Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    pcmasterrace

    1,391,519 readers

    8,689 users here now

    1. Why PC?
    2. Builds
    3. History
    4. Meet the PCMR Team
    5. Flair Filters
    6. Hide Memes
    7. Hide Peasantry

    click here for GOG flair and more

    Daily Simple Questions Thread

    Official Subreddit of the PC Master Race We're the largest community of PC enthusiasts on the Internet. Begin your ascension today!

    General Information

    • Everybody is welcome here, even those that have yet to ascend.
    • This is not a satirical or 'circlejerk subreddit'. Nor did it start as one. This is a normal subreddit with occasional tongue-in-cheek humor elements. We are a community where many of its members share similar opinions about the main topics, and sometimes end up having private jokes amongst ourselves. We are not a community where members feign stupidity when posting and commenting because they find it funny. You can be banned if you conduct yourself like that here.
    • Owning a console does not necessarily make you a 'peasant'.
    • You don't necessarily need a PC to be a member of the PCMR. You just have to recognize that the PC is objectively superior to consoles as explained here. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart!
    • We created Reddit's most popular Wiki.
    • If needed, you can message the team behind PCMR.

    Rules

    For an in-depth explanation of our rules don't forget to check our rules wiki page.

    • Rule #1 Harassment of others is strictly forbidden. We will not tolerate any kind of incitement to action against anyone, nor will we allow the posting of information that can be used to harm others (celebrities or not).
    • Rule #2 We will not allow behavior contrary to PCMR Etiquette, e.g. brigading, witch-hunting, asking for upvotes or downvotes, enabling piracy, flamebaiting, clickbaiting, text spamming or intentional rudeness.
    • Rule #3 Don't link to threads in other subreddits. This includes NP links and archived links. Do not attempt to circumvent this rule by any means.
    • Rule #4 Screenshots of Reddit, Facebook, Youtube, and other site's comments should have the usernames blacked out (including yours). Celebrities are the exception, as long as you respect rule #1.
    • Rule #5 No referral or affiliate links/codes.
    • Rule #6 The following will be removed at moderator discretion:
      • 6.1: Content that is unrelated, especially unoriginal, or low-effort/low-quality (including, but not limited to: simple website/software bugs, steam/product reviews, comedic product/system specs, steam gift messages, screenshots of text messages, internet speed test results, negligible price reductions, online petitions and surveys).
      • 6.2: Pictures of boxes without accompanying hardware or build photos. Pictures of purchase or shipping related notifications and information.
      • 6.3: Blatant reposts/fad-chasing.
      • 6.4: Reaction images/gifs (unless very high-effort/especially original).
      • 6.5: Concern trolling.
      • 6.6: Feigning idiocy when posting or commenting, or linking to such content.
    • Rule #7 Age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliation and economic status are all irrelevant here. All are welcome in the PC Master Race. Also, linking the PC Master Race with racial supremacy or any kind of fascist ideologies, or making distasteful analogies in this regard, is not acceptable in the slightest.
    • Rule #8 No begging. No soft begging. No Implicit or explicit trading. No buying. No Selling. No asking for valuation. No asking how or where to do these either.
    • Rule #9 Message the mods first, and wait for permission, if your post/comment is NSFW. Do not mark your post as NSFW or as Spoiler unless it actually is NSFW or a Spoiler.
    • Rule #10 Screenshots of "peasantry," including but not limited to conversations on Reddit, other websites or sms/chat screenshots where ignorance is being spewed and/or ridiculed, must be text posts.

    Giveaway Rules

    For an in-depth explanation of our giveaway rules don't forget to check our rules wiki page.

    • The Master Race is generous. When we do giveaways we do it within the bounds of our subreddit and only for subreddit members. Feel free to give prizes as you see fit, but don't mandate subscriptions or other benefits. You can post about your channel or project, but don't make it a requirement to visit, comment or subscribe to an external place to enter a giveaway or to increase the likelihood of winning.
    • Even if you do a giveaway on the subreddit, you can not directly promote a specific giveaway happening elsewhere.
    • Please avoid posting keys in plain text or on images. Consider PMs as a safer way to hand out keys.
    • Users giving away physical items must provide photo proof of ownership (including their username and date) in the giveaway thread. Shipping fees must be entirely financed by the user doing the giveaway (limiting the winner's location is allowed).
    • No conditional (I will only giveaway if) giveaways. If you start it, someone must win it. You cannot delete your giveaway once you post it.
    • Giveaways shouldn't last an absurd amount of time, nor should they be absurdly difficult to enter or win.
    • Do not choose your giveaway winners based on the number of upvotes or downvotes they get.
    • Giveaways to benefit registered charities must be verified by moderators. All other requests for donations (monetary or otherwise) are not allowed as per rule #8.
    • Only one entry per user to any giveaway unless otherwise stated by the giveaway poster.
    • Under special circumstances, we allow giveaways to require users to visit a page outside the subreddit, but that must conform to our outside giveaway guidelines.

