What is Digg?138 Comments
- Crosshare, on 11/02/2007, -2/+70Why is this man not the clear front runner to become our president? I wish I knew people in Iowa (since they get to determine the fate of our country for some god awful reason) to lobby. I have never wanted a candidate to win a primary more than Obama. He just gets it, and gives me a little hope for the future of our nation.
- joaob, on 11/05/2007, -26/+70Great News. Hopefully the Ron Paul crowd has enough respect to let this rise and not bury it.
- Popdmb, on 11/01/2007, -10/+44"And look at all those Web 2.0 companies he namedrops: Facebook! MySpace!"
Whether truth or sarcasm...this is the worst description ever.
Anyway, as an admitted Obama supporter, this is great news -- and simply demonstrates why he's a step above Hilary. Clinton, to her credit, co-sponsored net neutrality legislation and recognized its importance, but hasnt had the foresight to come out and make a statement like this.
Obama will simply take it one step further -- appoint FCC Commissioners supporting net neutrality AND sponsor legislation to make it law.
He's better and actually has a shot against a republican in the general election. The sooner we realize that, the sooner another neocon will not be in office. - Chompy, on 11/05/2007, -14/+45Particularly poignant since Ron Paul *opposes* network neutrality.
As a politician, you either support NN, don't understand the issue, or you're in Beg Telecom's pocket. I know choice I prefer. - colincornaby, on 11/01/2007, -5/+30Obamas got my vote.
- pintomp3, on 11/14/2007, -4/+28it's a key issue for anyone who uses the internet.
- twollamalove, on 11/01/2007, -2/+26I would be against government intervention in this case if it weren't for the fact that the government has done so much to allow the telecoms to attain their position that it cannot just stop regulating now. It would have to be a gradual deregulation which slowly allows true competition, something we don't have now. It's a nice idea, but we can't just all of a sudden stop and leave the public exposed. I am all for lean government, but we can't just stop, we must transition. Something a lot of libertarians don't ever address.
- Napoleone, on 11/05/2007, -18/+36I completely understand why people support Net Neutrality. The premise of unencumbered access to the Internet makes perfect sense. But I don't believe this issue has been fully considered by those most passionate about it.
The options to prevent providers from acting as gatekeepers have not been fully explored. And the consequences of empowering the government to regulate the Internet -- even if it seems benign and at the moment beneficial -- has not at all been considered by most.
The way to stop providers from destroying the Internet as we know it, without bringing in the regulators, is to bring forth a class action lawsuit against them. We as consumers already not only pay for access to the Internet, we pay for the amount of bandwidth we use, as well. Thus, the argument put forth by IP's, that website owners should pay for the bandwidth consumers have already paid for, is a weak one, and would not hold water in any federal court.
The danger of bringing in the government is that if you give it the authority to regulate an inch of the Internet today, it will inevitably regulate a mile tomorrow. That means a kid safe, adult-proof, TV-like Internet. And no sane person wants that. In the long run, it's better to fight this out in the courts than it is to settle it in the legislature. - PistolSO, on 11/14/2007, -8/+23Bravo to Obama for giving his attention to this very important issue.
- reed311, on 11/01/2007, -5/+19It doesn't matter WHY he's against it. The point is, is that he's against a worthy cause. And, no, this isn't a Constitutional issue.
- d2002, on 11/14/2007, -8/+20This is a key issues for all Digg users.
- Brian48216, on 11/01/2007, -4/+13it's funny since a lot of the stuff on the internet was started by government standards....
- RobotBuddha, on 11/01/2007, -1/+10"given how technologically ignorant politicians can oh-so-famously be"
The funny thing is, I hear that complaint from people in almost every scientific and technological field when it comes to politicians. Whch wouldn't be so bad, except that they also seem to lean very heavily to having their advisor on those issues be someone who once worked in said field, but who hasn't been considered competent in that area for at least twenty years. - Phearce, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11Grammar aside, I think you're arguing in favor of maintaining the status quo. It's a nice idea, but unfortunately industry wants to change the rules. As Napoleone points out above, consumers either have to band together and fight via lawsuits, or ask the government to step in and help us. Either way, you're way-off thinking that the "old" internet is going to survive for very much longer.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -5/+12hahahahahahahaahahaha ron paul has voted agasinst bush in almost every aspect.
But OK...believe what you will :) - fuzzmeister, on 11/01/2007, -2/+9The ISP market is not a "free market" by any means, so the concept that "the free market will fix it" is just naive. The big ISPs will continue to screw their customers until there is some real competition, and until then, they must be regulated.
- Waterrat, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7Ok,that one issue has tipped the balence for me...I'm moving in his direction from not voting at all.
- kazamx, on 11/01/2007, -7/+13Lets look at how well the Internet has grown with Governemt intervention. Oh my is ***** HUGE. I see no reason to believe that changing the rules now will make things better.
- crimsonnblue, on 11/01/2007, -4/+10WOW. I think some people need to go and read up on Net Neutrality. It seems some of you dont understand the concept. Neutrality is good. I want to be able to go to any website I please. I want to be able to use any ports I want.... If you are not pro NN then you are basically saying that you dont care that ISP's are shaping traffic and limiting your connecetion to the internet.
- fuzzmeister, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6A well designed piece of net neutrality legislation wouldn't prevent ISP's from blocking spam, etc.
- Napoleone, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7The TOS says we reserve the right to charge somebody else for what you already payed? I must have missed that part.
- Avocadoes, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6It's people like you that give us a bad name. It doesn't matter what religious preference he has; as long as it doesn't affect his presidential choices. Didn't you hear anything about how big a priority the separation of church and state is for him? If I was old enough to vote, I would vote for Obama.
