Is Net Neutrality Coming To An End in the USA? Find out December 14th, 2017

[Kulindahr]

Right now, the government can't censor free speech on the internet.
ISP's can't censor free speech, either, by throttling or slowing down bandwidth, or selectively refusing to let content through, etc.

PROPOSED:
The government can't censor free speech on the internet.
ISP's can, at will, refuse to allow content, play favorites with bandwidth speeds, etc.

Do we really want it so that all the corporations in the world can completely control what we see on the internet? Freedom of speech will be taken away by corporations, as surely as the most repressive dictatorships will. Everybody, WAKE UP.

If you're a propertarian who believes that freedom means encouraging the use of wealth for coercion of society, of course you want corporations to control the internet.

Of course that's totally counter to a Judeo-Christian heritage that denounces the notion that wealth makes people superior, but then these folks only pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian heritage, wrapping themselves in it like whitewash covers an old tomb.

 

[Benvolio]

If you're a propertarian who believes that freedom means encouraging the use of wealth for coercion of society, of course you want corporations to control the internet.

Of course that's totally counter to a Judeo-Christian heritage that denounces the notion that wealth makes people superior, but then these folks only pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian heritage, wrapping themselves in it like whitewash covers an old tomb.

A straw man argument. Who claims that wealth makes people superior? But we have no reason to believe that the bureaucrats will be reasonable. They talk of neutrality now, but once they get the power they will look for ways to slant it toward their ideology. Remember how cable TV was required to set aside free channels for "community service" i.e. minority junk that no one wants to watch, much less pay for? Once the government agencies get the power, they will use it for their own partisan purposes. It is just another step toward total government control of every detail of life.

 

[johaninsc]

 

[johaninsc]

 

[Kulindahr]

Great illustration!

 

[Kulindahr]

Just to ponder....

A free exchange of idea being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of open access to the internet shall not be infringed.

I've gotten questions about this. It's really pretty simple: I took the concept of the free exchange of ideas, which both economists and philosophers agree is required for having a free and prosperous country, and put that into the pattern of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make the point that the GOP are opposing liberty on this issue.

 

[Benvolio]

I've gotten questions about this. It's really pretty simple: I took the concept of the free exchange of ideas, which both economists and philosophers agree is required for having a free and prosperous country, and put that into the pattern of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make the point that the GOP are opposing liberty on this issue.

No we just do not trust government to promote the free exchange of ideas. NPR, for instance is subsidized by the the government and is just another democrat-biased propaganda medium largely paid for by Republicans. The FEC is trying to find ways to control the dissemination of conservative ideas on the internet. Obama's IRS was used to harass and limit conservatives. How can we believe that "net neutrality" will not be twisted to benefit democrats?

 

[cityboy-stl]

How can we believe that "net neutrality" will not be twisted to benefit democrats?

^ Because you keep wilfully ignoring the meaning of net neutrality. If net neutrality were "twisted" to benefit anyone, that in itself would be a violation of net neutrality and democrats would be against it. Which is exactly what eliminating net neutrality does. It twists the net to benefit the ISP's and big corporations with the money to pay for the access. Net neutrality guarantees that the only one able to control the content is the individual user. You should be FOR net neutrality because it specifically keeps the government and everyone but the individual out of the controlling access to content on the net. But you won't acknowledge that because you support corporate control of everything and you'll just repeat your same BS all over again.

 

[Ninja108]

Yes.
Elections have consequences and until Democrats can retake control of all three branches, it's gone.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

How can we believe that "net neutrality" will not be twisted to benefit democrats?

Because it's been in place and hasn't benefited anyone outside of people like me and you. Where we can pretty much say anything we want, visit the sites we want without being told where we can go. Unless you are for Government (Corporate) Control of the internet, one should want Net Neutrality.

You're a lost cause, you're still to busy playing party politics when this will have an affect on everyone.

 

[Benvolio]

^ Because you keep wilfully ignoring the meaning of net neutrality. If net neutrality were "twisted" to benefit anyone, that in itself would be a violation of net neutrality and democrats would be against it. Which is exactly what eliminating net neutrality does. It twists the net to benefit the ISP's and big corporations with the money to pay for the access. Net neutrality guarantees that the only one able to control the content is the individual user. You should be FOR net neutrality because it specifically keeps the government and everyone but the individual out of the controlling access to content on the net. But you won't acknowledge that because you support corporate control of everything and you'll just repeat your same BS all over again.

I am opposed to government control of everything. Neutrality is just a step toward pro democrat. NPR is supposed to be non partisan, but it is not. The IRS is not supposed to be a political weapon against conservatives, but it is.

 

[frankfrank]

I am opposed to government control of everything. Neutrality is just a step toward pro democrat. NPR is supposed to be non partisan, but it is not. The IRS is not supposed to be a political weapon against conservatives, but it is.

Government ALREADY has its hands entirely out of regulating internet content...at all. Government merely says that EVERYBODY on the internet is equal, and there cannot be roadblocks to access or bandwidth for nearly all ideas. They will crack down on those that actively encourage (and may easily result in) assassination, genocide, or treason, and that's about all. Government also says that CORPORATIONS cannot exert control over free speech on the internet, either. Corporate censorship can very easily become more horrific than anything the government might do.