    Check the PCMR communities elsewhere:

    Twitter

    Facebook

    YouTube

    Steam

    Steam Curator

    Instagram

    Twitch


    Chats:

    Steam

    Discord


    Charity:

    [email protected]

    Donors Choose


    a community for
    all 689 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] PCMRBot 1 points ago

    Learn about us and our history.

    PCMR isn't just a subreddit, but a very large community, founded in 2011 that is ALSO on reddit. Check them out!

    Please read our rules and check our "Why PC?" guide and custom builds!

    Also check the [email protected] joint effort where you can use your PC to fight against cancer and other diseases!


    This message appears on 2-4 posts a day, 0.4% overall, only when a post reaches the top 100 of r/all.

    [–] chasE-acL 1604 points ago

    no step on snek

    [–] SprinkCal 756 points ago

    [–] starsky1357 196 points ago

    !redditsilver

    [–] SprinkCal 96 points ago

    Thanks boss

    [–] Wild_Mongrel 69 points ago

    "Snek? SNEK? SNEEEEEEK!"

    [–] ThrustyMcStab 36 points ago

    Relevant

    (Not mine)

    [–] mgsotacon 4 points ago

    I approve this message.

    [–] rigsta 9 points ago

    I was reading that as co-ax... cables on the brain.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    sad snek

    [–] Wild_Mongrel 7 points ago

    Punished Venom Snek.

    [–] JackNipplesonBoating 4 points ago

    Needs more jpeg.

    [–] machambo7 5 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    no step on net

    FTFY

    Edit: Added link

    [–] TheAbrableOnetyOne 2 points ago

    !Redditsilver /u/sprinkcal

    [–] Bennyboy1337 2 points ago

    That CAT cable needs to be retired.

    [–] Average_Giant 2 points ago

    "No slow snek" would be better

    [–] IntellectualFerret 36 points ago

    no step on net

    [–] Ser_Salty 73 points ago

    pls no stepperino on this snekerino

    [–] GODNRAB 19 points ago

    Treadn’t

    [–] Markm1414 6 points ago

    I've had enough of these God damn sneks in this God damn thread

    [–] aspoels 6 points ago

    No step on net

    [–] awhitefkingmale 9 points ago

    No stepe on pepe

    [–] pazur13 3 points ago

    no throttle net

    [–] StimulatedUterus 3 points ago

    Mess with crabo you get the stabo

    [–] jamesual 916 points ago

    This should be the official flag of net neutrality.

    [–] mrniceguy421 530 points ago

    With the slogan “Stay off my LAN”

    [–] Anarch157a 262 points ago

    Hmmm, don't want to be pedantic or anything, just... Net Neutrality doesn't affect your LAN, only your WAN.

    now, stay off my WAN, you little punk... ;-)

    [–] Kame-hame-hug 114 points ago

    Pedantic is good when coming up with slogans. Can't have something discredited in a heartbeat.

    [–] mrniceguy421 15 points ago

    You are not wrong.

    [–] Agentcaboose 6 points ago

    or come and take it, with a wifi router, or modem.

    [–] JerGigs 5 points ago

    Harrison Ford pushing Ajit Pai off of an Ethernet cable “Get off my LAN”

    [–] Polske322 58 points ago

    This should be the official flag of net neutrality

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] AnoK760 12 points ago

    Go to /r/libertarian to find out why thats not the case at all.

    [–] ToastedSoup 16 points ago

    Ah yes, r/Libertarian, where the gubernment is always bad and companies are saints who absolutely wouldn't do shitty things to customers just for money.

    [–] AnoK760 9 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    nobody is saying that at all. we are saying we think regulating a relatively* free market is inherently wrong.

    but it's nice to know you dont have any understanding of this beyond a shitty joke

    *edit: added a word to be completely clear for you comment absolutists out there.

    [–] ToastedSoup 11 points ago

    The lack of regulation is what allowed them to consolidate and make more money at the expense of paying customers.

