Slashdot Mirror
The Right's War On Net Neutrality
jamie writes "To understand the debate being waged in the United States over Net Neutrality, it's important to understand just how drastically one side has been misled. The leaders of the American Right are spreading the lie that Net Neutrality is a government takeover of the internet, with the intention of silencing conservative voices. (Limbaugh: "All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google.") This may be hard to believe to those of us who actually know what it's about — reinstating pre-2005 law that ensured internet providers could discriminate on the basis of volume but not content. Since the opposing side is so badly misinformed, those of us who want the internet to remain open to innovation and freedom of expression have to help educate them before the debate can really be held."
Whenever someone disagrees with you, it must be because they are badly misinformed.
This has nothing to do with right or left, but the green of the money being bribed^H^H^H^H^H^H given for campaigning. This is not something the hill knows a damn thing about, and if we're lucky 10% of them understand the issue at a high level.
Yeah, like there are only two two kinds of people in this country ... and there are just as many on the "American Left" who will happily and blindly lap up what their "leaders" tell them to.
This appears to be a combined case of blind partisanship ("they support it, so we must oppose it because they're the other side"), stupidity, and "a free market isn't defined by the presence of competition or the ability for all parties to make free, informed choices, but rather whether large corporations have any restrictions on them or not".
I have no love for a lot of the "American Left" as most would think of it, nor for the "Right". But this is just fucking stupid.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
There were many people in the previous Slashdot thread about Network Neutrality, that complained that they supported the noble goal of "Network Neutrality", but that what the FCC was passing was not "the network neutrality they supported".
So the disconnect is that many people (NOT just Republicans) are warning you about the Network Neutrality you are about to get, not about the fantasy Network Neutrality the Daily Kos wishes to be. The Daily Kos claims it is "lies" because what is being said does not match the definition that the Kos holds for network neutrality - when in reality NONE of us have seen the regulation recently passed - I still cannot find the exact wording, isn't that rather a bad sign that we are not allowed to see what they pass before they pass it?
The Network Neutrality you are about to get was crafted mostly from feedback my media companies and telcos, and large companies like Amazon and Google. Worried about too much corporate control over the internet now? It doesn't get any better when you put the power of regulations into the hands of a small number of companies that have the resources to lobby the FCC on issues.
And all this to stop what EXISTING problem? There's a lot of danger in creating open-ended rules to solve problems that are only imagined, and do not exist. Have we learned nothing from handing over a lot of power to government organizations like the TSA that control to some degree how we travel now? Why would you want similar control over ISP network management on behalf of the FCC?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Since the opposing side is so badly misinformed, those of us who want the internet to remain open to innovation and freedom of expression have to help educate them before the debate can really be held"
You blame the 'right' for being ignorant on your view of net neutrality without understanding theirs. You could have made your point without being blatantly offensive also.
As a conservative, freedom of expression means freedom from government intervention into my everyday life. I do not need government regulation on what TV I choose to watch, what food I wish to eat, and how I wish to use the Internet.
The answer to every problem is *not* more laws and regulation. This should be an absolute last resort, and personally I do not believe we are there yet.
One of the problems is that techies think that the debate over net neutrality has anything to do with what they THINK net neutrality is. One could say that the techies are being useful idiots for promoting a government regulation of the internet, which they naively think they're protecting.
The introduction to this topic is as out of touch with reality as all of the coverage of this topic.
- Govt has too much regulation which allowed the ISPs to become "monopolies".
- Instead of removing the regulation to allow competition so the consumer can choose with their wallet.
- Lets have more govt regulation to prevent the ISPs from acting like monopolies.
I want net neutrality, but I want it because I have a choice in ISPs not because big brother allows me to have it.
i found two pieces of the puzzle:
one, foxnews make you more misinformed.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/16/1615218/Survey-Shows-That-Fox-News-Makes-You-Less-Informed?from=rss
two, given truth, the misinformed believe the lies more.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More
Mod up please...
It should be noted that the Democrats actually have a completely differing idea of "Net Neutrality" than we do and it's much like the "Healthcare Reform" or "Immigration Reform" we're seeing carried out of late.
In truth, we've not the foggiest what they do/don't have in mind on the subject in DC. They might be interested in doing what we have in OUR heads for the term/name "Net Neutrality"- or, based on the rhetoric used by the Democrats on the subject, it's just as likely what the Republicans are on about and against.
