Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Nov 10, 2014.
Icon too large for page
Yes the dems hate to have to compete in doing the same thing.
Mixed feeling on this.
1. The FCC should not have the authority to regulate internet service providers. While the internet does include broadcasters, it is not exclusively entertainment or news broadcasting. Also, it is not "free" like over the air radio and TV. The task of regulating the internet should fall to elected officials, i.e. Congress.
2. The idea that internet providers should not be allowed to create fast lanes whereby dense data can be transmitted faster for higher fees sounds good on the surface. But the ramifications are unknown. What incentive will tech companies have to make faster servers, routers, and transmission lines? Will everyone end up with the same crappy slow internet connection? Will this mean that ISP's can no longer charge extra for super fast internet connections, like fiber optic cables?
3. I see that Ted Cruz tweeted an inane comment. Very helpful.
Awesome analysis! Very insightful.
:thumbsup: to points 1 and 2.
Have not heard about #3.
Senator Ted Cruz ✔ @SenTedCruz
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
9:43 AM - 10 Nov 2014
And yet Sheryl Attiksson just said she learned while working at CBS as a journalist that every time the smallest thing was reported by them that put Obama in a bad light CBS got a letter of a phone call. Greta from Fox says she gets contacted by the whitehouse all the time trying to get her to leave stories alone.
The fact is the Dems try to control messages all the time. If they are worried about corporations gaining control of the internet to control the message then they are really worried that they will lose the ability to control the message themselves.
As it stand right now when the Dems want a message to be primary they work to flood the internet with articles on it in order to see that it is the first viewpoint you come across for pages in any google type search. Again that is per Sheryl Attikisson.
This net neutrality is not about being fair to everyone any more than the fairness laws with regards to radio programming was. It is about them being able to control the message in their way. If Dems want it is only about them.
If I remember correctly the author of the op started a thread about his hatred for posting pictures of people with quotes next to them. Also there were some in this thread who agreed with him. hmmmmm
All administrations do this, it's not news.
This is not what net neutrality is all about. It's about everyone having the same access to the internet itself, not the content on the internet.
So Sheryl Attkisson does not know how search engines work. Not surprised.
Yes, when we have nothing else lets place equal blame on someone not involved in the conversation.
It is about controlling the message.
More adhominem I see.
I bet she and most members on the BB have never heard of the early search engines Archie, Veronica, WAIS and Jughead or that they may be using sites that still operate with Veronica or Archie. Most folk have no idea how the Internet really works ... as well as e-mail.
It is also obvious that many who have entered posts on this thread have no idea what Net Neutrality is all about.
It was much more difficult to search the Internet back in the early days before Windows.
Sure the old liberal "if you do not agree with me then you are too stupid to understand it." fallacy.
Nope. The statement was made that Obama calls news organizations and tells them to sit on stories. The implication being that he's the only one that does it. He's not.
It's about access. But if you can show me it's about controlling the message, please point me to your source for that idea.
Not at all. Correcting misinformation is not an attack. The search engines don't put certain websites at the top of the search results because there is a flood of articles put out by the Democratic party. It doesn't work that way.
It is most strange that so many on the BB who scream about the government not being in their lives seem to be arguing against net neutrality. Just show they either are not consistent or do not have any idea what they are talking about.
A quick definition of net neutrality is:
Net neutrality is the principle that data on the Internet is moved blindly and impartially, without regard to content, destination or source.
So those folk opposing net neutrality are saying they want the government involved in controlling the net or is it they simply hate Obama enough they do not care about this freedom they now have, but are arguing that it be taken away.
Sigh...yes it is. While it is a rather simple way of explaining it it is not incorrect.
You did not just make an attempt ( a poor one) to correct bad info. You also spoke to her personally when you said "Not surprised".
If you are going to be so critical of the nature of everyone else posts you need to begin to monitor your own. Which are full of informal fallacies.
I think they are arguing against Obama's definition of net neutrality. When he says net neutrality he's saying "regulation". Obama says his proposals would stop the providers from creating a tiered system of access. Fast lanes and slow lanes. That might be but I fear there will be undesirable side effects, like it might be illegal for people to have access speeds above "X" mps.
Yeah, that's a pretty good definition.
I think if Obama's regulations don't go through people will still have access but they will pay more for it.
Net Neutrality is one of the worst things that could happen to the internet.
Like it or not, the way the current internet operates is actually good. It is unregulated and allowed to grow at its own pace. As a result we have, today, more freedom of speech than we did back in the 60s-80s.
There are some bad things that occupy places on the Net, but they are not forced onto us. As the Internet operates right now allows for maximum freedom.
Preaching, the net is neutral and it should stay that way. That is the idea the Net was founder upon.
I remember when some years ago the FCC went after Comcast, our provider at the time, for slowing down BitTorrent file sharing. Providers at that time were suppose to treat all network traffic equally.
Electronic Frontiers Foundation is opposed to the FCC's proposals because they don't trust the FCC. They've apparently demonstrated a tendency to align with corporate lobbyists and public decency advocates rather than stand with civil liberties. At least per EFF.
I think when government knows the net is one way people can share freely information world wide anything is possible.