U.S. Senate Rejects Appeal Against Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Recommended Videos
someone execute this man! He did not address a member of the politiburo correctly! I am a Hero of the Soviet Union!Kinguendo said:
He's also against 'waterboarding' i.e. torture, probably because he's one of the few politicians in the United States who actually has been tortured (thanks to his stay in the Hanoi Hilton).gmaverick019 said:DVS BSTrD said:
did not know that.
not bad mcCain...
Best description I have seen for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8p0JW6Tt2o
As for the politics of this. Remember that the FCC are posted to their job. So take whichever political party you are a part of, think of the person from the other side you would LEAST like to see as president, then imagine them appointing people to the FCC to be put in charge of anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8p0JW6Tt2o
As for the politics of this. Remember that the FCC are posted to their job. So take whichever political party you are a part of, think of the person from the other side you would LEAST like to see as president, then imagine them appointing people to the FCC to be put in charge of anything.
I sent a letter to my senator Olympia Snowe and she sent back some bull about how the net shouldn't be controlled my the FCC. Here's the quote, "Congress - elected by the people - not appointed bureaucrats must act to ensure that Internet access remains inviolable." If congress could get anything done then this would be the case.
I got one that read just like that from Senator Barr of NC. My other senator actually basically said she already agreed with me, stating that by removing the one thing that can(as in has the potential) control corporations is government.shameduser said:
In the end I think that "Net Neutrality" going into law is a very bad idea.
On principle, I agree with the basic idea that the big companies, ISPS, etc... should not be able to control your content and route you to or away from things at their discrestion.
The problem though is that when it comes to giving the goverment the direct power to regulate these things, and decide what's fair and what isn't... well that opens up some doors I'd rather leave closed. It's basically replacing a monster with an even bigger monster. In the short term we might see the benefits, but in the long term I think this will get even worse.
See, once the goverment has the abillity to control the internet this way, for the purposes of "keeping things fair" it's only a matter of time before people in the goverment decide to use that power to protect the people from themselves. The question of "how does the goverment regulate this" no longer exists, it will have the tools and prescence, so if you say have a huge reactionary group screaming "think of the children" that wants to protect you from sex and violence or whatever, the goverment will be in a position where it can actually control the internet to forcibly route people away from those things itself due to the control it's wielding already to prevent other people from doing routing without it's permission.
Hate on the Republican party all you want, but a big part of the reason why I support it is that I don't like the Federal Goverment getting it's fingers into evem more things. This is an issue above and beyond any of the other garbage we talk about. Argue about the motives involved all you want, but honestly, while I think manipulation by big interests suck, I think manipulation by the goverment is even worse. The corperate interests being the lesser of two evils in a very literal sense.
That's what I think at any rate. I know many people, especially here, are going to disagree with me on that.
On principle, I agree with the basic idea that the big companies, ISPS, etc... should not be able to control your content and route you to or away from things at their discrestion.
The problem though is that when it comes to giving the goverment the direct power to regulate these things, and decide what's fair and what isn't... well that opens up some doors I'd rather leave closed. It's basically replacing a monster with an even bigger monster. In the short term we might see the benefits, but in the long term I think this will get even worse.
See, once the goverment has the abillity to control the internet this way, for the purposes of "keeping things fair" it's only a matter of time before people in the goverment decide to use that power to protect the people from themselves. The question of "how does the goverment regulate this" no longer exists, it will have the tools and prescence, so if you say have a huge reactionary group screaming "think of the children" that wants to protect you from sex and violence or whatever, the goverment will be in a position where it can actually control the internet to forcibly route people away from those things itself due to the control it's wielding already to prevent other people from doing routing without it's permission.
Hate on the Republican party all you want, but a big part of the reason why I support it is that I don't like the Federal Goverment getting it's fingers into evem more things. This is an issue above and beyond any of the other garbage we talk about. Argue about the motives involved all you want, but honestly, while I think manipulation by big interests suck, I think manipulation by the goverment is even worse. The corperate interests being the lesser of two evils in a very literal sense.
That's what I think at any rate. I know many people, especially here, are going to disagree with me on that.
