Obama's Plan to Control the Internet
#1
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2...t-neutral/

In the vernacular of some previous discussions, I will just say, I am agin it.
Reply
#2
Saddles small business with heavy regulations...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republ...-internet/
Reply
#3
Media, and Liberals ignore....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-ross...egulations
Reply
#4
MONUMENTAL SHIFT.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-st...e-internet
Reply
#5
So far you provided exactly 0 facts and a shitload of of right wing crap, but that's par for the course. I heard this same propaganda today on hate radio so it is nice to see you are such a willing dupe to the propaganda Echo chamber.
Reply
#6
(02-09-2015, 09:23 PM)bbqboy Wrote: So far you provided exactly 0 facts and a shitload of of right wing crap, but that's par for the course. I heard this same propaganda today on hate radio so it is nice to see you are such a willing dupe to the propaganda Echo chamber.
Yup.
Reply
#7
[Image: obama-internet-1.jpg]
Reply
#8
Quote:Obama, the Show
I sometimes think Obama thinks he’s in an episode of The West Wing or some other Aaron Sorkin version of reality where the facts always line up to preconceived liberal narratives. In most “sophisticated” Hollywood movies and TV shows about politics, the enemy is usually us. The real threat isn’t some external foe, but the fearsome spirit of Joseph McCarthy that the external enemy might arouse in us. The heroic statesman is the figure who steps forward and points out our own hypocrisy and ignorance; the one who tells us to come to our senses. In The West Wing, President Josiah Bartlet always stepped in to settle the arguments by pointing out our own sins, or what the Bible really says, or what the Constitution really means. HBO’s The Newsroom, a show set two years in the past just so Sorkin has enough time to come up with clever comebacks to today’s events, begins with Will McAvoy, a news anchor, going on a tear about how America is not the greatest country in the world.
It all sounds very smart. It’s like Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness” in that it often sounds true. But one could also call it “smartyness” because the real goal is to sound smart. One of the reasons I cannot stand Sorkin’s oeuvre is that it is all written so smugly. Every argument ends as if the liberal should simply drop the microphone and proclaim, “Bartlet out.” But it only really works if you either assume great ignorance on the part of the audience or if the audience already agrees with whatever is being said.
It’s amazing to me how much Obama’s speeches depend on, and benefit from, the same things. The solipsism of the liberal egghead press is partly to blame. Obama goes out there and literally persuades no one about anything, but since he says exactly what a liberal president is supposed to say, they think it’s all brilliant soaring oratory and bold statesmanship.
What Obama shares with the collective authors of the liberal narrative is a deep and abiding suspicion that the American people are bigots, that they don’t understand their self-interest as well as liberal elites do, that America/Americans has/have no right to judge others given our own sins, and that we should never overreact to anything that makes liberals feel uncomfortable.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/39...g/page/0/1
Reply
#9
..and you all, the peasants, rejoice.

Your sickness is sad.
Reply
#10
Another view.

"The proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights would give people greater control over what information Internet companies can gather about them. It’s great news for us, but a possible headache for tech companies."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...umers.html

"For now these principles proposed by the Obama administration represent simply a first step. But for people who have grown weary of the constant revelations of new prying by Internet companies, it’s a step in the right direction."
Reply
#11
Penned by a friend. And I agree. 100%

Quote:If you have not heard about this you need to. Hidden within this is a MASSIVE tax that would make your internet bill run in to the hundreds if not thousands.

Democrats are always priding themselves on looking out for the "little guy" or "middle class Americans". Define that as you will. This monstrous piece of crap is designed to take the internet away from people like you and me. It would ultimately make the internet the playground of the very rich and the elite.

When are average people going to wake up and realize? It is the DEMOCRATS who f--k people over in this country. The democrats and a duplicitous media keep making people think Republicans are the evil ones. In reality, it is the Democrats who are hell bent on destroying this country and turning it into a feudal system like old England. The very elites have all and own all and the rest of us are peasants and serfs. I will NEVER live in such a system. I will die fighting for freedom. That war draws ever closer..
Reply
#12
Funny shit. Treasonous, but funny.
Reply
#13
(02-10-2015, 08:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Another view.

"The proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights would give people greater control over what information Internet companies can gather about them. It’s great news for us, but a possible headache for tech companies."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...umers.html

"For now these principles proposed by the Obama administration represent simply a first step. But for people who have grown weary of the constant revelations of new prying by Internet companies, it’s a step in the right direction."

