celebrities – have been making horrible threats against various members of the Trump administration, and have so far suffered little to no consequences for their impudence.

The times, they are a changin’.

Yes, Jew, the times are indeed changing.

This marks the start of a new era, in which those who mess with the Trump regime are going to get their shit stomped by feds before being thrown into cages.

10 years in prison for threatening SAINT PAI would be a very lenient sentence.

But then again, he is a fair and merciful man.

The faggot bugmen of America whine that fascism has come to the White House. Well, they ain’t seen nothing yet.

There will come a time when every last blue check mark who ever said something about killing Trump is going to get hunted down like an animal and made to pay for his crimes.

So the Zuck testified before Congress Tuesday and he basically just said the same exact shit he’s been saying publicly on this apology tour. Meaning I don’t know why he had to testify before Congress. They just asked him a bunch of questions that he’s already provided answers for.

I don’t know how anyone can claim that they ever thought Facebook was big on privacy.

Doesn’t everyone remember that like, when the platform was first launched in 2004, he was on record calling people “dumb fucks” for giving him all their info and offering to give it to someone?

So all of the sudden this is this huge crisis now and everyone is pretending to be shocked?

It’s stupid.

Washington Post:

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly expressed contrition in a high-profile congressional hearing Tuesday that featured complaints that went far beyond how the social network has handled the data of tens of millions of Americans.

Senators from both parties aggressively questioned Zuckerberg in his first ever public appearance in front of Congress over recent controversies – from data privacy to Russian disinformation. They demanded new detail about how Facebook collects and uses data and elicited assurances that it will implement major improvements in protecting personal privacy. The threat of greater regulation – not just of Facebook, but of the entire technology industry – hung over the first of two days of congressional hearings.

“If Facebook and other online companies will not or cannot fix these privacy invasions, then we will,” said Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee. The Tuesday hearing was a rare joint session before two Senate panels — the Commerce and Judiciary committees — with as many as 44 senators set to question the Facebook executive.

Zuckerberg, who traded his trademark t-shirts and hoodies for the standard Capitol Hill garb of a dark suit and tie, sought to quell the concerns of lawmakers and vowed to make meaningful reforms.

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well,” Zuckerberg said at the Senate hearing. “And that goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.”

Bro, I don’t think the government is concerned about hate speech.

Even the people talking about how it was maybe somehow illegal for Russians to post memes on Facebook aren’t talking about hate speech.

Zuckerberg, who has long avoided wading into Washington affairs, took responsibility for the missteps. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. And it was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”

Facebook’s inability to identify and combat Russian disinformation during the 2016 presidential campaign is one of Zuckerberg’s “biggest regrets,” he said. “One of my top priorities in 2018 is getting this right.”

He also confirmed that Facebook officials have been interviewed by officials from Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who has been investigating Russia’s role in influencing the 2016 election. “I know we are working with them,” said Zuckerberg.

The exchanges between the 33-year-old billionaire and lawmakers were often tense. But Zuckerberg also caused spectators to laugh when he turned down an opportunity for a break, saying he could keep answering questions for 15 more minutes before stopping.

Zuckerberg’s acknowledgments of responsibility punctuated an extraordinary shift in tone for him and the company he co-founded in his Harvard dorm room in 2004. After years of recurrent privacy controversies and official apologies, Zuckerberg has strained in recent weeks to convince lawmakers, users and regulators that Facebook is determined to deliver meaningful change. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has its own hearing scheduled for Wednesday morning.

The senators did not seem appeased by Zuckerberg’s several apologies, acknowledgements and vows to do better in the future. Several asked for detailed answers about how private, third-party companies, such as the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, gained access to personal data on 87 million Facebook users, including 71 million Americans.

This is going to end in government regulation.

There is no other place it can go than exactly there.

And that can only be good for us. I don’t see any single downside. It should have been regulated from the beginning, like every other natural monopoly, and it was only a weird turn of history that caused it not to be.

The internet, and the backbone structures on which it functions, are public utilities and they are the definition of key infrastructure. The idea that they have gone unregulated this long is completely insane.

What the Democrats pushing for this regulation do not understand is that when the government gets involved, they are going to be forced to uphold our First Amendment rights. They can start out without doing that, but we will be able to take them to court and win. If it is government-regulated infrastructure, then our Constitutional rights will apply.

The government cannot make “hate speech” laws, so if the government is regulating the content of websites, the only guide will be the First Amendment (and then presumably some kind of complicated thing about foreign influence, which will not apply to the Alt-Right).

This is going in a very good direction for us.

We are inches away from winning the whole game.

Trump knows that he needs people on his side online, and he knows that these are the people who are being targeted. So once the FCC gets a hold of these companies, we’re in.

Facebook and Twitter are literally going to be forced to give all of us amnesty.

The HERO CEO of Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, already has a plan that he has presented to the government about TRUE NET NEUTRALITY where all legal content will be allowed on key infrastructure.

Zuckerberg has himself already said it isn’t his job to deal with “hate speech.” They know this is a slippery slope, they know it is expensive, they know the people calling for censorship will always call for more and this hurts their bottom line.

So basically, we’ve already won.