You know what's also bad, man? Having police forces. Granted, I like them in theory - they're good to protect people against crime and ensure a safe environment for everyone to live in - but once you give a government the power to employ people whose job it is to go around and tell people what they can or can't do, and give them powers to arrest anyone who doesn't comply, well, it's only a matter of time before they use that power to protect themselves and oppress the very people they're supposed to be protecting. Slippery slope, I tell you.Therumancer said:
For the moment, corporations have time and governments change quickly.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
So a couple of years from now when they rewrite this as "Patriot Net"(or some such shit) and grease up a few more senators things will get very interesting.
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Making fundementally ridiculous arguements doesn't do you any real credit. I'm not sure if your trolling, or simply wanting to support your political party on this and will justify anything it does, right or wrong, as somehow amounting to the greater good.
A police department is nessicary for laws to work, and without laws and rules you can't hold a society together. The Internet on the other hand might be a big deal, but doesn't carry the weight of a society itself. This entire dicussion basically amounts to a specific law (albiet a big one) which the authorities/police/goverment will then enforce.
Yes, the goverment needs to enforce laws, but I don't think it's a good idea for them to take up the duty of directly controlling the internet this way.
Of course there are other fundemental issues involved here as well, that go beyond this conversation. See, I don't believe much in federal authority, sometimes it's a nessicary evil, but I prefer the Federal Goverment to be involved in as little as possible on any level when it comes to internal domestic policy in the USA. I see that as the job of the states. While I would still oppose it, I would be slightly more receptive to specific states setting and enforcing their own individual policies on issues like this, than the Federal Goverment doing the same thing. In part because it's somewhat easier to get a state or local law changed or overturned than a federal one, meaning I'm more receptive to experimentation there. When The Federal Goverment gets involved, it's nearly impossible to put the genie back into the bottle (so to speak) once it's done something.
If you would like a brief summary of my motivations, it has nothing to do with wanting to troll or blindly supporting any political party (for the record I'm not a US citizen). I simply enjoy pointing out where people are making arguments against any kind of government regulation simply on the basis that "they could abuse that power". If you remove any weighted discussion of the pros and cons of government regulation and just assert that it's a slippery slope, literally every major government function essential to Western society as we know it can be argued to be a terrible idea.Therumancer said:
And by the way, you still haven't given a single argument as to why it's a bad idea other than "once they get involved, you'll never be able to deregulate it". So what were you saying about fundamentally ridiculous?
Shamanic Rhythm said:
It's a differance in scale, your making an arguement that amounts to having no society what so ever. In comparison I'm making an arguement about something going on within a society.
My arguement isn't just that the goverment might abuse the power, but whether any regulation is nessicary here at all, as there is no way to say that potential abuse by one group is any better than potential abuse by another group. I feel there is no reason for the goverment to get involved in something that can already be regulated by the people themselves. Granted private citizens might abuse it, but at the same time the goverment might do so as well, there is no real benefit to having the goverment involved unless you like the idea of big goverment and having it control as much as possible.
so what is this going to mean?
I get it that the internet is dependent of the US now but does that mean laws no longer apply on the net?
I get it that the internet is dependent of the US now but does that mean laws no longer apply on the net?
Awesomesauce.
I just hope any and all attempts to log users' IP addresses or other details of that nature never come to pass. I'm all for national security as much as any other bloke, but I have to admit that Republicans tend to take things a notch too far.
I've known one pretty cool Republican myself, but his positions were a bit more... rational than what you hear on the news. Practically the only thing we didn't see eye to eye with involved the free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico. And this comes from me - a guy who, if he were American, would more than likely vote Democrat.
As to what that means, I figure it doesn't mean much. The Internet will remain the basin of cheerful perversion and self-expression it's nearly always been.
After all, Avenue Q said it best - The Internet is for porn.
I just hope any and all attempts to log users' IP addresses or other details of that nature never come to pass. I'm all for national security as much as any other bloke, but I have to admit that Republicans tend to take things a notch too far.
I've known one pretty cool Republican myself, but his positions were a bit more... rational than what you hear on the news. Practically the only thing we didn't see eye to eye with involved the free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico. And this comes from me - a guy who, if he were American, would more than likely vote Democrat.
As to what that means, I figure it doesn't mean much. The Internet will remain the basin of cheerful perversion and self-expression it's nearly always been.
After all, Avenue Q said it best - The Internet is for porn.