Why Is the Internet Association Rewarding a Pro-NSA Net-Neutrality Opponent? 157
First time accepted submitter erier2003 writes The decision to give a major award to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is curious given McCarthy's many questionable stances on Internet-freedom issues. For one thing, the California congressman is an avowed opponent of net neutrality. In May 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission debated new net neutrality rules, McCarthy—then the House Majority Whip, the chamber's third-highest-ranking member—signed a House GOP letter to the FCC warning that Title II regulation represented "a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet."
Because they have an agenda? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a guess. After all, I can name any organization anything that I want, even if that name is Orwellian doublespeak for exactly the opposite of what it sounds like it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Or because not everyone has to share the same opinion, so its obvious people are not going to necessarily share the opinion that network neutrality is a great thing? Shocking I know, but there you have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the "Internet Association" is a frickin' industry group.
So whatever the hell they're saying is good is what their members have said is good.
Let's not for a moment think this is anything except what it is ... an organization which is a mouth piece for the corporations which pay for its existence.
Let's not get all stupid and start acting like it's an independent, autonomous organization which believes in anything but the profits of its members.
It's a fucking lobby organization that happens to be alr
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the "Internet Association" is a frickin' industry group.
So whatever the hell they're saying is good is what their members have said is good.
Let's not for a moment think this is anything except what it is ... an organization which is a mouth piece for the corporations which pay for its existence.
The group is made up, among others, of Facebook, Amazon, Good, eBay, etc. They've lobbied in the past for stronger net neutrality rules -- they're the corporate group with the most to gain from Net Neutrality, as opposed to the other corporate group with the most to lose, like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. They are alarmed, as frankly everyone in favor of Internet freedom should be, at the prospect of the FCC deciding it has regulatory authority over how content on the Internet is delivered. Enforcing net ne
Re: (Score:2)
Why guess? There's this cool website called "Google," which lets you look things up. For instance, it can point you to the "Internet Association" [internetassociation.org] website!
And, their website even has information which indicates they support net neutrality, which makes the question legitimate.
Politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Believe it or not, it use to be even more political, and even more radical.
Sorry no. The big political controversies did not appear on the front page as often, but more importantly the herd of really hate-filled left wing million+ UID types didn't exist here "back in the day."
The sea change probably started in 2000; Bush v Gore. You can see the history. In 2000, the "U.S. Supreme Court Issues Election Ruling [slashdot.org]" got just 438 comments despite the huge political significance and near-constitutional crisis that event represented. None of the Bush v. Gore stories got more than 1500
A hit-piece of a submission... (Score:1, Troll)
Such opposition to the government's attempts to force ISPs to do certain things alone makes one a freedom-fighter in my book.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What exactly are they being forced to do? Deliver the services that their customers want and not be allowed to use their last-mile monopoly to force out competition? Oh the horrors!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the ones they lobbied to secure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm. That incumbents are happy to use it against newcomers underlines his (and mine) point — we don't love Comcast, we just distrust the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time. Including this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you wonder? It's in their rules. Remember 'progressives' are reactionaries that want to return to tired 1930s socialist politics.
Re: (Score:2)
When a person can't tell the difference between Somalia and Sweden, and doesn't understand the result of a lack of government, or of good governance, there is not much left except to ignore them or laugh at them. Making fun of them doesn't improve the conversation any, granted. But there is no conversation there anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A hit-piece of a submission... (Score:5, Insightful)
Woosh... xOra's point was, government's intervention causes harm.
And what you don't get is not whether government regulation is a bad or good thing, but what kind of effort do we put into *good* governance. You know, like what everyone else on the planet does, from countries to corporations. Ever hear about "corporate governance"? Ever think of countries as just large corporations? It's an over-simplification (by far) but I think it's the only way to illustrate the "all regulation is bad" idea as lunacy.
The way broadband is sold in this country, the legality of what ISPs do in their contracts are just shy of outright fraud.
But hey, all regulation is bad.
You people want to toss out everything and leave anarchy behind. Forget about good governance, let's just have more burning rivers, consumer fraud, and land-grabs using private armies.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is not just over-simplication — it is simply wrong. Because one does not have to associate with a corporation — not as a customer, not as an employee, not as a shareholder. But a citizen is born with a government and has little choice in the matter.
Yes, most are.
