/tech/ - Technology★

The future will be me cutting any contact with the outside world, except for some sort of radio connection to Gentoo's repository.

You could do IoT, Internet over Twitter. You just have short encrypted packets sent over Twitter.

There are plenty of ways to get around the restrictions.

Satellite connection + blockchain (ethereum + ipfs).

>>858467

how are you going to download the blockchain over satellite?

>>858469

Satellite phone tethering

IPFS

>>858465

> IoT, Internet over Twitter

kekd

/pol/ was right about net neutrality. It was nothing but a gigantic jewish scam and you all fell for it.

>>858506

>net neutrality is a scam

>net neutrality was removed

how can it scam people when it doesnt exist?

4d chess?

>>858515

Exactly, it was removed despite all the liberal kikes getting up in arms about it and shilling for how bad it's going to be when net neutrality is gone, despite the fact that it wasn't even a thing until 2008 anyways. The tech world has a really bad streak of liberalism to it, and people are so quick to jump on any crusade the kikes sell you. Look at how bad the (((EFF))) is.

>>858522

NN was a thing since the internet went public. Tbh you'd think posters on a site full of racists and pedos would be more appreciative of a regulation that prevents some blue-haired harpy at Comcast from blocking all sites deemed "problematic". It's only a matter of time, and 8chan will absolutely be one of the first sites to get blacklisted by ISPs.

>>858527

>will

>>858527

The only difference between them and the blue haired whales is their ideology. Trump told /pol/ that nn is bad, they don't have the intellectual ability to say otherwise. They repeat the lies like they repeat the memes.

>>858528

(((Tech giants))) have a very consistent record of banning and blocking any content they want you to believe is "offensive". Mind telling me why you think they'll break that streak?

>>858535

>why you think they'll break that streak?

Mind telling me why you're putting false words into my mouth friend? I'm merely pointing out you're behind the actual timeline we're on.

>>858531

I was pretty fucking confused when I saw /pol/ was against NN. The only reason I could see for miles was that it was a liberal enactment and regulation of free enterprise was bad. I just chalked it up to being retarded and moved along. But later on, I found a screencap with a few "this" replies and some things clicked. An intelligent reason to be against NN is because there are concessions in the official document that allow government to monopolize the internet infrastructure AND have the ability to force ISPs to take down any websites or face the prospect of losing their "internet license" from the FFC (IIRC), losing all of their profits, and then having to sell all of their assets back to the government which now has even more power to arbitrarily take any websites off the web.

The full-on botnet dystopia will begin around 2020.

>BIOS is going to be retired completely in 2020, only pure UEFI remains

>Windows 7 is going to be EOL in 2020, only cucked versions (8.1/10) remain

>a major redesign of CPUs in the wake of Spectre, probably the death of x86(-64) as we knew it, possibly the death of the PC architecture in favour of IoT devices which consist of a revemped ME and a UEFI which boots straight to botnet via IPv6 only

>>858560

I'm very doubtful net neutrality legislation actually enabled that, but even if it did, it's not the reason the average /pol/ poster was against it. The main reason was bland contrarianism. A few years ago we had a persistent poster here who was ahead of the curve and literally argued against net neutrality by saying reddit liked it.

>>858589

a pox on thee versooth.

< just shut up about the truth. leave me in my delusions you bastard.

:^)

>>858598

The reason is the belief (that may be true) that having layer between the kikes and the interweb (corporations) was better than giving it to the ZOG on a silver plate.

Honestly, I don't know and don't care since I'm a yuropoor.

>>858604

Nobody ever explained how adding restrictions to the fuckery that layer can do makes it easier for the government to do fuckery.

>>858604

>corps are good boys they dindu nuffin

>>858703

>being this delusional

First of all: >>>/pol/

Second, you know there are not two sides to this, right? It's all part of the plan. Trump and all.

Now, go back.

>>858703

/pol/ is not one person, but "the average /pol/ poster" is a coherent concept.

>>858716

>he thinks cause I don't want to give the government control of the Internet I want to get raped by Comcast

>>858452 (OP)

I can smell the /leftpol/ on you, cuckfag.

The government doesn't need to do anything here. All you need is for the industry to continue to consolidate until corporate control of what you see and access is absolute. Google is already massively impacting web traffic by tweaking their algorithms to direct people away from websites they don't like.

>>858465

take a trip to china and ask their toadposters how they get around river crabs.

>>858527

Badthink sites will be banned regardless of net neutrality. Big Tech was using their power to ban anyone they deem ungood before net neutrality was repealed -- see the mass bannings on Twitter and the Daily Stormer. Like every other rule regarding freedom of speech, net neutrality was never going to be applied evenly. It would have been used to protect leftists, while any doubleplusungood h'white men would be mysteriously exempted from its protection.

Net neutrality being repealed is a good thing. It exposes leddit/leftist/normalfaggots to censorship, while not changing the situation for non-leftists one iota.

I'm going to enjoy seeing leftist faggots bitch and moan as their favorite sites are restricted. Let's see how they like the censorship they've been foisting on everyone else for so long.

>>863182

>mfw it makes sense

Seriously do you even know who passed net neutrality? It was fucking Obama! It's SJW trash.