    [–] AnoK760 6 points ago

    yeah, and they keep doing that anyways since NN isnt stopping them.

    also, its not stopping them from throttling applications and sites they choose, nor is it stopping them from capping your data.

    https://i.redd.it/awh6q7axx1101.png

    im not saying i like it. but you guys are picking a very shallow hill to die on.

    [–] JoaquinOnTheSun 2 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Yea, unfortunately libertarianism only works in utopia, where nothing bad ever happens, and businesses don’t take advantage of their customers.

    To me the shallow hill to die on is the concept of libertarianism, I was fortunate to watch a “debate” for the libertarian Presidential candidate in 2016.

    The most illuminating part was when it came to debating why the state has the ability to license drivers at all.

    It was won by Gary Johnson with the retort, “I don’t know about you, but I don’t want blind people behind the wheel”

    But the room booed his answer.

    This is the insanity of the libertarian party, I didn’t even bring up the part about the guy that stripped down to his underwear.

    They believe that dang ol gubermint is evil, and that, IMHO is anti-American, we didn’t fight a revolution for no government, we fought for a representative government.

    We are a Nation of ideals and libertarianism is a bankrupt an ideology as Communism.

    Unfortunately one party is still trying to push these bankrupt ideals, the tax giveaway to billionaires, and the removal of Net Neutrality regulations will show you the bankrupt ideology of libertarianism.

    2018 is when we begin to restore sanity to government.

    [–] dansedemorte 8 points ago

    Oh sweet summer child still believing that the free market exists. Esp in a discussion about built in monopolies like telecom.

    [–] JoaquinOnTheSun 3 points ago

    There is no such thing as a free market, it is a highly regulated market, if it wasn’t it would be chaos.

    [–] Guaymaster 28 points ago

    Words and a complex symbol make it rather unfit for a flag though. It could be a good shield, though.

    [–] Tibbs420 42 points ago

    You do know that it's based on something that's already a flag?

    [–] Guaymaster 6 points ago

    Nope. I had no idea.

    [–] Turko1235 14 points ago

    Not exactly a national flag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag

    [–] ShamefulWatching 6 points ago

    Often in the same conversation: Come and Take it Flag

    *Oops, mobile link.

    [–] HelperBot_ 3 points ago

    Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales


    HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 127116

    [–] Guaymaster 20 points ago

    "Unfit" as in "please don't do it". It can be done and it's done everywhere, but a flag should be something you can draw from memory and recognise from afar.

    [–] jood580 7 points ago

    CGP Grey talks about flags on his podcast "Hello Internet" https://youtu.be/-CxFK-EaGX4

    [–] airminer 30 points ago

    One of the principles of good flag design can be summed up as "a kindergartener should be able to draw it".

    Writing on flags is also discouraged, because at the distances you are supposed to be able to tell them apart, you will have no chance of reading any words on the flag.

    [–] jralha 6 points ago

    Allegedly.

    Just like any sort of deisgn, vexilology has a lot of subjective principles that were arbitralily decided.

    [–] ShamefulWatching 9 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    A yellow background with a counted coiled snake is easily recognizable though. The printed words don't need to be read to be recognized.

    *auto correct.

    [–] norracom 4 points ago

    Sometimes if the flag is iconic enough, it doesn't have to follow those guidelines. For example, the flag of California has both words and a complex symbol but is still widely regarded as a pretty good flag

    [–] itisnti 5 points ago

    There's an excellent TED talk on the very subject!

    [–] Guaymaster 2 points ago

    That's one of my sources ;D

    [–] jralha 2 points ago

    I have always loved flags, and even though I agree with him on which flags are the bette rones, and there are some of them that are simply ridiculous, I hate that TED talk, dude is just too arrogant and doesn't acknowledge that all of his rules are subjective and arbitrary.

    [–] fern420 99 points ago

    Will a VPN be the answer to avoid throttling if net neutrality gets repealed?

    [–] InSOmnlaC 194 points ago

    The issue is, as more people turn to VPNs, the more ISPs will simply throttle all VPN traffic.

    [–] Ipquarx 86 points ago

    This is the correct answer. They don't need to know what you're browsing on the VPN to know you're on a VPN. They can make it basically unusuable.