Strawman. We don't want "anarchy" — we want t
Re: (Score:3)
enforce contracts
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure. Since natural (and historically government-enforced) last-mile monopolies give ISPs undue power over end users, the best way for the government to enforce valid contracts are to ensure that the ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly to deliver less than the customer was due when the contract was signed. Net neutrality, along with other regulation (like punishing AT&T for throttling "unlimited" plans) does
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts are only valid when both parties negotiate on good faith and without undue pressure.
Contracts are also only valid when they're enforceable.
Without any power behind a contract (i.e., some sort of laws and force of government, e.g., regulations), contracts are nothing more than "damn pieces of paper" and your "word," whatever that is at the time.
This is where the libertarian fantasy drives off a cliff - that we can have contracts without The Man.
That only worked when your tribe was > 300 people a
Re: (Score:2)
You'd come off as less of a moron if you knew what libertarians believed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, which covers the vast majority of existing Internet Service Provision contracts.
Even if an ISP put the exact description of what they plan to do — such as "We may throttle your connections to certain content provide
Re: (Score:2)
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing [politico.com] with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
The President's goes golfing more often with John Boehner. Does that make them buddy-buddy and Obama will do whatever Boehner says?
For a President, golf is just another meeting, but at least making the perfect putt lets him tune out what the other guy is saying from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
Since natural (and historically government-enforced) last-mile monopolies give ISPs undue power over end users,
If such a thing existed, yes, it would.
ISPs can't use their monopoly or duopoly
We've moved from "one" to "two". Where in the US has anyone said that only two ISPs can provide service to an area? And government-enforced. Where?
Net neutrality, along with other regulation (like punishing AT&T for throttling "unlimited" plans) does exactly that.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies). It regulates ISPs. When you find an ISP that has a monopoly someplace, let me know. The closest you can get is the telephone company when they act as an ISP in addition to wireline telephone service, but since there are scads of other ISPs (and
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies)
Net neutrality is the small band-aid on top of the open sore that is the regional monopoly. I see no need to breaking up any monopoly/duopoly company, but I think a true solution is eliminating barriers to competition. Back in the good-old-days of dialup, you might have had the choice of half a dozen to a dozen ISPs, all able to service your various Internet access needs.
The "pipe" should be treated like a local utility, with whatever ISP you want, be it AT&T or Verizon or Sonic or Ma's Fish, Chips, and
Re: (Score:2)
But are there less intrusive ways to do the same? Of course there is and existing consumer protection laws should cover it without making more laws.
We used to only accept government intrusion to the extent necessary and no more. Now it seems like people are willing to jump at the chance to surrender freedom in favor of government intrusion. Perhaps it is because they can force others to do what they want or maybe it's so they don't need to think for themselves. But it is a fact- the bigger the government t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try to explain and illustrate. Do you know why organized criminal enterprises use force? It's generally not because they're engaged in robbery, though in cases they certainly can be. No, it's to protect their (illegal) lines of business, whether that's drugs or any number of other rackets. They are unable to rely on a neutral third party (i.e. the Government) to enforce their contrac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have enforcement of contracts without laws and the power of government behind them.
Remind me to never sign a contract with you.
Because seriously, you and people like you are what is wrong with libertarianism.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
What were you trying to say by this truism? That in order to be able to force John to pay Peter after Peter has delivered the goods, the government must be able prescribe, exactly what kind of goods John is allowed to buy and Peter to deliver?
Too bad. I think, signing a contract with me would've been quite safe for you or anyone.
It is the folks, who denounce any contract t
Re: (Score:2)
On one side, if you are careful enough, the government already has no reach in such a contract. So your example is pointless. Government are not an all-knowing entity.
On the other side, it could also be argue that if you support death penalty, you agree for the entity you call "government" to contract a hitman (which happen to be itself) against an individual you judge harmful to you. If you also extend this reasoning to the law enforcement/justice system, the government itself is an oppressive entity which
Re: (Score:2)
Another strawman. Murder is illegal and thus falls squarely into "fighting crime", which I do want the government to do.
And before you ask, murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong (malum in se, pardon my Latin).
It is bad enough for Congress to criminalize various actions — making more things malum prohibitum. For a panel of five appointees (such as FCC) to do that is just unacceptable...
Re: (Score:2)
Murder would still be illegal if there were no law against it? How so?
And if legality depends on the law (which, I highly suspect, it does), doesn't that mean that "fighting crime" is a blanket statement meaning enforcing any and all laws and regulations? Even those you disagree with, or feel are overstepping?
