Republicans Create Rider To Stop Net Neutrality

[Jarhead]

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

They can, and they have. 75 or so "file swapping" sites were taken down by the US government with no court order.

Link?

I, for one, on here for several threads did NOT go on the Wikileaks bashing rampage...to the contrary, I said it was freedom of speech and proper use of the internet...and we should be angry at ourselves for allowing the docs to get out....not angry at Assange for publishing them.

Sure, I hate Assange for publishing them as it was not in my country's best interest...but I do not hold it against him from a use of the internet standpoint.

I mean...really...what if it were Al Quaeda that got hold of the docs and published them on the internet? Would we have said "no fair"?...but that is for another thread I guess.

 

[daveman]

Wrong. Idiot Right wingers can deny CON$ervative orginizations and presidents, etc., are CON$ every time they are caught in their hypocrisy, but the fact remains that Heritage Foundation is the most CON$ervative of all CON$ervative think tanks, and is parroted by all other CON$ because CON$ are incapable of "thinking" for themselves and therefore are completely dependent on think tanks.
But keep making a fool of yourself trying to claim the Heritage Foundation is not CON$ervative, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Pointing to your own mindless parroting of talking points as proof is proof only that you're a mindless parrot.

 

[Revere]

U.S. Shutters 82 Sites in Crackdown on Downloads, Counterfeit Goods | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[edthecynic]

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

They can, and they have. 75 or so "file swapping" sites were taken down by the US government with no court order.

Link?

Don't expect one because he just makes this crap up from thin air.

If you go to one of the shut down sites you get this message;

“This domain name has been seized by ICE — Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court.”

 

[Revere]

My bad. They got a judge to deny due process, too.

 

[Varth Dader]

...
I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

 

[edthecynic]

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

They can, and they have. 75 or so "file swapping" sites were taken down by the US government with no court order.

Link?

U.S. Shutters 82 Sites in Crackdown on Downloads, Counterfeit Goods | Threat Level | Wired.com

From your own link which states the specific court:

 

[Revere]

...
I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. Idiot Right wingers can deny CON$ervative orginizations and presidents, etc., are CON$ every time they are caught in their hypocrisy, but the fact remains that Heritage Foundation is the most CON$ervative of all CON$ervative think tanks, and is parroted by all other CON$ because CON$ are incapable of "thinking" for themselves and therefore are completely dependent on think tanks.
But keep making a fool of yourself trying to claim the Heritage Foundation is not CON$ervative, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Pointing to your own mindless parroting of talking points as proof is proof only that you're a mindless parrot.

Denying the CON$ervatism of the Heritage Foundation is proof of just how shameless a liar you are.
Thank you.

 

[Revere]

Does the Heritage Foundation shut down web sites?

 

[RDD_1210]

...
I gotta agree with you here. It's not up to the government to decide who, what, we see and hear. Otherwise is an affront to the First Amendment...period.

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

 

[Revere]

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

 

[Vanquish]

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

HUH?

WTF.

Like I said the internet is composed of a gazillion computers interconnected to each other. The ONLY way that big brother can control them is if the GOVERNMENT, such as in China, control the various ISP's.

.

wow. you went with the Chewbacca defense. great sidestep.

is English hard for you? Guess so.

And no...the companies that own the ISPs can control the content....feeding them to partners or their own sites or charging outrageous costs to go to competitors' sites.

You actually answered the question yourself, dipwad.

 

[Vanquish]

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

that's like saying...oh wait. no one has dumped toxic waste in the lake so we dont need a law YET.

 

[Jarhead]

Indeed. It should be corporations that decide who, what, we see and hear.

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

It is not the bill's primary target that is the concern. But as has always been the case, it is some of the other crap that is tossed in there.
How many pages is the bill. DO you have any idea?

 

[Contumacious]

Nope, I haven't.

But if someone claim that the internet is a "public utility" then they would be wrong.

The internet is tens of thousands of public and privately owned worldwide networks. A network is simply two or more computers connected to each other. In many parts of the world, families and independent businesses own and operate small local computer networks.

.

No, they wouldn't be wrong. You're missing the difference between literal and de facto definitions. The internet is a de facto utility just like cable and tv are utilities. It is a method for trafficking information...which means there's a public interest at stake.

Look, just want the same protections on speech and access that tv and radio has currently. I dont want a big brother take over of the net. nor do I want gigantic corporations to get to decide without agreed upon rules how the internet is shuffled.

I like my net how it is now...if your corporation wants to fuck that up...get ready for a fight.

Do you have the capability to access the internet on your own...without the help of one of the "corporations"?

There are numerous ISP's .

There are not as many GSP's because the federal government decided a long time ago that the telecommunication industry should be monopolized. So complain to your congresscritter about the situation.

.

 

[RDD_1210]

What can Verizon make you see and hear?

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

LOL, really? Are you being serious now? I can't tell.

 

[Revere]

They can't yet, and thats the point. This bill is attempting to prevent them from being able to restrict our access in the future. I'm beginning to think you don't actually understand what this bill is.

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

that's like saying...oh wait. no one has dumped toxic waste in the lake so we dont need a law YET.

Why should Verizon be told by government what content to carry on its network?

 

[RDD_1210]

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

that's like saying...oh wait. no one has dumped toxic waste in the lake so we dont need a law YET.

Why should Verizon be told by government what content to carry on its network?

They aren't. They're just being told they can't restrict anyone from being able to find all content that is out there. How are you possibly against this?

 

[Jarhead]

So you want government to stick its nose into somethat that is not even happening?

If Verizon won't give you content from another ISP, can you go to another?

that's like saying...oh wait. no one has dumped toxic waste in the lake so we dont need a law YET.

Why should Verizon be told by government what content to carry on its network?

Actually, it is not tellingt them what to carry...it is simply telling them to carry all.