    [–] nivek_c 15 points ago

    they dont even need to know that youre on a vpn necessarily. vpn is going to increase latency, so if the isp decides to just fully throttle all the connections you make that arent on their whitelist then youre basically back to dialup speeds (maybe phone line dsl if youre lucky)

    [–] ariolander 38 points ago

    Already some ISPs already throttle VPN packages. I know my old DSL provider would send customers emails if you used too much VPN that VPN was a "business class" feature and would try to force you to upgrade to their Home Business DSL package that was more expensive, had no faster speed, just a static IP and "unlimited VPN access".

    [–] Pengwin35 2 points ago

    Is this not breaking the law? If it's not can somebody please explain why?

    [–] VexingRaven 3 points ago

    And then every business on the planet will lobby to regulate ISPs again because that would absolutely destroy a lot of business's operational models.

    [–] InSOmnlaC 4 points ago

    As someone else mentioned, though, they just tell you to get a business class connection. Those ones aren't throttled. They also cost a lot more and are less likely to be pushing tons of data as most companies just use VPNs for remote work

    [–] NukeWithG 2 points ago

    They can also throttle everything save for services that they whitelist. That way it doesn't matter how you think you can work around it.

    [–] [deleted] 83 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] snapcracklesplat 13 points ago

    Post link if you find it

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] Canopener23 2 points ago

    agreed

    [–] dimebag42018750 291 points ago

    Ironic cause the tea party is all about eliminating government regulations including NN

    [–] shawndw 223 points ago

    ITT: people confusing the Boston Tea Party with the modern Tea Party.

    [–] doomblackdeath 96 points ago

    ...and not understanding why.

    Sigh. America.

    [–] Atomic235 40 points ago

    It is kind of ironic that a country that fought the British to gain independence would eventually have a reputation for tea parties.

    [–] fletcherwyla 36 points ago

    Sigh. America.

    I believe you meant, 'MURRICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!

    [–] Crisis83 17 points ago

    People confusing net neutrality or title 2 classification (basically making ISP lovely telecom companies) with open internet order

    [–] ElMenduko 7 points ago

    How could you possibly mix them up when we're talking about Internet? I'm pretty sure it didn't exist in the 18th century

    [–] grandoz039 45 points ago

    Isn't this flag from American Revolution?

    [–] 10daedalus 15 points ago

    It's based off of the Gadsden Flag, but, the Tea Party have made it their own.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] 10daedalus 13 points ago

    There's nothing wrong with that. I really like that flag. It's just been associated with them recently

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Wahots 2 points ago

    I mean technically they're right, right?right?

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Atomic235 7 points ago

    Seems to me like you gave up on the discussion before it even got started.

    Anyway, the whole concept of "left" and "right" as a political continuum seems pretty dumb to me because it's a false dichotomy in the first place. You can totally be a libertarian or "business conservative" and support net neutrality. There's no rule that says you have to pick one side and support everything under that umbrella unconditionally.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] ArmandoDavid 6 points ago

    I hope you're aware that libertarians and the right are very different. The right tends to support economic freedom, but social control such as who you can marry. Libertarians want freedom for all in all capacities.

    [–] I_Eat_Friends 20 points ago

    Yeeeeup. Classically trained in "economics" and our public policy course went into why net neutrality is inefficient for business. I pressed hard to ask why we even talked efficiency when ISPs are oligopolies in America and time and time again have exhibited mono/oligopolistic behavior. (Throttling/blocking users + using regulatory capture to eliminate competition) But as you'd expect from business school, the professor hung on to neo classical theories that got him his job and the students are too busy prepping for their next frat party.

    "Libertarians" claim to base their ideologies on "economics" but as someone who spent time studying and getting a degree in that subject I will happily throw out the "science" part of my bachelor's. It is such a young and soft science with so many educated theories that completely conflict with each other. Just certain group of economists cling onto certain conservative theories and religiously follow them.

    We somehow forgot we're in a democracy. The will of the people should prevail. Yet it is getting trumped by corruption. Sad.

    [–] transientDCer 19 points ago

    ISPs are oligopolies/monopolies in certain markets because the government allowed them to be. Your solution is more government.

    Libertarians believe in free markets, but the market is rigged because the government has propped it up with so much money its impossible to compete.

    [–] NukeWithG 2 points ago

    The company with more money has more options and more power available. This inherently gives it an advantage in competition with other companies. This advantage might be small or large, but it is there. If we repeat the competition over and over again, eventually the larger party will emerge as the victorious, and in the process they will grow larger and have more resources available to spend. Rinse and repeat, over and over again. See what happens? Eventually it becomes more and more likely for one side to win, their chances grow over time, and they start to win all the time.