I'm not saying you are wrong to think that the government is too big, or too overreaching, but I am saying that what you've brought to this discussion is inconsistent and not really helping your poin
Re: (Score:2)
Some things (like running an unlicensed business) are unjust because they are illegal [wikipedia.org]. Other things (like murder) are illegal because they are unjust [wikipedia.org].
You better grasp the difference, that was well analyzed as long ago as in Roman Republic.
Why, yes. Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is par
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, "illegal" means "not allowed by the law" according to Webster's dictionary. You cannot have "illegal" without "law". This contradicts your argument:
murder is illegal not because there is a law against it, but because it is wrong
Many people believe it is wrong to lie. Yet, lying is not strictly illegal except where the law prohibits it (such as lying under oath, fraud, etc.).
Except those, that the Executive government — of which FCC itself is part — has itself invented, contrary to the "separation of powers" doctrine so dear to Americans, including this, who can't recognize its violation while talking about it.
I'm actually very fond of the concept of separation of powers. I feel it needs to go further, in that Washington should have less absolute authority and states should have more. Go support the Ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, keep the government's hands off my private contract with a hitman. I want to buy his services, he wants to sell me his services. The government shouldn't get involved! /'casm
Are you seriously unable to see any difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government has been messing with it long enough that only a fool would think there is a free market in the mix. I guess we could say +1 for paying attention part of the timem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
If so, it must be clearly marked as temporary — andeven then, it would make no sense to implement it, as long as the original evil remains in place [wired.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
But you have to grant a monopoly in some way, you can't have ISP A, B, C, and D all tearing up the roads to lay lines, or each ISP stringing their own lines along the shared poles. In some locations the ISP has to run lines underneath private property. Local governments don't allow that for sewer mains and power lines for good reason, the same reasoning applied with TV and phone cables. The only problem is that the service providers get full control over the last mile, allowing them to completely shut out c
Re: (Score:3)
Those local governments only gave them those monopolies because the ISPs demanded them to even deliver service. It's not as if the local governments just up and gave the companies those monopolies against the wishes of the ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean that last-mile monopoly which has been given to them by... local governments ?
Which ISP has been given a last-mile monopoly on anything?
The answer is "none". The telephone companies have last-mile monopolies on their wires. The cable companies typically have only defacto and not dejure monopolies. But those monopolies are not because they are ISPs, it is because they started as other services. In fact, as services, they don't have government-granted monopolies either. Only the telephone companies have a historical monopoly on wired telephony, but there is competition in "telephone
Re: (Score:2)
Q: What is it called when you can only get high-speed Internet within a particular geographic area from one company?
A: a monopoly.
In my area (within the Atlanta city limits), there are three alleged choices for high-speed home Internet (i.e., Internet with a large enough data cap to be usable for things like video, gaming and software updates): Clear Wi-Max, AT&T DSL, and Comcast cable. Clear Wi-Max doesn't work (literally, at all) because the towers are too far away. AT&T DSL doesn't work (literall
Re: (Score:2)
Q: What is it called when you can only get high-speed Internet within a particular geographic area from one company? A: a monopoly.
A: an under-served market. Most likely because the costs of providing service are too high to support more than one player.
It's not a government-enforced monopoly, and laws to enforce net neutrality will do absolutely NOTHING to solve your problem.
However, Comcast cable is literally the only choice, and is therefore a monopoly.
It is not a government-enforced monopoly, it is a defacto monopoly, and the existence of the other two services show that. If the costs didn't outweigh the benefits some company would have come in and be providing the service you want. But it might not be at th
Re: (Score:3)
An "under-served market," huh? Alright then: the market I'm talking about is in almost the middle of the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States, about four miles from the middle of downtown (which, in Atlanta, is not very far at all). If that's not dense enough to support more than one provider, then where the fuck is?!
Re: (Score:2)
An "under-served market," huh? Alright then: the market I'm talking about is in almost the middle of the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States,
And an under-served market is an under-served market no matter where it is.
Yes, and a de-facto monopoly is still a monopoly.
Yep. However, the solutions are different for the two. For a dejure monopoly, the solution could be as simple as removing the grant. For a defacto monopoly you have to figure out IF there is a problem and then what a fair solution is. (If there's one company in a city selling a specific service, is that because the market is saturated, because the customers love that one company but won't buy anywhere else, or something else.) Is
Re: (Score:2)
In many states there is no government monopoly. The cable companies divide up the territory in the exact same way even when States allow for competitive access. You're just translating anti-government propaganda onto the issue blindly.