- Wosat, on 11/01/2007, -2/+8You're assuming a level of consumer choice that does not exist.
- john2kx, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7clean your ears out.
- Sblader5, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5who ever is Instant Messaging needs to stfu
- Sino, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Was i the only one annoyed by the constant IM sounds in the background?
- Napoleone, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6I don't know that the Internet is "dying". I know it's being attacked, though.
Providers want to act as gatekeepers, and government wants to censor it. If you pit those two against each other the victor will get their way. That is why consumers need to approach this issue in a different manner; through the courts.
Class actions lawsuits, I'll remind everyone, can also be brought forth by State Attorneys General. Tap into the political aspirations of a few of these people and you'll have the might of the state versus the power of corporations.
It's a far better idea than seeking help from the FCC. Or have we already forgotten the unwarranted outrage caused by a Janet Jackson nipple? - heartcoldfusion, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Wow, you're a moron. I guess anyone who disagrees with you is a plant then. Napoleone is right. If you don't like something a private company is doing, take it up with them, NOT the government
- KidDynamo0, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6give me a break...let that type of ***** go...concentrate on the issues.
- maiku00, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4Its so relieving to see a presidential candidate that so understands the principles behind net neutrality
- DreKor, on 11/01/2007, -9/+13I, for one, am very concerned about the constituation.
- Roche, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5mmm. you might want to run that by the fact checkers.
- garhent, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Its called PLANTS. Companies pay marketing companies to have people come to sites like this and plant misinformation in favor of the company. I'm willing to bet a good portion of the anti-net neutrality crowd are plants paid to post their speutum. Easiest way to handle them is to post the truth to counter whatever they are paid to post.
- Chompy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4I trust the government more than I trust the tender mercies of Big Telecom.
- Tabou, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4According to this http://2decide.com/table.htm all democratic presidential candidates are for "net neutrality" and all republicans are either against it or uncommited. I can't believe the republicans are downplaying such a hot issue that could effect generations to come. Have we not learned from cable television (channel packages)? The market won't "sort itself" if it's run by monopolies to begin with.
- fuzzmeister, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Do you want the ISPs to screw you over? You have to regulate them in some way. A class action lawsuit might be a good alternative to direct government regulation, though.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5please explain why the internet is dying.
- chaosium, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Published government/industry interoperability standards != control.
- ch33sehead, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4So what if ALL of the ISPs start doing it because they all (secretly) agree that it'd be much, MUCH more profitable for all of them if they start doing it? Anti-trust laws can't solve something like this. What then? You're going to start your own ISP? Please.
- Araxen, on 11/01/2007, -8/+11Barack Obama > *
- Napoleone, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Yeah, I'm the plant that's also calling for no legal immunity for AT&T and Verizon for having spied on Americans. You got me...
- BrandonMills, on 11/02/2007, -2/+5Barack Obama is our last shot against a Clinton presidency right now. I'm sure the perfectionists have their heads stuck too far up their ***es to acknowledge polls and cash numbers, but it's the truth and if we had a lick of common sense to us, we'd band together to try to push him over the top.
But instead, why not pick a bunch of hopeless cause candidates, tell everyone we're better than them even though they have no chance of winning, and then act as if it isn't their fault when the candidate none of us wanted gets elected. - crimsonnblue, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Wow you suck. This isn't about 'techno-slang". Its about one of the candidates mentioning something that many people who are technologically coherent can be concerned about. It just shows that he has at least thought about it.
- klasikahl, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3Thankfully there is no regulation on capitalization.
- kronix2, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Of all the industrialised Western nations, only in America could not saluting a flag be considered a big deal.
- garhent, on 11/01/2007, -3/+5Unfortunately as Mr Napoleone (aka Mr Plant representing Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) action is needed immediately involving government intervention on Net Neutrality. As it stands now without Government intervention the US has went from #4 worldwide for Broadband in 2001 to #15 to #17 depending on whose study you are looking at. Prices and speed are significantly better in a number of countries compared to the US Monopolistic Corporate policies.
Comcast is already blocking Bit Torrent downloads by basically spoofing ID's something that is illegal. In a number of other countries
In short Mr Weed/Plant/Corporate Shill enjoy your paycheck you earned it. - OralCavity, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2don't worry Bereavement is only 13 years old. he'll grow out of his intolerance.
- ZackScott, on 11/01/2007, -19/+21Or you're against government intervention and regulation like the Ron Paul group.
- thebrawl, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Read this comment from YouTube...
"A request to have Ron Paul answer the same question is in motion. We can repost the video in an attempt to increase new Ron Paul fans."
...that's pretty cool, the Ronbots are beginning to form a collective. - jdotter, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3Whaa? You understand that Net Neutrality is an issue right now because some unscrupulous companies want to double dip in the pockets of anyone who uses the Internet as a form of business, such as Digg, and in turn potentially even yours and mine. See, Digg pays for Internet access but what if the service provider decides that because Digg is making money off of this access, which Digg has already paid for, then they should get a kick back, or instead charge a premium fee to ensure that Digg's content gets provided to consumers quicker than say Reddit, unless of course Reddit pays for the super-gold premium content delivery package. You want more ads on Digg, maybe paid advertisements as stories or worse yet, a subscription fee? Doesn't sound like it would work so well. Just one example of how things could be if the neutral net was abandoned for a tiered system. Considering the lobbying that is going on already in favor of tiered Internet service I, along with others, think this is a very important issue in the next election cycle, not just for the PoUS but at all levels of Gov't.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 135 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is