This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)

The woman in question, Daily Caller video producer Martina Markota, appears to the right of Pai during the Harlem Shake portion of the video.

Markota tried to play off the video as comedy in a series of tweets to Gizmodo, writing "I didn't talk about pizza gate, I spoke about what cheese pizza meant on the deep web and made a funny video relevant to the time." She later added that "You guys are retarded" and that "Reporters should have better reading comprehension."

Markota alluded to having originally delisted the video for professional reasons in another, now-deleted tweet: "The video was about my experience on the deep web in 2014 and how I came across the code word for child pron, cheese pizza. That was my two cents on Pizzagate. I decided to remove many videos when getting a job in media."

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: video^#1 Pai^#2 Markota^#3 internet^#4 pizza^#5

I don't understand at all how T_D could possibly decide to be anti net neutrality. Do they not recognize they're going to be the first ones on the comcast blocklist?

At this point they like anything /r/politics hates. If /r/politics called for everyone to own an AR-15 and professed a new found love for guns, T_D would scream about gun control.

Do they not recognize their favorite sites are going to be the first ones on the comcast blocklist?

RemindMe! 2 years "u/DefNotaZombie was completely right and the internet no longer exists, just like it didn't prior to NN legislation in 2015"

Way to strawman it, obviously the Internet is t going anywhere and odds are the end of NN won't matter a whole lot but what's the point of scrapping it? And why leave it up to utilities with literal monopolies across the country - your options for broadband are often limited to one provider.

That's the thing, most places around the country are limited to one provider (or one good provider and several shit ones). Hopefully NN repeal will spur competitiveness in the industry in the long term; in any event a blanket increase of pricing/throttling campaign would be PR suicide.

And, more than anything else, I'm being contrarian for the hell of it because it doesn't really matter.

The thing is that large corporations abused existing government regulation to keep their monopolies on regions of the country. NN was the liberal attempt to offset that effect, and honestly it makes sense. If you’re going to get rid of NN, you need to get rid of the laws that allows companies like Comcast to sue Google for trying to provide fibre optic. But the ultimate reality is that republicans aren’t going to do that.

I mean post bussy.

comcast blocklist?

oh no, all those comcast blocklists that were up in 2015 are coming back?

You do realize this just rolls back regulations made in 2015?

Do you remember the internet in 2015? Was it fucking Mad Max?

no, you blithering idiot.

You do realise that the 2015 regulations were in response to the industry slowly dipping their toes in the scummy pond?

Dude, you're looking for logic in a group of people that have no actual views other than "if the libdumbs support it I'm against it."

I swear, they have nothing, this is it. The entire movement is built on toxic contrarianism and nothing else.

There's an article that hit the nail on the head a while ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/opinion/sunday/if-liberals-hate-him-then-trump-must-be-doing-something-right.html

In a lamentably overlooked monologue this month, Mr. Limbaugh embraced the new reality in which conservative ideas and principles had been displaced by anti-liberalism. For years, Mr. Limbaugh ran what he called the “Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.” But in the Trump era, he told his audience, he has changed that to the “Institute for Advanced Anti-Leftist Studies.”

With Mr. Trump in the White House, conservative principles were no longer the point. “How many times during the campaign did I warn everybody Trump is not a conservative? Multiple times a day,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “How many times have I told you: ‘Do not expect Trump to be a conservative? He isn’t one.’ ”

He went on to emphasize that the campaign was not about conservatism, because that’s not what Mr. Trump is about.

That was a remarkable admission, but it is also a key to understanding what is happening on the right. While there are those like Sean Hannity who are reliable cheerleaders for all things President Trump, much of the conservative news media is now less pro-Trump than it is anti-anti-Trump. The distinction is important, because anti-anti-Trumpism has become the new safe space for the right.

Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

For the anti-anti-Trump pundit, whatever the allegation against Mr. Trump, whatever his blunders or foibles, the other side is always worse.

But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.

Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make liberal heads explode, or as Sarah Palin put it so memorably, “It’s really funny to me to see the splodey heads keep sploding.” If liberals hate something, the argument goes, then it must be wonderful and worthy of aggressive defense. Each controversy reinforces the divisions and the distrust, and Mr. Trump counts on that.

doubly

Doubleplus

I mean, you could check the sources they cite and make a judgement on that (FCC in this case) instead of rambling about something you don't fully understand because you lack a constructive argument.

But do you really wonder why websites that focuses on internet news would report on internet happenings? And does anything you're saying disprove my initial argument? That the FCC rulings were in reaction to actions by the industry?

This might be th3 most patheric gotcha I have ever seen on this sub and that is saying something.

Why won’t he make an argument? WHY WONT HE MAKE AN ARGUMENT?!??

Think about it, man.

Are you having a stroke?