In Portland we found out how real the availability of competition was when Google Fiber threatened to come to town, and suddenly multiple cable companies were asking for permits for the same neighborhoods. That really happened. There was no barrier in the way. And yet, the who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely would, but I don't get a say in it since my neighbor paid the Inter Street Provider extra for a service which allowed him to use some of my driveway to park on. The ISP promises that they'll build more driveways in my neighborhood sometime in the next 20 years or so in order to meet increased demand. In the meantime if I pay extra I can use my other neighbor's driveway.
Re: A hit-piece of a submission... (Score:1)
Right, but net-neutrality is good for the NSA because it decreases peering points and allows for mandatory government decryption, so his positions are quite contradictory. This may be a good indication that he's just reading talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth quarter earnings, next election polling, same difference. Actually the polling is worse, because they just spend other people's money to buy votes.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is specifically and explicitly set up to represent and defend the interests the most influancial of its citizens.
FTFY.
It's not the majority, it is the majority of voters, which themselves are a subset of the whole citizen group. Just the convicted felons represent about 9% of the total US population, and they are denied any right to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
The Internet Association -- which counts tech giants like Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter among its members...
Because these companies have no interest in internet freedom as it pertains to their cattle but as it pertains to fourth quarter earnings.
That makes a nice slashdot karma-generating soundbite, but it really doesn't answer the question. The companies in question stand to benefit from net neutrality, and aren't likely to be rewarding an opponent unless they felt like there was some other reason to do it.
Luckily, if you RTFA (I know, I know), you find "Theran pointed to the role McCarthy played in advancing a key tech-industry priority: patent reform. Under McCarthy's floor leadership, the House passed the Innovation Act 325-91 in December 201
Comedy? (Score:2)
Maybe this is some sort of new cutting edge format sitcom, this is just the first episode.
Be...cause... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in this case, TFA gives a different answer: Because McCarthy has been pushing patent reform legislation.
Contact their Members and Complain (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members [internetassociation.org] are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.
As the article originally posted points out.
Theran pointed to the role McCarthy played in advancing a key tech-industry priority: patent reform. Under McCarthy's floor leadership, the House passed the Innovation Act 325-91 in December 2013. Tech companies hope that the bill, which is designed to cut back on frivolous lawsuits from so-called "patent trolls," will soon pass the Senate.
Also, these other votes could of his have had an impact on their decision [ontheissues.org].
It is better to spend less than tax more. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on extending AMT exemptions to avoid hitting middle-income. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007)
Taxpayer Protection Pledge: no new taxes. (Aug 2010)
No European-style VAT (value-added tax). (May 2010)
Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Jan 2012)
Legislative transparency: post bills on Internet for a week. (Sep 2010)
Voted YES on protecting cyber security by sharing data with government. (Apr 2013)
Voted YES on terminating funding for National Public Radio. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on delaying digital TV conversion by four months. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan 2007)
Permanent ban on state & local taxation of Internet access. (Oct 2007)
Prohibit the return of the Fairness Doctrine. (Jan 2009)
Invested lottery winnings to start deli business at age 19. (Sep 2010)
Voted YES on workforce training by state block grants & industry partners. (Mar 2013)
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Repeal ObamaCare reporting requirements for small business. (Jan 2011)
Rated 14% by UFCW, indicating a pro-management voting record. (May 2012)
After all, if you're a CEO, which one is more important to you? net neutrality, or tax loopholes and your overall executive compensation package?
Why is the Internet Association? (Score:3)
A better question might be who is the Internet Association? They certainly aren't part of the internet's governing bodies. Why should we give two cents for what they think or who they give awards to?
Why? (Score:2)
Because the NSA has photographs from the last Internet Association post trade show party.
Internet Association (Score:2)
Are 4chan, reddit, imgur, and cheezeburger part of this association?
Then it does not represent the internet.
Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that empirical evidence shows that not disallowing the Feds to do something is synonymous with allowing them to do it.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was constructed on that premise.
Re: Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights is actually fairly clear that the only legal powers of the Federal Government are those explicitly granted (I.e. Enumerated Powers) to it by the Constitution, and that anything not otherwise prohibited is reserved for individual States to excercise.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi... [archives.gov]
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10..
I would argue it's pretty much ignored it in it's entirety. Then again, the Government (and the courts) seems to be good at ignoring the rest of the document as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
The people that complain about the new net neutrality rules are either corporate telco shills or just misinformed idiots.
Or both.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you going to claim, US policy regarding AT&T's government-backed monopoly was a success?