Just because it uses our words doesn't mean that it's what we had in mind that they're doing. To the geek crowd, words still tend to have meaning. To the political bunch, for many, words have no meaning whatsoever.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I definitely lean net neutrality and see the benefits of it. BUT, part of the argument for government protecting net neutrality is assuming the worst of a situation without government intervention and expecting only the best from it's involvement. Given the FCC's past behavior with other mediums, I'm not so sure that government involvement is going to give us that "free and open" internet we expect it will be once there is government oversight. Most government programs never accomplish what they promise to do and often come with significant negative consequences.
That's not true. In what way does the government directly control the internet by requiring that providers offer their services in an equal way to all who want them. They aren't requiring them to provide service to those that won't pay nor are they telling the providers what prices they can charge. And so long as the prices and availability are the same regardless of organization they can do more or less as they have been.
Net neutrality more or less codifies the way things were done until relatively recently.
Maybe you should point out that "slippery slope" arguments don't hold a lot of sway, because they require people who are acting rationally today to act irrationally in the future, simply because it's an expansion of an idea that was previously rational to them. It doesn't make sense, and if you hear someone using it know that they're basically agreeing with the current policy (or at least they can't form a sane counter to it).
This came up a lot in Gay Marriage for instance, where people couldn't really say no to two people in love getting married, so they started talking about people marrying sheep or dogs instead.
I read the internet for the articles.
Citation necessary. Hitler has far more in common with modern American conservatives than liberals. Ever notice how quick the right is blame Islam and people of color for pretty much every problem and to fight tooth and nail against even meager efforts to fix those unwarranted abuses of power?
"The right" is against NN for the same reason "the right" rejects global warming: the rich and powerful don't want it.
We've got an enormous problem with political ignorance and naivety in this country. The Republicans want to run the country in whatever way helps the rich get richer quicker. (If you don't accept that premise, go back and look at whose interests they consistently looked after when they held the White House and both houses of Congress, vs. whose interests they occasionally threw a bone to. By the time of the 2006 elections the leaders of various socially conservative movements were complaining that they were bringing in a lot of votes and not getting much of anything in return.)
But there's a problem if you want to run a republic for the benefit of the rich: there aren't enough of them to win elections. So you have to find ways to get people to vote against their own best interests. But any decent politician knows that if they can make your knee jerk, they can make your finger twitch in the voting booth. So Republican politicians have offered the country things like the Southern Strategy, and the new Southwestern Strategy that they've been rolling out for the last ~5 years, and of course their association with the religious right. I.e., appeal to people's worst instincts rather than their best.
But now, due to the aforementioned political ignorance and naivety, people think that whatever the Republican politicians want is an inherently conservative position. So we get idiotic ideas such as that global warming and net neutrality are leftist ideologies. People in this country need to wake up and smell the bullshit before they've been fucked beyond the point of no return.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
no, even more so than the democrats. they do not have any hesitation in opposing giving healthcare to 9/11 first responders, even after drumming up the nationalism/patriotism card for a decade.
democrats have at least SOME consideration in regard to principle. they at least try to make whatever filth they are doing seem to fit their ideology, even in appearance. republicans dont even have that concern.
whatever their private backers, corporations want at THAT given moment in time, they drum it. if the corporations want the exact opposite 2 months later, they see no issues reverting back. they even dont care whether someone may notice and make a fool of them in media. and at the end they end up the greatest material for news comedy shows.
Read radical news here
"Liberals usually work incrementally. It starts with simple net neutrality rules. Then later on, they add some more rules. And more. And more. A Killswitch and some hate-crimes legislation later and before you know the government is all up in your intarwebs."
The right does the same thing. That's why the top 1% took home 8% of GDP in the 80's, 15% in the 90's, and 24% now. Tax cuts without spending cuts (the Reagan legacy) over time, slowly peeling away regulations, not funding the regulators, and the current push to privatize everything, all direct wealth up, instead of directing wealth out.
I used to be a raging libertarian, but now in my 50's I see the system is rigged for the rich, and the GOP's stand on net neutraility is just another way to push money and control up.
The right tends to worship the wealthy and believes the poor are poor for a reason. Control of the internet is more of the same.
I'm a conservative. No one represents me in government, no one.
