Do we need a digital/cyberspace bill of rights?

Net neutrality is the idea that all internet traffic should be treated equally – with no internet service provider (ISP) having the power to favor one source over another by blocking, throttling, or a means of paid prioritization. ... This makes net neutrality a crucial aspect in helping all of us “play, as a team.”Dec 13, 2017


13 Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality

~S~
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

As it currently stands a mere handful of massive corporations control nearly everything you are allowed to do or say in cyberspace.

Those massive corporations would be considered the enemy of the people by any traditional minded democrat of years past. Throughout history they have never supported the ability of big business to put their boot on the commoners. Yet now that those corporations are targeting the right predominately they look the other way not realizing that their heads are in the crosshairs as well.

In my opinion cyberspace is the new public square and as such needs to be monitored to ensure equal treatment for all that use it. The left tried and failed to gain traction in the talk radio space. No one wanted to hear their bullshit and without those viewers there was no profitable revenue stream. Now they control the interwebs almost in its entirity. Don't believe me? Go make a youtube video about the whistleblower and SPECIFICALLY mention his name. See how long your video lasts before it's removed. Similar nonsense on Twitter & Facebook. Now if you're a powerful politician you can get away with it but you or me? Naw, we're mere plebes.

Regulate these cocksuckers

See this is where I don't understand you.....

You can build a web site that says anything at all. No one can control what you do, or what you say.

Where do you get this bonkers idea from?

Democrats
 
We already have a bill of rights.

Come one, people. Why would we ask the government to rewrite them for us? Are you kidding me?
 
Last edited:
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.

Denying one sides voice is not equal.
It's not equal treatment. But it is equal rights. Conservatives and libertarians know the difference. Nationalists do not.

Actually it's not when one side holds all the cards.
 
Free the internet from the claws of the fascist Globalists tech tyrants!

FREE IT
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.

Denying one sides voice is not equal.
It's not equal treatment. But it is equal rights. Conservatives and libertarians know the difference. Nationalists do not.

Actually it's not when one side holds all the cards.

It's still equal rights. Even if one side ”holds all the cards”. Even if there's only one bakery in town, the baker still has the right to say no.
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.

Denying one sides voice is not equal.
It's not equal treatment. But it is equal rights. Conservatives and libertarians know the difference. Nationalists do not.

Actually it's not when one side holds all the cards.

It's still equal rights. Even if one side ”holds all the cards”. Even if there's only one bakery in town, the baker still has the right to say no.

While I agree with that it's totally different when one side is all powerful and can decide who has a voice and who doesnt.
You cant get a large Conservative sight going when the left controls the internet.
Totally different then say like when the left demanded equal time on Conservative talk radio.
There was nothing stopping them from starting their own stations other than the lack luster following they received.
Air America comes to mind.
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

As it currently stands a mere handful of massive corporations control nearly everything you are allowed to do or say in cyberspace.

Those massive corporations would be considered the enemy of the people by any traditional minded democrat of years past. Throughout history they have never supported the ability of big business to put their boot on the commoners. Yet now that those corporations are targeting the right predominately they look the other way not realizing that their heads are in the crosshairs as well.

In my opinion cyberspace is the new public square and as such needs to be monitored to ensure equal treatment for all that use it. The left tried and failed to gain traction in the talk radio space. No one wanted to hear their bullshit and without those viewers there was no profitable revenue stream. Now they control the interwebs almost in its entirity. Don't believe me? Go make a youtube video about the whistleblower and SPECIFICALLY mention his name. See how long your video lasts before it's removed. Similar nonsense on Twitter & Facebook. Now if you're a powerful politician you can get away with it but you or me? Naw, we're mere plebes.

Regulate these cocksuckers
No, I think we have enough bullshit laws and regulations. The government would ruin it all anyway.
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.

Denying one sides voice is not equal.
It's not equal treatment. But it is equal rights. Conservatives and libertarians know the difference. Nationalists do not.

Actually it's not when one side holds all the cards.

Neither side holds all the cards. The web is a big fucking place. If you do not like what YouTube does you are free to start your own web based video company. Same holds true for FB and Twitter.
 
Who told you that? You believed them?

The government's job is to ensure equal rights, not equal treatment.

Denying one sides voice is not equal.
It's not equal treatment. But it is equal rights. Conservatives and libertarians know the difference. Nationalists do not.

Actually it's not when one side holds all the cards.

It's still equal rights. Even if one side ”holds all the cards”. Even if there's only one bakery in town, the baker still has the right to say no.

While I agree with that it's totally different when one side is all powerful and can decide who has a voice and who doesnt.
You cant get a large Conservative sight going when the left controls the internet.
Totally different then say like when the left demanded equal time on Conservative talk radio.
There was nothing stopping them from starting their own stations other than the lack luster following they received.
Air America comes to mind.

There was nothing stopping you and those like you from starting their own websites. Trust me, the internet is not full and the Dems to not control it.
 
Free the internet from the claws of the fascist Globalists tech tyrants!

FREE IT

The tech tyrants, the ones actually lobbying for an Internet bill of rights, are the ones selling the idea of an Internet bill of rights in order to keep a firm hold on their own gains at the expense of your actual rights.

The only thing standing in their way are your actual rights. That's why they wanna rewrite em.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mdk
Free the internet from the claws of the fascist Globalists tech tyrants!

FREE IT

The tech tyrants, the ones actually lobbying for an Internet bill of rights, are the ones selling the idea of and Internet bill of rights in order to keep a firm hold on their own gains at the expense of your actual rights.

The only thing standing in their way are your actual rights. That's why they wanna rewrite em.