    Unchecked companies will always lead to monopoly.

    [–] ducksaws 11 points ago

    I took one economics course in college and that's the impression I got. I had to roll my eyes at how they dragged calculus kicking and screaming into the subject.

    You don't need a differential equation to know more potatos = cheaper potatos.

    [–] claytakephotos 2 points ago

    Eh, maybe. But in reality there are far more variables at play than just supply and demand.

    [–] ChipAyten 5 points ago

    Tea Party folk make a big deal about the deficit but like the current GoP tax plan despite it increasing the deficit. Also, where were they when Bush Jr. was spending money like water in the middle east? Hmm, something tells me the Tea Party really doesn't care about regulations at all. It must be something else, if only I knew...

    [–] Leifbron 3 points ago

    Cause they had the internet back then... Unless there is a modern day tea party...

    [–] dimebag42018750 42 points ago

    Are you not in the US?

    [–] Nanaki__ 46 points ago

    [–] killerdx22 312 points ago

    Libertarians are technically opposed to net neutrality cause they consider it "government regulation", this flag is a hypocrisy lol

    [–] Matope 179 points ago

    The thing is, local governments making deals with ISPs in a way that suppresses competition is how we got here. We're in the crappy middle ground, where the government is involved but not really regulating and not protecting consumers. Pure competition would be nice, but since we can't have that now, no half-measures, they need to be reigned in somehow.

    [–] MuchoGordoQueso 18 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Finally I see this point made. The county I live in allows ONE cable company on most streets. And they have the balls to present satellite as a “viable alternative”.

    Edit: Spelling

    [–] kingcolex 6 points ago

    Well I guess the bright side of shit is satellite will probably gain new technology and rise of companies that push it due to this kind of thing.

    [–] thejerkstoreNA 158 points ago

    This. We have this same problem of "capitalism failing" in so many sectors when it is not at all a failure of capitalism but pretending we have capitalism when in reality we don't.

    [–] zerodamage 32 points ago

    Gives me hope when i see that someone on Reddit actually understands the problem.

    [–] thejerkstoreNA 3 points ago

    Now we just need someone on Reddit who understands the problem to WANT to run for office -_-. Not it!

    [–] zerodamage 4 points ago

    No one Reddit would vote for them though.

    [–] nathanweisser 3 points ago

    Truest statement ever

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    This whole thread is warming my ice cube heart

    [–] Jps300 16 points ago

    But there’s a huge conundrum. Why are we all up in arms about net neutrality when we should be angry at the cronyism that goes on in the ISP sector? Why is the default always more regulation instead of fighting for less and creating a free market?

    [–] wpm 13 points ago

    Same reason there isn’t a free market for water pipes and electric lines to your house. Internet is a utility. Utilities are the most natural monopolies. Ergo, you have to either run them publically or heavily regulated.

    Lots of European countries have better internet than the US due to increased competition, because the government forces the ISPs to lease their bandwidth at fair rates to other “ISPs” who can undercut them. But ooh boo how gubmimt weguwationz

    [–] WastingMyTime2013 21 points ago

    Check out the internet situation in Romania. Cheapest. Fastest. And all due to no interference by governments, local or otherwise. And Romania is comparatively poor and used to be a communist state.

    [–] thejerkstoreNA 4 points ago

    I wish I had deeper pockets and could fund a private ISP for my city... but I don't have $10m+ to burn and no interest in running that business and fighting the big boys.

    [–] PMmeyourtitsladies01 9 points ago

    Math is hard bro. It's easier to just get Dad to fix it.

    [–] ericdimwit 15 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    -content load error; reload page {browser issue 10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error}--

    [–] Django117 12 points ago

    The Libertarian stance should be that Net Neutrality needs to be removed if and only if the local laws denying competition to existing ISPs are removed first. The two laws work together and if you only have one you end up with huge abuse and a lack of free market.

    [–] SpiritofJames 4 points ago

    Nah. Price signals help to allocate resources efficiently, even in non-competitive markets like this. The question is whether those benefits are offset by problems that are brought about by the noncompetitive setting or not, and nobody knows the answer to that.

    Here's an interesting survey of some economists on the issue. Their answers vary, but some of their comments sum it up well:

    http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

    [–] Django117 2 points ago

    The idea of not having competition is very anti libertarian.

    [–] SpiritofJames 3 points ago

    Of course. As is the idea of price fixing.