No one in government represents any of my neighbors either, not all of whom are "conservative".
You can even be a (real) conservative and realize that families are important and should be encouraged -- even ones headed up by married gays. Gheesh, how did those idiots let themselves be hijacked by the radicals? (which applies to either left or right as far as I can tell, just different radicals involved -- sometimes)
Why did we let them get to this point, where now there is no way to just vote the bastards out? Some choice we get at the polls -- people selected by the "two heads of the same monster" are our "choice".
This is indistinguishable from a police/fascist state no matter who is in power now.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Anything extra should be given back to the people who payed in.
There *isn't anything extra*, dumbass. What part of "deficit" don't you understand?
Don't want to raise taxes? Okay, start by cutting military and entitlements.
Wait, you're telling me the right-wingers don't want that? Oh, okay, then raise taxes.
Wait, they don't want that either?
Oh, I see. They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Gotcha.
Liberals usually work incrementally. It starts with simple net neutrality rules. Then later on, they add some more rules. And more. And more. A Killswitch and some hate-crimes legislation later and before you know the government is all up in your intarwebs.
They don't call it "Progressive" for nothing.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
it seems to me that the poster has given good reason to bolster his claim
Really? How so? Because I cannot find the actual text of the regulation they just passed. All else then is speculation, except for a few leaked tidbits that indicate the regulation is nothing like the idea of network neutrality most people had. So then, it seems more right to be concerned about what it actually is than arguing that a mythical variant of network neutrality that we will never see in practice, is awesome and you should vote for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Normally I would dismiss your post, which seems full of crazy conspiracy theories that you're pulling from memory "but can be found on Google". However some bright sparks have seen fit to moderate your post as +5 Informative. So please, give me some citations. The only things I've been able to find on Google are completely unverifiable claims from conspiracy-theorist websites.
But more fundamentally --- what is the implication of your post? That opposing Net Neutrality legislation is going to make it harder for governments to censor? Cause it seems to me that a small number of powerful telecoms dominating what people read is more or less a precondition for a modern totalitarian state.
This is another case of false equivalence. Whenever someone criticizes the right, someone always complains that they aren't criticizing the left "because they are exactly the same." But it isn't the case. There really is no left-wing Rush Limbaugh and if there is then this person isn't nearly as powerful and influential as Rush. If you have something to criticize about the left or liberals or progressives, then I welcome that, it will ultimately strengthen the movement. But don't insist that the right shouldn't be criticized because you imagine others have the same problem but you can't be troubled to explain how.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Just like everybody who wants less government, or who is worried about heaping trillions of new debt on the bonfire that is our economy is ... a racist who actively wants, as their goal in life, for poor people to be sick and die. That is, if you listen to Al Franken and MSNBC, right?
I'm not that short-sighted, of course. I'm perfectly aware that conservatives aren't actively working to kill off all the poor and underprivileged. Who would be left to work factory jobs in abject conditions for minimum wage (or worse)?
my opponents are horribly misinformed on this issue thanks to that bombastic blowhard
Sure, other than the part where people in the current administration and congress actually are talking about Fairness Doctrine-esque riders on this legislation. Or when people working at the FCC expressly mention giving though to the FD for broadcase and web content. It's vocal, and repeated condemnation of those notions that keep them OUT of the legislation, despite the liberal urge to have them enacted.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
And now
The right screamed nonstop about the inevitability of the first three, none of which actually happened. Now they are screaming that the fourth will happen (either instead, or as well, depending on your take on reality). I'm not holding my breath.
Basically, if someone is claiming the government is about to "takeover" something, and they don't specify a military invasion as a tool in doing so, they have likely been listening to conservative media again. If you actually try to start a serious conservation with them on the issue you will likely find out in less than 30 seconds that they have no factual information to support their claims.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The "lefts" crown jewels was single payer and it failed.
Mandatory national insurance was the sweetener to get the congress critters who were in the pockets of the health insurance lobbyists to vote for the bill. I don't think either side was enthusiastic about it but it was necessary to get the whole thing passed.
Isn't compromise fun?
No, just evil people who grab and increase their power over us because we are dumb enough to let them. We've even let them destroy the language -- liberal used to mean something a lot more like "libertarian"
No it didn't. The libertarian position is one that honestly did not exist in politics until about 50 years ago.
