Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Verizon Businesses Technology

Verizon Is Killing Tumblr's Fight For Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 75

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In 2014, Tumblr was on the front lines of the battle for net neutrality. The company stood alongside Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net's day of action. Tumblr CEO David Karp was also part of a group of New York tech CEOs that met with then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in Brooklyn that summer, while the FCC was fielding public comment on new Title II rules. President Obama invited Karp to the White House to discuss various issues around public education, and in February 2015 The Wall Street Journal reported that it was the influence of Karp and a small group of liberal tech CEOs that swayed Obama toward a philosophy of internet as public utility. But three years later, as the battle for net neutrality heats up once again, Tumblr has been uncharacteristically silent. The last mention of net neutrality on Tumblr's staff blog -- which frequently posts about political issues from civil rights to climate change to gun control to student loan debt -- was in June 2016. And Tumblr is not listed as a participating tech company for Battle for the Net's next day of action, coming up in three weeks. One reason for Karp and Tumblr's silence? Last week Verizon completed its acquisition of Tumblr parent company Yahoo, kicking off the subsequent merger of Yahoo and AOL to create a new company called Oath. As one of the world's largest ISPs, Verizon is notorious for challenging the principles of net neutrality -- it sued the FCC in an effort to overturn net neutrality rules in 2011, and its general counsel Kathy Grillo published a note this April complimenting new FCC chairman Ajit Pai's plan to weaken telecommunication regulations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Is Killing Tumblr's Fight For Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22, 2017 @09:05AM (#54667505)

    Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Pai is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Paid is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

      Fixed that for you.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 22, 2017 @09:31AM (#54667595)
    When you let a small group of people buy everything. It's why wealth inequality is such a problem. Money is power, and we're giving it all to .1%.
    • by GLMDesigns ( 2044134 ) on Thursday June 22, 2017 @09:36AM (#54667613)
      "giving?"

      You're giving money away? Can I have some?

      I've never given money to Amazon. I've bought things from them, but never gave them any money?

      I wonder? Why are people giving so much money away?
      • I send money to Bezos and Musk directly. They are the only ones who are going to get us off this rock. Pretty soon we will all be living on Mars.
        • And the neat thing about Mars, is that whatever people go there, will decide to not allow political corruption. Because they'll be too cool for that sort of thing.
      • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday June 22, 2017 @10:05AM (#54667733) Homepage

        Many of us are voting for elected officials who push policies to remove regulations and cut taxes on the richest people and businesses. It's a policy of granting wide latitude and control to people who already have immense economic power. It's a policy of wealth redistribution, but redistributing wealth from the public and the middle class, and pouring all the money we can into a tiny group of people.

        Whether you like the word "giving", we're setting up a system that moves money to the top 1%, and not really getting anything in return.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by GLMDesigns ( 2044134 )
          Cutting taxes is not giving. And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

          You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

          So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share -
          • Cutting taxes is not giving.

            Well then raising taxes is not taking :-)

            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by kwbauer ( 1677400 )

              "Well then raising taxes is not taking." Shows what a total idiot GameboyRMH is.

              When I earn money, that money is mine. Anything the government requires me to give under threat of violence and imprisonment is taking. Taking less is still taking. It does not become giving until the taking is less than zero, like what happens with those at the bottom. And yes, if the government ceases to give them money then it is not taking anything from them.

              Seriously! Where did this asinine idea that every damn thing belong

              • Taking less is still taking. It does not become giving until the taking is less than zero, like what happens with those at the bottom.

                Which is getting close to my point. People at the top receive more from government than they pay in taxes, overall similar to those at the very bottom. They benefit from plenty of workers who went to public schools and pay them peanuts. They benefit greatly from public roads and register their supercars in Montana. They run money through foreign tax havens at every opportunity. So yes, cutting their taxes even more is "giving."

          • This is a classic straw man when talking about taxes on the wealthy. Nobody is talking about taxing the top 0.01% at 100%. Nobody is talking about taxing *only* the top 0.01%. Nobody is talking about violence.

            But tax money is used to build infrastructure, provide security, and maintain a stable society. If you do those things off the backs of the middle class and don't ask the rich to pay their fair share, it is "giving". If those rich people don't want to contribute, then fine, let's take away the pr

            • Simple solution to all the FUD and BS

              Flat tax (or extremely limited deductions) on earned income.
              • Yes, limiting deductions and removing loopholes would help to solve the problem.

                However, it's worth noting that conversations about a "flat tax" often conflate two different issues. Sometimes when people are talking about a "flat tax", they're talking about removing (or severely limiting) deductions, and just taxing people a set percentage of income. Even then, it's complicated. Are the tax rates for corporate taxed and capital gains also taxed? If not, you may be opening some loopholes already.

                Howeve

          • by Duhavid ( 677874 )
            Indeed, cutting taxes is not giving.

            But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".

            And it does not change the point made. The wealthy are changing legislation to grant themselves more power and lower taxes.

            If they were being taxed at rates live 60's/70's England ( like the 90% rates I understand they had ), I would argue their rates should be lowered.
            But, they are not.
            And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us",
            • Of and buy the people doesn't mean the government takes from some to give to others now does it?
            • But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".

              Nobody said they did. It's called "reductio ad absurdum." Take an argument to an extreme to show why it is absurd.