Why won't they release it for public review? Does that bother you?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/.../23882079/
Reply
#14
Is your internet slow enough, or would you like it slower?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas...le/2560567
Reply
#15
(02-23-2015, 04:06 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(02-10-2015, 08:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Another view.

"The proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights would give people greater control over what information Internet companies can gather about them. It’s great news for us, but a possible headache for tech companies."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...umers.html

"For now these principles proposed by the Obama administration represent simply a first step. But for people who have grown weary of the constant revelations of new prying by Internet companies, it’s a step in the right direction."

Why won't they release it for public review? Does that bother you?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/.../23882079/

Beats me.
This stuff has a history of how it moves in the congress.
From the USA piece above:

In his response to an earlier congressional request to make the proposals public, Wheeler said the FCC had received more than 4 million comments and held six public roundtables. Releasing the rules before the commission votes runs contrary to how federal agencies work, he said. "If decades of precedent are to be changed, then there must be an opportunity for thoughtful review in the lead up to any change," Wheeler wrote.

Kim Hart, press secretary to the FCC chairman, said that "the chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues."


But what I don't know about his would fill a library. I'll let you solve it.
Reply
#16
If they won't release for public view, how do you know it will cost hundreds if not thousands in new taxes and also how do you know it will slow the internet down. All you really know is, that you know nothing.
Reply
#17
(02-12-2015, 08:09 PM)Hugo Wrote: Penned by a friend. And I agree. 100%

Quote:If you have not heard about this you need to. Hidden within this is a MASSIVE tax that would make your internet bill run in to the hundreds if not thousands.

(trimmed some rhetoric)..

I don't think so. After all, just how much would you or anyone else be willing to pay for internet connectivity? I know I'll just cancel my connection when the cost exceeds my perceived benefit. I did the same with my pay TV connection.
Reply
#18
Seriously? Ugh. My patience for the morons has grown thin... very. thin.
Reply
#19
(02-23-2015, 06:27 PM)chuck white Wrote: If they won't release for public view, how do you know it will cost hundreds if not thousands in new taxes and also how do you know it will slow the internet down. All you really know is, that you know nothing.

[Image: 1bd653ca7760b8bb57c60797e773b15b4c6a92ea...d5d43f.jpg]
Reply
#20
This insightful article gives plenty of reasons to keep things as they are: http://rt.com/op-edge/171780-internet-ne...ensorship/

Dumping net neutrality: ‘Fast’ lane to censorship & Obama’s biggest letdown

<snip>
Who would play the game?

Savetheinternet.com, a lobby group which exists to defend net neutrality and is strongly opposing the FCC's moves, claims that American web users are in serious danger of having their freedoms swept away: "expect internet blackouts that extend far beyond the popular content vendors as smaller websites are caught in the crossfire. Tweets, emails and texts will be mysteriously delayed or dropped.”

"Videos will load slowly, if at all. Websites will work fine one minute, and time out another. Your ISP will claim it’s not their fault, and you’ll have no idea who is to blame. You also won’t be able to vote with your feet and wallet, as there’s no competition in broadband, and all ISPs will be playing this game," the group states on its website.

Furthermore, the activists outline that "ISPs hate the idea that they’re nothing more than providers of ‘dumb pipes’, or connections that simply carry our traffic. Now that they’re free from any legal restraints, the ISPs will try to get internet companies to pay tolls and threaten to block or delay them if they don’t. Exclusive deals could become the norm, with AT&T exclusively bringing you Netflix or Time Warner Cable as the sole source for YouTube."

Put plainly, the web will become akin to cable TV and a few oligarchs will control access to it, modern-day Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs disguised as peaceniks in sneakers and baseball caps.

It would also allow the US government, through pliant businesspeople, to effectively censor news sites and blogs that it doesn't like by reducing their connection speeds to such low levels as to make their output unwatchable or unreadable. Additionally, it would empower Washington authorities to use their supplicants to block alternative views in times of war or political disputes.

Let's use the example of the Iraq war when the subsequently-discredited US intelligence, which formed the pretext for invasion, was already being questioned by many media sources before the first shots were fired. In the UK, the Daily Mirror, under the stewardship of latter-day TV personality Piers Morgan, was assiduously disputing the veracity of the White House claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

Without net neutrality, a future George Bush could potentially, with a nod and a wink, 'ask' ISP-owning loyalists to stymie a prospective Daily Mirror so that the US public can't access dissenting views. This is the kind of behavior that the US has historically liked to moralize about internationally – now the FCC could be creating the conditions for it to be implemented at home.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)