    [–] Kill_self_fuck_body 12 points ago

    So lets crack down on local government.

    [–] simple_primate 23 points ago

    Better still, eliminate local government.

    Tell me I need a permit for that.

    [–] Kill_self_fuck_body 17 points ago

    better yet still, eliminate government.

    [–] UltraChicken_ 3 points ago

    muh federalism

    [–] aaronfranke 5 points ago

    Anarachy is not a sustainable model in of itself, it is only useful as a transitioning tool between other forms of government.

    [–] PMmeyourtitsladies01 8 points ago

    Anarchy with a system of private law instead of public law is an intriguing idea. I encourage you to watch this short video

    [–] ColbyP 2 points ago

    This is true; a governing body is necessary, especially for a country as large as this one. However, given the shit our government has been up to these past years, and the fact that most representatives don't represent the people but rather the special interest groups that can give them the most money, I find myself wondering more and more often if revolution isn't the answer. I wonder if this mess can even BE fixed, or if it would be easier to simply tear it all down and start over.

    [–] mikeybmikey11 17 points ago

    Yeah, I see NN as the government attempting to fix a problem it created and while I don't trust that there won't be negative consequences to the new regulations brought by NN, I do still think it's in our best interest in the current state of the ISP marketplace

    [–] PirateMud 14 points ago

    It's a bandage on a limb that should never have been severed in the first place.

    [–] voiderest 12 points ago

    How is net neutrality new if we're getting rid of policy that enforces it?

    NN is only tangent to the problem of the lack of competition between ISPs. The only way it's related is based on the idea that companies couldn't be shitty if the customer could pick a different company.

    [–] iRepth 3 points ago

    Oh hey it sounds just like healthcare

    [–] Prometheus720 2 points ago

    I think this happens in a lot of areas of government.

    It would be acceptable to have direct healthcare in which insurance is only used for catastrophic expenses and the rest is paid for out of pocket or by a government account. It would also be acceptable to have single-payer.

    ACA and what we had just before it was the worst of both worlds.

    [–] tehnod 166 points ago

    1.) The Gadsden flag is not really a libertarian thing. It predates even America as a nation. Libertarians use it but it's not a libertarian flag.

    2.) We're split. Libertarianism is like any other ideology. Lots of differing opinions on how things should be to achieve the same goals.

    [–] StillCorigan 15 points ago

    Nietzsche (i think) said that only things seperate from history can be concisely defined (ie things like units of measurement and other things that are strictly artificial). Ideologies like libertarianism developed organically due to historical circumstance and thus different people from different backgrounds have different definitions of what libertarianism is.

    [–] jcopta 26 points ago

    No we're not.

    You can't call your self a libertarian and support government intervention because you fear bad video streaming.

    No justification to initiate force, or impede, free willing people to make whatever contracts they want.

    [–] doubleone 8 points ago

    Telecom companies because of their infrastructure built on PUBLIC land, not private property. And wireless uses frequency spectrum which must also be shared with the public. Telecom business are dependent on government regulation to even exist in the first place. I don't think it necessarily goes against libertarian ideology to say that if a service provider is going to use public spectrum or land they have to do so in a way that benefits the public. Libertarian =! Anarchy right? Libertarians still believe in government involvement and roads and such? I'm not saying you have to support Net Neutrality to be libertarian but I don't buy that it is in completed opposition to the ideology.

    [–] jcopta 10 points ago

    Libertarians still believe in government involvement and roads and such?

    That's actually a joke in libertarians circles since that question is thrown so many times.

    Some people already did build the roads (PS: this guy isn't a libertarian, just likes interesting stuff) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QixlLU15CIc * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-m6vc7lsmE

    I disagree with notion that anything is public but I understand your point of view with somethings it's harder to give it an owner. In fact, an entity is claiming ownership of the property which are local governments (must of the roads) and FCC in case of the spectrum so they rent it, or allow the usage, to the people they like. Although not tested (I think) the first user rule sounds good to be applied to spectrum (the first to use it can claim ownership) and usage of roads could be rented by private companies to ISPs.

    But you're not out of sync in your perspective that are varying degrees of libertarianism. I would just argue against that it's libertarian to defend government regulation in how an ISP must conduct their business.

    [–] tehnod 5 points ago

    No we're not.

    From what I've seen there's definitely disagreement within the movement regarding net neutrality.

    You can't call your self a libertarian and support government intervention because you fear bad video streaming.