              People DO say: "the rich should pay more" when they talk about solving government financial problems. That argument is false, because EVEN IF you took ALL the money from the rich (taxed at 100% of income and wealth), and then removed them from the welfare roles as a new cost by killing them, you couldn't solve the government financial problems. That means there has to be a different answer, if

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Cutting taxes is not giving.

            It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

            They double-dip, you know.

            And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

            You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

            So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

            Or we could do this [cc.com].

            You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

            Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

            Have you read what's happening [latimes.com] in Kansas [chicagotribune.com]? They followed [time.com] the plan of handouts [forbes.com] to the rich [rawstory.com]. How's that worked [commondreams.org] out for them [kansas.com]?

            Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade [theday.com]

          • Cutting taxes is not giving.

            Taking less then.

            You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months.

            Really? They control 12% of the wealth in the US [cnbc.com].

            Either way that misses the point. The issue is that society is structured so that wealth accumulates. The wealthier you are the faster you'll accumulate more wealth, taxes aren't the only issue, but they're part of it

            So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

            So you're playing the bait and switch of talking about government budgets.

            Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

            Have you seen what US Republicans are doing right now? They're so obsessed with giving rich people a tax cut they're willing to destroy the health care mar

            • Take a look at the total wealth and see if you get to 2 trillion dollars. Then ask yourself how many months the US government will run on that confiscated money.

              Here's something you need to realize - higher taxes != more tax revenue.
      • then sure. I guess I will. Not by choice mind you, but while the programs that help me (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc, etc) get cut and eliminated and all hope for single payer health care or even pre-existing coverage gets wiped away in closed door meetings anyone from the 1% gets massive tax cuts and zero cuts to the loopholes and subsidies they know and love. Meanwhile we keep electing the same bunch of yahoos every bloody year (serously, how does Ted Cruz, a Senator not a House
        • Be prepared to be further disappointed if you're outraged at Ted Cruz. Time for you to move to Canada.

          Re entitlements - hmmm. You really think they're being slashed? Really?


          You could be creating your heaven in your state. Taxing higher, more entitlements. Instead you're trying to make it country wide.

          Prove me wrong. Make it work in your state. Then, instead of fighting you, I'll join you.
          • by inflation. They're not getting adjusted. And then there's things like Food Stamps & housing programs. I don't use them directly, but they pump money into a sector of the economy that spends 100% of their income. Putting more money in Warren Buffetts pocket doesn't help me. He doesn't spend it. I need it in the hands of folks who spend so they can buy what I'm selling. I need a vibrant middle class.

            And don't get me started on cuts to education, especially college. Anyone who tells you that college
            • College is over priced because it gets money pumped into it for useless classes; every changing textbooks.

              You can cut the cost of college by getting rid of the useless fluff and the extracurricular activities that you pay for.

              No money should go to athletics from the general fund. (As for example)
              No money should to clubs of any kind from the general fund.

              Take a look at the "support" staff for colleges and compare them to the 1950s. Hmmm. That costs money. Get rid of remedial education in colleges
      • by rbrander ( 73222 )

        They don't have a choice. When the government is influenced into passing a legal framework that devolves the market down to an oligopoly, people can hand them money, or not be able to make a phone call and find work.

        Proponents of "market freedom" are often only offering the free choice of "Your money or your life" and calling that "freedom".

        • No handing of money here. You're buying a service.

          Oh, you're talking about government enforced monopolies, you think they're bad. Libertarians and free-market types agree with you.
  • by houghi ( 78078 )

    On one side there was "Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net's day of action" on the other side the other companies.

    So who where the people defending the public? The companies having the same interest as the public does not mean they are on the same side. It is merely correlation.

    Or: The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. (And that is why you should vote for something, not against something)

  • Been saying this since the acquisition was announced. Buying Yahoo gives them yet another series of 'mouthpieces' from which to spout their anti Net Neutrality propaganda.
  • Boycott Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 22, 2017 @10:40AM (#54667943) Journal

    For anyone who doesn't know, Verizon is the arch-enemy of net neutrality. Most of the corporate (and even government, hi Ajit!) opposition to net neutrality today can be traced back to them. If you're a Verizon customer, switch if you're able to.

    I realize you might not be able to switch because the wonderful free market of the USA often has de facto telecom monopolies ruling certain regions, but if you can, do.

    • Re:Boycott Verizon (Score:4, Informative)

      by JestersGrind ( 2549938 ) on Thursday June 22, 2017 @11:30AM (#54668341)

      I did exactly this about two weeks ago. I dropped Verizon as my family's mobile provider and joined T-mobile who is pro net neutrality. I encourage anyone who is their customer to do the same. They are truly an evil company. I've been very pleased with T-Mobile so far and should have made the switch a long time ago. Vote with your wallets. That's the only thing they understand.

      • I tried T-Mobile and would have stayed with them if they didn't have zero reception at my office. Verizon has better overall coverage in my area, even though in a lot of places it's slower than T-Mobile was.
  • Don't expect a Netflix-like move on this one guys (bluntly say they don't care, then do a full reversal when people get pissed about it). If anything, the only thing Verizon probably cares and expects right now from Tumblr is for them not to support net neutrality. At possible threat of shutting it down. Which is a good sample of what is happening if net neutrality ends, only on a larger scale.

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Working...