I know, in conservative mythos, the founding fathers were libertarians, but they were not. Liberal, in that day, was basically anti-classism and anti-crown, a position that really doesn't exist anymore in modern politics.
Once the crown was gone, it continued to be anti-special-rules-for-the-ruling class, a position it still holds, at least in theory. (As we don't actually have any liberal political party, it doesn't really hold any position anymore.) All liberal fights, though the entire history of this country and back to John Locke, are to stop one group of withholding power-sharing from another group, with the groups being the crown, nobles, slaveowners, the superrich, the corporate owners, the whites, the straights...and, apparently, the superrich again. Except now the superrich have intelligently bought both parties.
(Please note when I say 'liberals', I am, indeed, aware that liberals used to be on the right, and flopped to the left around when I said 'the whites')
Libertarianism is not classical liberalism, it is neo-classical liberalism. It reinvents the idea that the problem is 'the crown'. Which, frankly, would be a rather strange idea to various classical liberal thinkers, whose biggest problem with the government is the fact that it often failed to enforce laws equally, and not that those laws existed at all!
and "conservative" used to mean, you know, look before you leap, spend less than you make, stuff like that. Or even "not all change is for the better, so examine it first before deciding".
Here, you're right. Conservatives, to paraphrase something David Brin wrote on the topic, used to be the serious guys in suits at NASA who did the math. The guys running around in the background monitoring stuff that seemed entirely pointless (Until it was wrong, then they calmly and efficiently saved everyone's life.), and wasn't glamorous, and they went home to their family and read the paper each evening. Whereas liberals were the astronauts and the sci-fi writers and the dreamers, and got all the credit, but without the guys in suits, wouldn't know how to do what they were trying to do. There's the guys who try to do everything, and the guys who figure out what can and can't happen and managed to get some of it done, while otherwise raining on the parade.
But that ended about two decades ago, when it was decided that the best way to rule the country is not to point out the parts of the left's plans that can't work, and invent better ways...but to simply assert, very loudly, that anything the left wants is wrong. Morally wrong, politically wrong, won't work, every single possible objection.
Even stuff like cap and trade or the public mandate for health insurance, both of which were conservative alternatives to the left's previous plan. Or stuff like bills attempting to stop child 'marriage', which the Republicans shot down for absurd reasons two week ago. (Apparently, educating women that it is not acceptable for them to be sold to older men when they're 13 as his 'wife' is...um...pro-abortion.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Cite
Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, expressly called for a net-oriented "fairness doctrine" that would require web sites posting opinions to link to opposing opinions. He was, of course, derided by the right for this, and he's backed away, speaking now in more vague terms about it, to avoid being directly quotable. He knows it's offensive on the face of it. On the other hand...
Obama's "diversity czar" at the FCC has (along with even-handed, thoughtful gems like, "White people need to be forced to step down so someone else can have power" and his gushing praise for Hugo Chavez's handling - read: nationalization and government programming - of media in Venezuela) said that he finds the Fairness Doctrine, as it was used previously, to have gone not nearly far enough in having hard and fast rules about the content of communication.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to block unlawful content? That's just good common sense. If they know kidsxxx.cx is a vendor of child porn, then they should be allowed to block it.
I've only ever torrented legal stuff, so I don't know why you bring up torrents. If you had said "Bye-bye unlawful torrents," then you would have been correct. I don't see any problem with that. The way I see it, this basically guarantees that my ISP can't slow down my latest Linux download or Netflix movie just because some other asshole is using a torrent stream to download a movie they didn't want to pay for.
I generally consider myself pro-neutrality, but if your viewpoint is shared by most of the NN crowd, maybe I'm on the wrong side of the argument after all.
Right, more precisely, a government agency, the FCC is attempted to wiggle into it's structure, power that congress didn't instill upon them after a court pointed that out.
It's not the net Neutrality that is of concern, it's a government agency bypassing congress and giving itself more power then a competent court of law said it had. In other words, this is like the FBI or NSA all the sudden determining it has the power to arrest and detain people without due process because of information gathered from once illegal wiretaps that were somehow justified through NSA laws.
It's fucking frightening to see that parts of the government can magically give itself more power without congress doing so. And whether you like Rush or not, this one thing should at least grab your attention and we should all have something in common with it. Congress sets the rules and laws, not some entity of government who already was told by a court that they didn't have the powers to regulate it.