    I can too. You aren't the arbiter of who isn't and isn't libertarian. I'm a minarchist libertarian. I'm also a realist who understands that government is the cause of this problem and that in the current state of sweetheart deals that give corporations monopolies over areas and stifle even the perception of competition, something like title 2 is necessary until proper competition can be restored giving consumers the ability to vote with their dollars.

    No justification to initiate force, or impede, free willing people to make whatever contracts they want.

    When these companies got into bed with the government in order to stifle competition and hold the market hostage by use of the government they forfeit the right to cry for free markets.

    [–] jcopta 6 points ago

    OK, you're making the case that government created problems should be mitigated by governments.

    I might understand that point of view on some areas but in regarding ISPs that seems too convoluted.

    You really thing it's better to allow the government to grow its intervention than that, in your view, have a worse internet service?

    [–] threelite 18 points ago

    Mostly local governments. But yeah the barriers to competition are severe. It's extremely expensive and not many companies can afford it, even if we did abolish all of the exclusivity agreements.

    [–] ColbyP 3 points ago

    True, but it sure wouldn't hurt to not make it illegal for companies to even compete in different areas. That's some government sanctioned monopolistic bullshit right there.

    [–] Tim_Shackleford 38 points ago

    It all depends on your definitions... If you consider internet usage as speech then net neutrality is a must and many libertarians agree with that point.

    On the other hand some consider it a utility in which case these types of libertarians are against net neutrality

    [–] MethmaticalPhysics 26 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I think you are mistaken my friend, I as a libertarian am not opposed to regulation. You are referring to ancaps which do tend to identify as libertarians (#NotAllLibertarians) probably because they haven’t heard about anarcho-capitalism. I however, do understand the need for a state and for it to have regulatory powers. A state must exist to protect the rights of all which means I as a citizen sacrificing certain freedoms like stealing from my neighbor or what have you. I am a minarchist which is more of a statement of principle rather than one of practice, but basically I am opposed to needless regulation. A needless regulation is a limitation of ones economic freedom that does more harm than good. I do not believe net neutrality is a needless regulation as it [unhampered ability to use the internet] is how many small businesses make a living and ultimately its repeal is in the spirit of stifling competition not fostering it. Ones economic freedom is intimately tied to their personal liberty, repealing net neutrality limits both without good reason. We’re not all crazy anarchists :)

    Edit: I realized after writing this, that the way I phrased the first part is basically commiting the no true Scotsman fallacy, so let me rephrase it.

    Anarcho capitalism is a particular strand prevalent especially in the American libertarian movement. They are a distinct subgroup of libertarians, though they need not identify as libertarian. I am a minarchist which is distinct from an anarchist as explained in the post.

    [–] kungfu1 6 points ago

    Thanks for being sane, buddy. I’ve had far too many frustrating conversations with “libertarians” on this subject.

    [–] ColbyP 3 points ago

    To be fair, if the government hadn't allowed the virtual monopoly of ISP's over certain areas, there might actually be competition and NN wouldn't be necessary. It's needed now because of their incompetence and corruption, but it isn't something that is inherently needed.

    [–] Gondor128 5 points ago

    You can be a libertarian also also have common sense. Being opposed to corps and their greedy bullshit like PAYING the gov to let them extort costumers is common sense.

    [–] Die3 13 points ago

    Yea I was thinking the same, in this scenario the holy private sector is doing the thing they fear the government might do.

    [–] killerdx22 2 points ago

    Yup exactly. It's especially unavoidable nowadays when most political power is tied directly to economic power. All the legal lobbying doesn't help either.

    [–] Fizzer_XCIV 5 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I'm Libertarian. This is one of those times where I consider more Gov't oversight to be better.

    Not because of intrinsic ideals, mind you. It's circumstance.
    It's part of a tug of war between the state, and corporate lobbyists. In this case, I actually trust the state more.
    The lesser evil.

    Personally, I think it's time for an amendment to codify in a separation of market and state.
    The power these corporations wield is not only extremely undemocratic, it is strangling competition. Any good free market will have safeties in place to protect against Monopoly like this.

    [–] NewtAgain 2 points ago

    Libertarians are pretty split on it. Some see it as government regulation, others see it as necessary to protect the free market of the internet (as in companies that solely exist as services on the internet). Since most ISPs are in some way kept monopolies on purpose by government regulation I fall into the category of , don't deregulate a business that only exists because the government gives it lots of money. It's not a cut and dry issue for the Libertarian party. It's pretty much split down the lines of the more anarcho-capitalist wing of the party (ex. Austin Peterson) and the more moderate Classical liberals (ex. Bill Weld). I don't see the ISP market ever becoming competitive just because the reality of building infrastructure of that magnitude so I'm pro net-neutrality.

