What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
455 Comments
- justinlarsen, on 03/05/2008, -10/+252I am a person, and i support this video.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -17/+222Good video.
Net neutrality is not about the government regulating the Internet; it never was. It's about taking the power back from the greedy hands of telecommunications companies. This is something that cannot be done without the government. Telecoms deserve to have their power placed back into the ownership of the people, and it's not something we can do by ourselves. What, boycott? If we boycott AT&T, Comcast, etc., where the hell are our alternatives for Internet service? There are none, because these companies have a monopoly on the market. They edge out all competition.
This is one of my favorite images to post, because it gets the point across clearly—
When you vote against net neutrality, you vote for this: http://i29.tinypic.com/330tgyc.jpg - synthaxx, on 03/05/2008, -14/+118Agreed. Spread the word!
- inactive, on 03/05/2008, -6/+98I can not imagine what would happen if the world lost the internet. That would be bad.
- jaxter2010, on 06/17/2009, -4/+68Wow. Before I saw this video, I thought Net Neutrality was people just bitching about data packet priority. Now I realize this is much more serious.
- inactive, on 03/05/2008, -4/+55Sorry to say it, but that is completely irrelevant.... 99% of them are from personal posts, and thus have nothing to do with the actual candidate.
Check this out:
***** site:barackobama.com (158 results)
***** site:hillaryclinton.com (0 results)
***** site:johnmccain.com (0 results)
Don't get me wrong, '*****' is an important issue for me, but I don't see how this method is useful in reality. - hydratedsquash, on 03/05/2008, -4/+54That scared me more than anything else in a while. A long while. ***** A$ & $. ***** Verizon. ***** Time Warner. Dont tie the Tubes.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -1/+45Online gaming requires a constant transmittance of data packets back and forth to the game server; therefore, telecoms would like to charge you more for your increased usage.
Naturally, that's *****, since all you're doing is using more of an amount of bandwidth you're already paying for.
What's happened is that the telecoms realized that, whoops, they far oversold their actual capacity to consumers. Now they're trying to screw us over to make up for it—they act like they're losing money because of their mistake, but in reality, they still turn billion dollar profits. - blackolive, on 03/05/2008, -2/+41"What is the difference between 'Net Neutrality' and a law forcing *you* carry a bible around with you and read passages from it to people passing by?"
Net neutrality means your computer can connect to any other computer. It's the absolute opposite of censorship. - spinaltap87, on 03/05/2008, -2/+41If this happens i see google laying down its own fiber optic pipes, advertising it on the main search page and getting millions of subscribers. Google FTW!
- gwolf, on 03/05/2008, -1/+38Just look at how the Chinese government behaves and you will have your answer. The neocons in this country don't want you getting harmful ideas from people like the French. Freedom Fries forever.
- WhiteRaven, on 03/05/2008, -38/+73Net Neutrality will do for the internet what the FCC did for radio and hence, TV. Regulate and censor it. It is *inevitable*. As soon as you give government the authority to regulate the methods and practices used by providers to exchange traffic for the purpose of ensuring "open access" or "a level playing filed", you grant the government the authority to control *content*. Just ignore all the claims to the contrary... there has never been a from of regulation established that was not later used to *shape the end result*.
"Hate speech" and obscenity will be deemed to not beneficial society. It will first be relegated to second-class status... the ISPs will no longer be required to carry this "objectionable content" the way net neutrality would require them to carry everything else. This will later be followed by a total ban.
I repeat... the power to regulate is ALWAYS followed by actions designed to control and shape.
It is an ISPs absolute right to shape contracts and offer services in any form they like.WE DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT. We don't have to be happy with the outcome. The outcome can be ugly or even non-functional. None of this gives us (through government) the right to dictate behavior to the ISPs.
A level playing field is not freedom. A level playing field is not *fair*. A level playing field is what you have after a steam-roller has removed all those annoying obstacles like liberty and individuality. Life is not composed of a level playing field.