There are probably downsides to this too, I guess. I’m sure there will be. I’m not really sure what they are right now. But there will be.

But we are going to get our freedoms back.

I believe it.

I am shocked to see that Twitter is allowing such horribly racist posts against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to remain online.

Once again, we see Twitter being exposed for its hypocrisy and double standards. Even though they have banned pretty much anybody of note pushing pro-European views, they’re allowing users on the political left to spew as much hate and racism as they like.

Of particular note is all the racism directed towards Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. The Daily Caller compiled a number of these hateful tweets and noted that these users had not been banned as they should have been per Twitter’s own policies.

"I'm an Indian nigger, someone please assassinate me lol". – @AjitPaiFCC 2017 pic.twitter.com/ugrqYF88ri

— Rydro (@RydroOfficial) November 27, 2017

Guys we got to do something about ajit pai we cannot let this sand Nigger take away net neutrality I will not stand for this tyranny on our rights.

— Godlevel (@xvengence0054) December 11, 2017

I want to murder this man.

I'm not even being memey or cute. This is some, if I ever see him it's on sight type business.

Keep me away from Ajit Pai. I dunno what I'll do. https://t.co/tvPq2ZADLL

— n!ne. (@Nine0uh) December 14, 2017

It would be justifiable homicide as he has committed treason against the american people. you could never find 12 people in this country that would convict someone for it.

— joseph schneider (@schneider1492) December 15, 2017

Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t give a shit if someone wanted to use racial slurs to articulate their political views. That’s because I actually do believe in free political speech. However, we are not operating under normal circumstances. Twitter has once again decided to selectively enforce their policies to target people on the political right. The users above are still allowed to fag it up on Twitter because their racial hatred is targeting Pai.

This is undoubtedly due to the fact that Twitter has been supportive of net neutrality regulations and Pai was successful in overturning them. That’s why they’re fine with not banning users who advocate violence against Pai while they call him every racial slur in the books. They view Pai as an enemy even though he is a racial minority.

This shows that Twitter doesn’t actually believe in preventing violence, hate or racism. These are just excuses used to shut down the political speech of people they disagree with. That’s what this is all about. It’s the phoniest thing imaginable.

Twitter is flat out refusing to provide services to people based on their political beliefs. It would be like the phone company in the 1960s refusing to provide a phone line to someone because they disliked their political views. What we are seeing is an obvious case of discrimination against an entire group of people. The government needs to step in and start regulating Twitter. They are completely out of control and need to be reigned in.

Well, anyone who loves Reeses peanut butter cups can’t be all that bad, I can tell you that.

The removal of “Net Neutrality” has generated a level of liberal butt-hurt I’ve rarely seen before, and on those grounds alone I can only applaud the decision for the spectacle it generates.

It’s also a very good policy that’s sure to help modernize America’s obsolete internet infrastructure.

Now, angry leftists are accusing the FCC chairman Ajit Pai, a dot Indian, of being some kind of Alt-Right sympathizer.

Alternet:

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to repeal an Obama-era regulation to preserve net neutrality, defying Silicon Valley executives and consumer advocacy groups, not to mention the will of the people. A recent University of Maryland survey finds that more than 80 percent of registered voters oppose the FCC’s plans.

What a surprise, the masses side with the giant globalist corporations that control everyone’s access to information.

The move will fundamentally transform the internet as we know it, allowing corporate behemoths like Verizon and Comcast to manipulate loading speeds and charge customers a premium for access to individual websites and apps. Adding insult to democratic injury, circumstantial evidence suggests the man who cast the deciding vote, Ajit Pai, sympathizes with the so-called alt-right.

“Manipulate loading speeds.”

No it won’t, you retards. Selective throttling is already against FCC rules. All it allows these companies to do is charge a premium to corporations like Netflix who are hogging up all the bandwidth [The internet is not a big truck and you can’t just dump things on it. -AA]. This is why these Silicon Valley types are against it – they don’t want to be the ones who pay for the infrastructure costs their own business requires.

Why would Comcast charge the users extra for their access to Netflix, when they can now just charge Netflix themselves?

This is why all these corporations are in favor of Net Neutrality – they want to ensure that consumers are forced to pay the price of internet infrastructure, not them.

Back in November, the FCC chairman and Trump appointee unveiled his plans to junk the net neutrality rules established in 2015, arguing that websites and social media platforms, rather than internet service providers (ISPs), posed the greatest threat to an open internet. At the time, Pai singled out Twitter for blame.

“The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate,” he told the R Street Institute, a libertarian-minded think tank. “And to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or deverifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users. This conduct is many things, but it isn’t fighting for an open internet.”

It’s difficult to know exactly who Pai had in mind, but Slate’s April Glaser notes that Twitter recently deverified the accounts of several prominent white supremacists, including Laura Loomer and Jason Kessler.

In the minds of Alternet journalists, Jews can be White supremacists. Wew.

“What’s weird about Pai’s comments is that while these are all figures on the right, conservatives don’t typically count them among their ranks,” Glaser writes. “And while conservatives do sometimes cast themselves as ideological victims of Silicon Valley’s overreach, there have been no recent deverifications of prominent right-wing figures, ‘conservative’ or otherwise, not known for promoting hate. In other words, according to Pai, the demotion of racists on a social network is a bigger deal than an action that could radically change the architecture of—and who succeeds on—the internet.”

