Posobiec: Hysterical Net Neutrality Protesters Want to Ban Drudge, Infowars, Breitbart

Jack Posobiec from Rebel Media livestreamed a net neutrality protest which included signs promoting the banning of several conservative media outlets including Breitbart, Drudge, and Infowars…

Jack Posobiec, Washington Bureau Chief of Rebel Media, went live on periscope with protesters who were holding signs calling for bans on Breitbart, Drudge, and Infowars. This isn’t the first time Posobiec has gotten juicy footage of SJW’s acting ridiculously. He once filmed an Antifa assault and the man committing the crime happened to be out on parole. In another legendary moment, Posobiec was responsible for bringing Macron’s emails to light via Twitter. While 4chan’s /pol/ board was responsible for the original release, it was Posobiec’s reporting that brought them to the attention of the masses.

Now, Posobiec is reporting live from a Net Neutrality protest…

The #NetNeutrality protest was showing up all over Twitter:

Democrats are promoting the Net Neutrality protest…

 

Watch Jack Posobiec’s livestream:

Sources:

Jack Posobiec

22 Comments

22 Comments

  1. David Watts

    May 18, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    I’m surprised that “Milo News” wasn’t on The List. If only the Dems could resurrect Stalin and have him run in 2020: he would probably be the best fit for their agendum.

    • Madeleine Wadt

      May 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm

      they just know that Milo will do whatever the heck he wants banned or not so they figured its not even worth a try.. it would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

    • Ken Adams

      May 19, 2017 at 3:55 am

      C-List celebrities with no actual talent rarely ever get any “List”

  2. DaisyToo

    May 18, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Does that mean HuffPo; WAPO; Daily Kos; NY Times; BLM etc, can be banned?

    • David Watts

      May 18, 2017 at 3:19 pm

      Of course not: “their hearts are Pure.”

  3. AquamineAmarine

    May 18, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    That sign they made pretty much admitted that the attack on Bill O’Reilly was a hit job. Nice work you idiots, you gave yourselves away.

    • Mrs. Chief

      May 19, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      I read somewhere after the news came out about how many people were contacting advertises to the O’Reilly show and they said there was only about 10 people that were actually contacting his advertisers using fake accounts and bots.

  4. NoTreading

    May 18, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    When government wants “net neutrality”, you know it’s a bad deal.

  5. January

    May 18, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    So they want to ban those that don’t have anything to do with the liberal side. I guess next will be ban the First Amendment of the US Constitution, or will the book burning start before that. These people call everybody else, that doesn’t agree with them, Hitler & Nazis, when actually they are the ones walking that line and about ready to step over it. The Nazis very quickly began a campaign of violence and terror against Communists and OTHER opponents. Their campaign also involved banning opposition newspapers, leaflets and meetings. I think I’ll join their protest and carry a sign that reads, “Ban NYT, Washington Post, HuffPo also”.

  6. Adnil Yelkam

    May 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    erase history, censor the internet, control speech…..what a world.

    • Ace

      May 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm

      All in the name of FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Stupid is as stupid does and these losers are seriously stupid.

    • Matthew Justin Tremain

      May 21, 2017 at 9:37 pm

      Nazi’s on the rise under the vail of false equality.

  7. disqus_Aa7kWsb7Fp

    May 18, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    Must be a real bastard living in a democracy for these snow flakes.
    Can’t the US ship the malcontents out to North Korea where they can bask in the sun shining out of the shortarse ?

  8. MuchLoveFrom

    May 18, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    Someone on the right needs to circulate a set of memes that make fun of the term “net neutrality.” Just like we did with the term “fake news.” “Net neutrality,” whatever it means, is clearly an Orwellian term that doesn’t mean what it appears to. The scary thing is that I almost signed something in favor of it the other day.

  9. Scooter McFurry

    May 18, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    The ISP’s own their network, and with the all the streaming video some kind of traffic management is necessary to deliver the product people want. But it gets evil when the ISP is managing traffic to extort money from content providers. “You don’t want that data packet to go back to the end of queue do you?” Traffic shaping by type of data, fine, traffic shaping on who’s paid up, evil.

    • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

      May 19, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      I agree. But that isn’t what Net Neutrality will effect. The Dems are using that as a marketing point, as in, you can’t trust the greedy companies, we need lots more Government regulation.

  10. Pat Patrix

    May 18, 2017 at 10:00 pm

    So wait…they protesting to keep the internet neutral…while also trying to censor and ban all internet media they don’t like?

    How fucking stupid are these people?

  11. Roger

    May 19, 2017 at 12:08 am

    That very last speaker- how did we go from everyones trafic is the same- to boogieman bill oreilly had to be off the air? If you dont like a pundit- dont turn the program on

  12. Phillip Dampier

    May 19, 2017 at 12:11 am

    This small handful of protesters have no idea what Net Neutrality is, and people shouldn’t be fooled by their distraction. Net Neutrality guarantees ALL opinions have equal shot on the net and are judged on their merits by the people who visit those sites, not by some ISP gatekeeper. Need I remind Blaze fans what it’s like having Big Cable and Telco companies controlling the channels you can get? Who wants Comcast as the gatekeeper?

    I want to decide what websites I visit and I’d better get the same access regardless of whether it’s run by Comcast or a conservative organization. Net Neutrality guarantees this. We have had Net Neutrality since 2015 and no website was censored because of it. But by getting rid of Net Neutrality, your ISP can decide at anytime what websites get preferred treatment and which ones could be blocked. No thanks.

    I’m pretty mad Verizon’s ex-lawyer (Ajit Pai) is now simply rubber-stamping whatever the telecom industry wants. Net Neutrality is as bipartisan of an issue as there is.

    • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

      May 19, 2017 at 5:04 pm

      No, that’s not accurate. What Net Neutrality is doing is trying to EXTEND government control to the information providers in a manner equal to the regulatory control of the infrastructure.

      What you are supporting is the concept that has been used to try to sell the idea further – government good, business bad. That is marketing, not the reality of what they are doing.

      They need it under government control to attempt the actions the picketers are screaming for, we need it in a free market to prevent that. Net neutrality is being sold as preventing a toll booth on the info superhighway, when in fact it is an attempt to route the whole highway through government approval, ie, ALL the lanes will have tolls!

  13. Dante Alighieri

    May 19, 2017 at 10:09 am

    “Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.”

    Again with this citing of a Left wing nut-job as if the LEFT are crazy.

    Must the Right continually defend J. Edgar Hoover?

    You’ve got your crazies too. —D

  14. Nato Cullen

    May 22, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    So um, jus trying to wrap my head around net neutrality being a racial justice issue….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top