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to AT&T's pre-government-backed monopoly, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're going to have to bring up some citations, because when the government gave AT&T a monopoly, they might have done some shitty things, and blocked some innovation, but the quality of service was second to none. They had a phrase called "five nines" to describe their uptime. To date, no other information system can match the 99.999% reliability of Ma Bell. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was always there. No exceptions. They also pushed innovation and gave back to the community. UNIX for example was given away for Free when they had a monopoly. They didn't care, they just wrote it off. AT&T Bell Labs was the envy of the fucking world, and the state of the art for electronic engineering for 5 fucking decades.
I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.
Bullshit. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was not "always there," it was only there 99.999% of the time. In the 80s when the SF quake happened, so many people in my city (not even in California) were calling to check on relatives, most people were getting the "fast busy" signal when they picked up their phones, because the system was swamped. It was probably 4 hours before we could make local calls reliably again.
Five nines might be really good. But it isn't always.
Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty soon everyone could get online, because everyone - even in rural areas - had landline phone service (not to mention electricity). Service was slow compared to today, but it was a limit of the current technology rather than any unwillingness of companies to invest or build out in a given area. Upgrades occured, up until about the point that dialup and DSL hit a wall where it was no longer feasible under current technology to increase bandwidth using the (government mandated Title II Unbundled) telephone lines.
Instead, most people were forced to switch to (proprietary bundled) cable lines to get high speed internet. Only recently have fiber lines been available for some lucky few, and most of us are still stuck at the mercy of our cable company. In the meantime, competition has all but disappeared, rates have shot up and service has become legendarily bad for many people.
So explain to me again why Title II is so horrible, because I'm really just not seeing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for a few spurts and a few people admittedly on the fringe of the party will we see anyone tackle the real issues.
Just like conspiracy theories will talk about mass internment camps being set up by FEMA, but no one wants to talk about the mass internment camps that are very real actual prisons and some of the silly things that get people sent to jail for very long sen
Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
And if significant infrastructure upgrades require investments of government/tax dollars... well, I'm perfectly okay with that too. I'd much rather have high speed fiber internet laid down in my county rather than, say, a new sports stadium.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to deregulation in the 80's and the breakup of AT&T, the iPhone would have been illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't say anything, because the internet was already tapped and regulated before title 2. The only thing title 2 did was prevent comcast from adding additional private regulations.
There is really no diffrence from the government dictating rules and comcast doing it, and the only person who really looses out is comcast, and only in their ability to fuck with
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
I was recently reading a very interesting article about paid Russian trolls. They'll go to all the small-town Russian blogs and post the same types of rants. But they don't just post pro-gov't rants. They've got this whole cast of characters and script where one person makes a seemingly-well-reasoned pro-gov't argument, while the anti-gov't "villain" will respond with something ridiculous or completely off-point.
It's not enough to make your side seem strong, you also have to make your opponents look foolish.
So when I see a seemingly-well-reasoned-but-wrong "government regulation is bad" argument followed by a "higher taxes and more expensive ISPs are good" argument - both by Anonymous Cowards - I think Soviet Russia. You guys are the worst kind of scum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to be equally outraged when it is flipped around, and a weak supporting argument for mainstream pro-government policies is followed by low-taxes anti-government attacks.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn right I'll be outraged. This type of astroturfing hurts both sides of the argument by preventing an actual exchange of ideas. It's FUD designed to reduce the credibility of any claims, making it harder for an uninformed person to become informed.
Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score:4, Funny)
I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:3)
While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.
The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc... [fcc.gov]
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail... [fcc.gov]
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
To bad we didn't impose the same limits on corporations. But then again, what do you expect from a country founded by people who'd be the equivalent of Donald Trump today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You really think that's what this is ? Seriously ?
Mind telling me how getting third parties who like the guy to shun him, is "Directly Addressing" anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you ought to re-read some of Orwell's works...
The problem in Orwell's world of 1984 isn't the "statist enforcement", but rather that the state enforces rules for the purpose of oppressing the majority of the population. Ingsoc's rules and systems are not in themselves harmful. In fact, several times throughout the book, some of the most vile mechanisms are described only as the result of rumors.
Here in the real world, there is no absolute freedom. There is only what you want to do and what others wa
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Ingsoc's rules and systems were not themselves harmful, maybe _you_ ought to reread it. You completely missed the point, that the stupid rules and blind obedience were 'the point'.
Make rules for everything, every detail and free thinking will never occur to 'them' (people like yourself).
Re: (Score:2)
Patriot Act called, it wants its modus operandi back.