ISPs are free to discriminate and shape outcomes because they are free, private entities that have the right to do so. Allowing government to do this is an abomination. Comcast can't hold a gun to your head... government can.
The sad thing is, so many people *like* it when the government forces others to bend to their own sensibilities. Those who favor legislating Net Neutrality (or to achieve it by threatening to do so) are hypocrites of the first order. They are anxious to sacrifice the rights of others to bolster their own selfish desires and dare to use words like fairness in the process. Majority rule is tyranny. - blackolive, on 03/05/2008, -7/+38Did you even watch the video? Net neutrality is the idea that any computer can connect to any other computer that's available. It's the absolute opposite of censorship. Besides you're assuming the internet should be the corporation's property *when they didn't build it* - individuals did.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -3/+33@WhiteRaven
ISPs don't host the Internet, dummy. Server companies do. It is not, nor has it EVER been their medium. - mechnoch, on 03/05/2008, -24/+54Try this, kids at home! Type the following search into Google:
"network neutrality" OR "net neutrality" site:hillaryclinton.com
7 results
"network neutrality" OR "net neutrality" site:barackobama.com
about 570 results. Interesting? - inactive, on 03/05/2008, -3/+32It means Obama's site is not censored.
FREE SPEECH FTW!! - inactive, on 03/05/2008, -3/+30I'm angry now.
- ZeroIce, on 03/05/2008, -5/+32Yeah I guess you're right. He has delivered like 4000 babies and some of those were boys, right?
- adrianmonk, on 03/05/2008, -1/+24I agree that the "number of results" method isn't useful. So, let's just cut to the chase and cite the authoritative source: Obama himself.
Go watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
Start at 7:55 and listen for about 45 seconds.
In case you don't have time to watch it, here are some of Obama's exact words:
"To seize this moment, we have to ensure free and full exchange of information. And that starts with an open Internet. I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose. The internet is perhaps the most open network in history, and we have to keep it that way."
Also, on a side note, I'd like to point out something: in all of the above searches, Obama's site had more results, no matter what the search term. This probably means what? It means he's allowing people to post things and allowing Google to index their posts and return them as search results. Which means his web site has a more open communications policy than the other two candidates' web sites. In other words, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and Obama's web site tastes more open. - blackolive, on 03/05/2008, -4/+27#1 Net neutrality means your computer can connect to any other computer. It's the absolute opposite of censorship.
#2 You're assuming the internet should be the corporation's property *when they didn't build it* - individuals did.
#3 You're assuming corporations should have human rights. Haven't you realized they're government creations? A bunch of lawyers used the anti-slavery ammendment to give corporations the rights of people. - thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -3/+24And just because you have access to all websites, you have to go to all of them?
Have you been to every site on the Internet, WhiteRaven? Have you seen infinity?
Your argument has a fundamental logical fallacy: It's wrong. - thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -3/+23"And that means that ISPs are FORCED to carry things that perhaps they do not want to. Guess what... that IS censorship."
Your arguments get more and more desperate as we go along. Forcing an ISP to show the entire Internet prevents censorship to the PUBLIC, who is the ONLY entity that is relevant as a victim of censorship here. When an ISP decides, "Hey, let's block this," THAT is what censorship is. You've really been brainwashed. - kinghajj, on 03/05/2008, -2/+22ISPs would only have the right to not be neutral if they allowed competition. If anyone with a good amount of capital could come into town and start their own ISP, then a truly free market would develop and net neutrality would be a moot point.
However, net neutrality is important because the market is not free as it should be. Because many ISPs are "common carriers," they do not have the right to regulate content nor "shape" the Internet.
I agree that government control of the content of the Internet would be terrible. However, net neutrality doesn't give the government the right to control the Internet, but just denies the right of ISPs to do so. - pintomp3, on 03/05/2008, -1/+20you are one serious corporate apologist, go suck an enron.
- syroncoda, on 03/05/2008, -18/+36***** yeah free speech is anywhere i choose to make it. whether its on a social news network or in publication.