Sounds about right.

The fact that these major corporations crack down on political speech they disagree with completely undermined their hoax claim that they “care about free-speech.”

Twitter certainly doesn’t care about free-speech. Only their bandwidth costs.

There is a standard for what speech is allowed in America. It’s called the first amendment. Anyone not following that standard is de facto engaging in politically motivated censorship.

After the FCC chairman pleaded his case that social media networks were suppressing free speech, he earned the effusive praise of far-right radio host Matt Forney and Andrew Torba of Gab, a platform where users “are generally free to be as racist or anti-Semitic as they’d like without fear of being reprimanded or censored,” according to Slate.

Pai is not Alt-Right.

But like other departments of the Trump administration, the FCC is doing a great job of trolling liberals and Jews into histrionics.

Feels good, man.

The head of Trump’s FCC Ajit Pai is no fan of Twitter’s censorship policies and that’s a good thing.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit Pai just took a massive shit on Silicon Valley at a speech yesterday. He specifically singled out Twitter as being one of the main companies stifling free political speech on the internet.

Reuters:

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, accused social media company Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) of being politically biased on Tuesday as he defended his plan to roll back rules intended to ensure a free and open internet.

Pai, a Republican named by President Donald Trump to head up the FCC, unveiled plans last week to scrap the 2015 landmark net neutrality rules, moving to give broadband service providers sweeping power over what content consumers can access.

“When it comes to an open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”

He pointed to Twitter’s refusal to let Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Republican, advertise a campaign video with an anti-abortion message.

“To say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users,” Pai said.

And what Pai talked about is just the tip of the iceberg as far as censorship on Twitter is concerned. They’ve banned nearly everyone of notable significance that has a political view to the right of Karl Marx. At least they’ve banned everyone they can get away with banning. Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey would probably ban Donald Trump from the platform if he could get away with it.

Pai also attacked a handful of celebrities including Cher and Marc Ruffalo who not surprisingly support net neutrality.

Taking away #NetNeutrality is the Authoritarian dream. Consolidating information into the hands of a few controlled by a few. Dangerous territory. https://t.co/ZVdvmGzcHf

— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 21, 2017

Net Neutrality means
Trump can Change The
Internet ‼️It Will Include LESS AMERICANS NOT MORE‼️
Now Comcast,AT&T,Google
Will show you ONLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SEE ‼️SLOWER AND MORE EXPENSIVE AT THEIR WHIM‼️SEE LESS,CHARGED MORE…

— Cher (@cher) November 22, 2017

It’s honestly amazing that there are people among our ranks who still think net neutrality is a good thing. These regulations only serve to empower the Silicon Valley companies who actively censor political content. And besides, since when have moronic celebrities like Marc Ruffalo or Cher ever been right about anything?

It isn’t like the proposal to repeal net neutrality is a radical thing. These regulations have only been in place since 2015. The internet operated fine before 2015. Anybody saying otherwise is spreading nonsensical fear to justify keeping these regulations which have done nothing to prevent existing internet censorship.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit Pai is apparently getting harassed for promising to repeal net neutrality.

The Hill:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman chairman Ajit Pai asked people to stop harassing his family over his attempts to roll back net neutrality provisions.

During a Monday interview on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends,” Pai addressed a sign that was put up outside his home that mentioned his children’s names and read: “They will come to know the truth. Dad murdered Democracy in cold blood.”

“It certainly crosses a line with me,” Pai said.

“I understand that people are passionate about policy, but the one thing in America that should remain sacred is that families, wives and kids, should remain out of it,” he continued.

“And stop harassing us at our homes.”

I have a friend that lives near @AjitPaiFCC. Net neutrality "activists" posted these signs, featuring his children's names, outside his house. Pizzas also reportedly sent to his house every half-hour last night. pic.twitter.com/jWI4gV6Hvc

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) November 25, 2017

There’s no doubt that Silicon Valley is going into overdrive trying to keep net neutrality regulations in place. That’s because they’ve been the main beneficiaries of this policy. They are going all out with a propaganda campaign to make people believe that repealing net neutrality will result in the end of internet freedom. Their campaign has been effective enough to the point where they’ve convinced useful idiots to harass the FCC chairman’s family. The good news is that it doesn’t appear as if he’s getting scared off from the harassment. It looks as if he is going to go through with the repeal.

As we already know, the Silicon Valley position is absurd because internet censorship is in full force despite net neutrality being in place since 2015. The Daily Stormer is the foremost example of how Silicon Valley has conspired to eliminate a political view from the public square. We’ve been banned from multiple domain registrars and blacklisted from every major social media site and service imaginable. The FCC’s net neutrality regulations have done nothing for us.

The same companies responsible for censoring political views on the internet are claiming that we need net neutrality to prevent internet censorship. How can people not see the hypocrisy with this position?

Net neutrality supporters are more concerned with the theoretical censorship that internet service providers might engage in than the actual real life censorship engaged in by Silicon Valley.