OH WAIT, you WANT genocide, perhaps...?

NPR is, in effect, a government content source. IRS is entirely run by, and is a part of, the government. The internet is not owned or run by the government AT ALL, other than the government having their own websites - none of which any of us are forced to use, unless we actually need to do some administrative stuff.

Get real. Internet and NPR/IRS are in no way similar, and the internet can only stay neutral if neither government nor corporate INTERFERENCE is allowed, and removing net neutrality "demands" that corporations control everything we see.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I am opposed to government control of everything. Neutrality is just a step toward pro democrat. NPR is supposed to be non partisan, but it is not. The IRS is not supposed to be a political weapon against conservatives, but it is.

NO IT ISN'T It's already in place and hasn't done anything for or against any political party outside of stopping them from actually taking control.

Stop playing this bullshit. If net neutrality is killed, say bye bye to the "white nationalist" websites you visit.

 

[cityboy-stl]

^ Because you keep wilfully ignoring the meaning of net neutrality. If net neutrality were "twisted" to benefit anyone, that in itself would be a violation of net neutrality and democrats would be against it. Which is exactly what eliminating net neutrality does. It twists the net to benefit the ISP's and big corporations with the money to pay for the access. Net neutrality guarantees that the only one able to control the content is the individual user. You should be FOR net neutrality because it specifically keeps the government and everyone but the individual out of the controlling access to content on the net. But you won't acknowledge that because you support corporate control of everything and you'll just repeat your same BS all over again.

I am opposed to government control of everything. Neutrality is just a step toward pro democrat. NPR is supposed to be non partisan, but it is not. The IRS is not supposed to be a political weapon against conservatives, but it is.

Yep, you did exactly what I said you would do. You refuse to acknowledge the reality of what net neutrality actually is and you just repeat the same bullshit.

HAVE FUN WITH THE TROLL EVERYONE.

 

[Kulindahr]

No we just do not trust government to promote the free exchange of ideas. NPR, for instance is subsidized by the the government and is just another democrat-biased propaganda medium largely paid for by Republicans. The FEC is trying to find ways to control the dissemination of conservative ideas on the internet. Obama's IRS was used to harass and limit conservatives. How can we believe that "net neutrality" will not be twisted to benefit democrats?

What you're really saying is that you love the idea of giant corporations controlling speech for everyone, because that's what the new policy will do -- hand control of the internet to corporations. You're suffering from the blindness shared by many claiming to be libertarians, namely that if a power structure isn't called government it should be allowed to do whatever it pleases.

States ought to respond to this by establishing their own ISPs and charging only what it really costs to run it -- which as a town near here discovered is about $8/mo per household.

 

[gsdx]

Yep, you did exactly what I said you would do. You refuse to acknowledge the reality of what net neutrality actually is and you just repeat the same bullshit.

HAVE FUN WITH THE TROLL EVERYONE.

He's a lawyer, you know. At least that's the impression he likes to give. However, proof of such is as absent as Trump's income tax returns.

 

[Benvolio]

If there is anyone interested in the other side of the issue, see this; http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/roger-stone-time-for-real-net-neutrality/

Here is an excerpt
"

The term “forbearance,” in FCC parlance, means that the FCC can elect not to apply rules in specific instances and to specific entities. The FCC can pick and choose whom to regulate vigorously and whom to give a free pass. This is de-facto creation of winners and losers by governmental fiat.

[Quoted Text: Truncated] © Copyright 2010 - 2017 | The Daily Caller

 

[Kulindahr]

If there is anyone interested in the other side of the issue, see this; http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/roger-stone-time-for-real-net-neutrality/

Here is an excerpt
"

That's a total joke. It's basically arguing that because some companies the author doesn't like abuse the power they have on the internet due to their size, the whole internet should be made the de facto private preserve of a different bunch of companies.

Yes, Facebook and Google are biased in the way they decide what content can be allowed, but that's entirely different from allowing ISPs to charge more for some content than for other. The former is a problem of companies being too large and abusing their monopoly status; the second is a problem of companies deliberately making it harder for anyone at all to reach certain content. And you don't solve one problem by officially establishing a different one.

In fact it would make more sense to break up Facebook and Google along with Comcast and other giant ISPs.

 

[Benvolio]

That's a total joke. It's basically arguing that because some companies the author doesn't like abuse the power they have on the internet due to their size, the whole internet should be made the de facto private preserve of a different bunch of companies.

Yes, Facebook and Google are biased in the way they decide what content can be allowed, but that's entirely different from allowing ISPs to charge more for some content than for other. The former is a problem of companies being too large and abusing their monopoly status; the second is a problem of companies deliberately making it harder for anyone at all to reach certain content. And you don't solve one problem by officially establishing a different one.

In fact it would make more sense to break up Facebook and Google along with Comcast and other giant ISPs.

As the article, the FCC can choose whom to regulate vigorously an whom to get a free pass. Just as the IRS and FEC can selectively harass conservatives.

 

[gsdx]

Now the F'in' Conservatives are trying to do the same F'in' thing up here! So you think Trump's isn't doing any harm outside the United States? BULLSHIT!!

Everything bad he does (and that's EVERYTHING he does) travels north! The hate! The guns! The bigotry! The politics! All Of It!