CENSORSHIP IS FOR THE WEAK AND FEEBLE MINDED SHEEPLE WHO NEED OTHER PEOPLE TO GIVE THEIR LIVES DIRECTION.
plain and ***** simple. - pintomp3, on 03/05/2008, -0/+15their tax dollars were used to do it, and invent the technology it was founded on.
- gianpo, on 03/05/2008, -2/+17We have the right to force you to carry the message we want because we paid for your infrastructure you are an utility.
- pintomp3, on 03/05/2008, -6/+21the internet is like public roads while your isp is the car that provide access to it. the ISPs should not be able to dictate the traffic on these roads. they can sell you a faster car if you desire more speed, but they shouldn't be able to dictate where you go. the internet works because it is data agnostic, the ISPs want to change this in order to increase profits, stifle competition, and even restrict expression. net neutrality is not about the government regulating the internet, it's about preventing ISPs from doing it.
- mechnoch, on 03/05/2008, -4/+18"network neutrality" OR "net neutrality" site:johnmccain.com
2 results. (Both of which indicate McCain is against net neutrality.)
(Tried to edit comment to add this to the original, but Digg denied me...) - DurtyJ, on 03/05/2008, -2/+16Knowing the extremes of personality's on the internet, I don't think anyone would be surprised to see fire bombings of the corporations who would control the internet, if such legislation ever passed.
- FreddieD, on 03/05/2008, -0/+13For the record, Barack and Hillary support Net Neutrality while McCain is opposed. Ironically enough Huckabee, the guy who just conceded tonight, was one of the few republicans that supported Net Neutrality.
Find out where your senators stand on this issue: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap?state= - blackolive, on 03/05/2008, -0/+13Warning: "RickRoll'D" dance video spam.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -6/+19"As soon as you give government the authority to regulate the methods and practices used by providers to exchange traffic for the purpose of ensuring "open access" or "a level playing filed", you grant the government the authority to control *content*."
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Only legislation that specifically hands control of content to the government can hand control of content to the government. Anything less than that falls victim to your slippery slope fallacy.
And it is NOT an ISP's right to control content. The medium of the Internet belongs to the WORLD POPULACE, not the ISP. Just because they own the tubes doesn't mean they own what's in them. It's an abstract medium.
"Comcast can't hold a gun to your head..."
Is that so? Are you sure about that?
Here are my choices for Internet access now:
—Comcast High-Speed SuperPowerBooster 10.0 ver. 2.0 crap
—Oh, wait, that's it. - MarkKezner, on 03/05/2008, -1/+14fail
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -3/+15I'll see your stunning revelation—corporations are not people, unlike what you think (you really come off as a shill, by the way; next time make your paycheck source less obvious)—and raise you another stunning revelation:
Anti-trust laws exist for a reason.
Actually, the hell with it, I'll toss in another:
What the Christ is stopping Congress from writing a bill that just says, "Hey, we own the Internet"? Why would they ever need net neutrality as a stepping stone? Quite the convoluted little argument you've pulled from your ass. - thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -25/+37That's because Ron Paul is convinced that corporations can do nothing but ***** pure gold bullion into the faces of the population. His view would be perfectly correct were capitalism based on altruism.
Newsflash, Ronny: Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was greed. It always has been. - inactive, on 03/05/2008, -3/+14Well, individuals created pretty much everything that corporations now own. And individuals created your computer, but you purchased it, and thusly, you own it, it's your property. HOWEVER, nobody owns the internet. NO ONE COMPANY OWNS THE INTERNET. They just control the bandwidth. And he who controls the bandwidth, controls...the internet. And keep in mind here, that in the video, it pretty much states that the reason we don't have fiber connections across America is DUE to ***** regulations that the corporations profited off of. They took the subsidy money, and flipped the free market the bird.
I don't trust the corporations, but I also don't trust the government to somehow protect the internet via regulation. - Bartboy919, on 03/05/2008, -1/+12How would I get mah LOLcats without internets.