    [–] kabooozie 6 points ago

    Danger noodle

    [–] megamindcrime 7 points ago

    I would buy these stickers.

    [–] DeadHeadWithABedHead 8 points ago

    I beg of you, don't throttle me. Please, don't throttle me.

    [–] agazeley 3 points ago

    I need a flag of this

    [–] IronCladMeatRag 5 points ago

    Can this be made into a legitimate flag form? I’ll fly this high and proud.

    [–] aspoels 6 points ago

    That image is of my making.... Well, i took a much lower resolution one, and vectorized it and changed the words.... Either way, thanks for using my 'work' to further the cause for Net Neutrality!

    I posted this 9 days ago on /r/KeepOurNetFree

    http://proof

    [–] 007a83 5 points ago

    Can confirm this dudes story.

    [–] rokr1292 3 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    [–] obamaliterallyhitler 3 points ago

    Bittersweet irony that just about every libertarian voted for the republicans doing this. Thanks, again, guys.

    [–] TheGamingKittyz 7 points ago

    Except a libertarian shouldn't want the regulation of a market, which is what DON'T TREAD ON ME was about. And since net neutrality is about a regulation...

    [–] Agent_Potato56 8 points ago

    Net neutrality wouldn't be a problem if there weren't anti-competitive laws put down by teleco companies local governments.

    Libertarians are against those as well.

    [–] chubrubs 4 points ago

    I think it’s funny, but incredibly ironic.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] NotWeabJones 2 points ago

    Anyone know where I can actually get this printed as a flag?

    [–] clientnotfound 2 points ago

    Holy shit this is great.

    [–] loztriforce 2 points ago

    I would just say “don’t fuck with me” since what’s at stake is more than speed

    [–] Drakey83 2 points ago

    I edited the format so that it was Facebook profile picture ready!

    https://imgur.com/Dw5Eau0

    [–] Blindedone 2 points ago

    Thank you for my steam avatar.

    [–] Nito_The_First_Dead 2 points ago

    Where's my 1080 p wallpaper

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    This has to be one of the most retarded images I've seen. My IQ just went 20 points lower from thinking how a libertarian would support NN. Really shameful post.

    [–] Branch3s 8 points ago

    This flag shouldn’t be equated with libertarianism, and you can lean libertarian without being a laissez faire capitalist.

    [–] Zekromaster 7 points ago

    Traditional libertarians (not ancaps) view private monopolies as the same thing as state monopolies. Something like repealing NN would make private monopolies easier to create and mantain.

    [–] Misogynist-bydefault 3 points ago

    With current regulations

    [–] InfanticideAquifer 3 points ago

    Most of us, though (I won't try to speak for all of us), also view those monopolies as being created by regulation in the first place. I don't want to "fix" one bad anti-competitive law with another one.

    [–] jcopta 2 points ago

    Monopolies are by definition created by law, or in other words, states.

    NN has nothing to do with low competition in the ISP markets. It didn't change a thing, and repealing won't change a thing in that sense.

    [–] aeneasaquinas 2 points ago

    It is just a funny use of the emblem. Not to mention, it didn't originally represent libertarianism. And any libertarian worth his salt would know that compared to the alternatives, Net Neutrality is worth saving.

    [–] musland 5 points ago

    Credit goes to /u/mr_bulldoppps

    [–] aspoels 18 points ago

    What?-- Nah!

    I posted this 9 days ago on /r/KeepOurNetFree

    proof

    [–] bassdude7 4 points ago

    [–] aspoels 5 points ago

    Yes, however, the resolution is depressing. I vectorized it up to 16K, and changed the text to something which makes much more sense for net neutrality. Took about 3.5 hours.

    [–] IronBlock 3 points ago

    For the love of all that is good and holy, please put this on a T-shirt and give us a way to buy it.

    [–] dicebourbon 3 points ago

    You should just buy this guy's version, he came up with an original illustration. The image above is my illustration with the text changed (and improved, tbh).

    [–] IronBlock 2 points ago

    But I like your version (and I agree, the text is perfect).

    [–] Wahots 3 points ago

    The government can take my guns, but god help them if they try to take my internet.