THIS
 
Again. We already have a bill of rights. I'll be damned if I want some special interest communications conglomerate with a direct line to Congress rewriting them to suit their own bottom line at the expense of my actual rights. That's fascism.
 
Free the internet from the claws of the fascist Globalists tech tyrants!

FREE IT

The tech tyrants, the ones actually lobbying for an Internet bill of rights, are the ones selling the idea of and Internet bill of rights in order to keep a firm hold on their own gains at the expense of your actual rights.

The only thing standing in their way are your actual rights. That's why they wanna rewrite em.


Whatever it is

FREE THE INTERNET from the claws of the tech fascist tyrants SCUM!
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

As it currently stands a mere handful of massive corporations control nearly everything you are allowed to do or say in cyberspace.

Those massive corporations would be considered the enemy of the people by any traditional minded democrat of years past. Throughout history they have never supported the ability of big business to put their boot on the commoners. Yet now that those corporations are targeting the right predominately they look the other way not realizing that their heads are in the crosshairs as well.

In my opinion cyberspace is the new public square and as such needs to be monitored to ensure equal treatment for all that use it. The left tried and failed to gain traction in the talk radio space. No one wanted to hear their bullshit and without those viewers there was no profitable revenue stream. Now they control the interwebs almost in its entirity. Don't believe me? Go make a youtube video about the whistleblower and SPECIFICALLY mention his name. See how long your video lasts before it's removed. Similar nonsense on Twitter & Facebook. Now if you're a powerful politician you can get away with it but you or me? Naw, we're mere plebes.

Regulate these cocksuckers

See this is where I don't understand you.....

You can build a web site that says anything at all. No one can control what you do, or what you say.

Where do you get this bonkers idea from?

If you don't like Youtube, don't use it.

  • Youtube.
  • Metacafe.
  • Vimeo.
  • Dailymotion.
  • Break.
You can upload your video elsewhere.
You can build a website to say anything you want BUT you need one of the big companies to HOST IT FOR YOU. You can not self publish without first agreeing to some overlords terms of service.

Um... well no. I never did. I self published everything.

There is multiple ways to do this, but you can actually turn your own computer into a web host, and run a web server from it. Now if your web site ever becomes extremely popular, unless you have fiber internet, you'll get speed limitations.

But you can do that, and you can post absolutely anything, and never sign any terms of service with any company.

If you don't have good internet, you can also rent serve space.

When I was running my own right-wing podcast, my website was hosted by bluehost. It's just $4 a month. I didn't use facebook, or youtube, or anything.

You just build your web site, publish absolutely anything at all that you want to publish, and no one can say anything about it. Even bluehost, doesn't look at your website, and you can pay an extra $1 a month to keep your information confidential.

I think you need to remember that the entire point of how the internet was built, was specifically so that anyone could do anything. You don't have to go through Facebook or any other media distribution system. You can choose to.... but that isn't the same as being forced to.

Now I get it that you don't like Facebook and so on, because they are interfering in content.
I get that.

The problem is, your short term solution, is going to have long term ramifications.

Yes, in the short term if you use regulations to hammer on Facebook and Youtube, in the short term it will improve things.

The problem is, once you set that as normal for government, it won't be long before the other side takes control, and starts using those regulations you wanted, to hammer even more on speech they don't like.

And then when power switches sides again, they'll use that power on speech they don't like.

It won't be long before government is using regulations to hammer on all speech they don't like, and we'll end up in a big brother China style control over media.

Just don't use those companies, if you don't like how they operate. It's that simple.
 
The government regulates virtually every business in existence in order to try to maintain equal treatment for all.

As it currently stands a mere handful of massive corporations control nearly everything you are allowed to do or say in cyberspace.

Those massive corporations would be considered the enemy of the people by any traditional minded democrat of years past. Throughout history they have never supported the ability of big business to put their boot on the commoners. Yet now that those corporations are targeting the right predominately they look the other way not realizing that their heads are in the crosshairs as well.

In my opinion cyberspace is the new public square and as such needs to be monitored to ensure equal treatment for all that use it. The left tried and failed to gain traction in the talk radio space. No one wanted to hear their bullshit and without those viewers there was no profitable revenue stream. Now they control the interwebs almost in its entirity. Don't believe me? Go make a youtube video about the whistleblower and SPECIFICALLY mention his name. See how long your video lasts before it's removed. Similar nonsense on Twitter & Facebook. Now if you're a powerful politician you can get away with it but you or me? Naw, we're mere plebes.

Regulate these cocksuckers


start here >>>

Net neutrality - Wikipedia

Net Neutrality: Here's Everything You Need To Know

p05qzsb4.jpg
4f01d3c9-ff6e-4a0f-8c56-ac93b7620c71.sized-1000x1000.jpg

~S~

Net neutrality has nothing to do with this discussion.

Net neutrality had to do with high-band websites wanting to pay for higher tier service.

The primary example of this was netflix. Netflix takes (obviously) tons of bandwidth, because they are streaming HD videos.

Network suppliers were charging a higher fee for more bandwidth, which of course cut into netflix bottom line.

So the CEO of netflix came out in support of net neutrality, because it required all net providers to treat everyone equally. It prevented them from charging more money, for faster service. Win for the super wealthy Netflix people.

But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Net Neutrality had nothing to do with Facebook removing what is on their own website. Nor Youtube. Net neutrality was about each web site being treated equally, even if one used up tons of bandwidth, and the other did not.

But it said nothing about Facebook removing posts it didn't like. Or Youtube removing videos it didn't like.

Two completely separate issues. Nothing to do with each other.
 

Forum List

Back
Top