- inactive, on 03/05/2008, -3/+13Yes, I know, and I like him, and would vote for him, but he was wrong about this. He couldn't step outside the Austrian school for this issue, and he should have. Being true to an ideology even when it's wrong is inflexible and silly, particularly when it is this destructive and will kill the baby with the bath water. A democratic internet is the only reason 70% of ron paul supporters even know who he is. He's a great guy, his ideas are important, and he is/was better than most other candidates by far. He should have let freedom override free market on this one. Everyone drops the ball sometimes, and if they're old, they might not quite understand this ball. I'm glad he'll be in congress for a couple more years.
- DavidGX, on 03/05/2008, -5/+15What can I say except, you don't ***** get it.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -7/+17HA!
"Every day, editors of newspapers and magazines and television programs choose what they will and will not 'carry'."
They had that right upon CREATION. The entire point of a newspaper is to print articles that they think are worthy.
The Internet, on the other hand, is the network created from the sum of the Earth's computers, and these pages exist solely on those computers. The purpose of an ISP has ALWAYS been to allow people to tap into the backbone of that network indirectly. ALWAYS. It has NEVER had ANYTHING to do with content.
So what you want to do is actually GIVE the power to regulate content to ISPs—a power they did not have already, a power that currently belongs to the people of the world.
And you, sir, thusly want ISPs to censor the Internet.
Q.E.D. - Woolis, on 03/05/2008, -2/+12I'm forwarding this to my dad. He is a telecom exec and a big fan of the big tube Internet. I try to get him to see my perspective, but he is quite persuasive. I can't blame him though, 'everybody wants to rule the world'
- inkswamp, on 03/05/2008, -5/+15Way too serious. John Hodgman's explanation on The Daily Show wins the prize for best video on net neutrality. (This is the best version I could find, with annoying captions added--try to ignore them.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BB2Xnu9xQVU - Murrabbit, on 03/05/2008, -1/+11If you're paying them to give you access to the internet then they'd better damn well give you access to the whole friggin' internet. Refusing to allow access to a service or specific content is just corporate censorship and would create a less-informed society with even MORE media consolidation than we have right now.
So as for the "right" of an ISP to block content, ***** it, the right of the people to remain informed and to have THEIR free speech is far more important, and we'll keep suing the Comcasts of the world who seek to block our access to resources that we're already paying them to let us get at. - MikeinLoFi, on 03/05/2008, -1/+10He's against 95% of all legislature.
- rick283, on 03/05/2008, -4/+13Ummm..."Individuals invented the Internet"....No, the US government invented Internet. It spread to universities, individuals and businesses (the big bad corps). It is flawed to say that Internet is public property. The only equipment that you could possibly say is 'public property' is the equipment owned by the government. I believe in "Net Neutrality". I want total open use of the broadband connection that I pay for. The marketplace should force the issue, not the government. If Comcast is going to block/limit FileSharing and that's important to me, then I will stop paying them and go with Verizon. If Verizon does the same thing and there are no other options, that just opens the marketplace for a savvy entrepreneur to step in and offer the 'open' broadband that consumers are clamoring for.
- thebellmaster1x, on 03/05/2008, -1/+10What are you talking about? There is no speech by the ISP. They are a gateway to the Internet, nothing more. They are not being blocked by anything, because they offer nothing TO block. But when THEY block things, THAT'S what censorship is.
God, you are waaay out there. To sum up my argument: ***** you, I'm not paying more for certain parts of the Internet because those parts are physically identical to the rest of it. - bradcrc, on 03/05/2008, -2/+11disapear? come on, clean up the typos.
dugg for an otherwise great video that finally says what everybody should have been saying from the beginning. - bludragn0, on 03/05/2008, -1/+10How did you ever get past Middle School?..Did you?
- jerryterhorst, on 03/05/2008, -0/+9mmm, pudding..
-
Show 51 - 100 of 456 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 