What is Digg?107 Comments
- JoeFelice, on 07/24/2008, -6/+79The most important name on that list is Mark Begich because, with luck, he will replace Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in Alaska.
Stevens is still the ranking member (second most powerful) on the commerce committee, which regulates the internet. - KansasNate, on 07/24/2008, -2/+53It will be so nice to see Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens run out of Alaska by Mark Begich!
- nelsonjs, on 07/24/2008, -12/+57With any luck there will be a wave of Democratic Senators elected this fall. That may be our only chance of maintaining the integrity of the Internet.
- MorganMghee, on 07/24/2008, -1/+42Let's not just settle for Democrat's. Let's demand hard working, intelligent candidates with integrity and demand they be supported.
- MorganMghee, on 07/24/2008, -5/+38No touchy my net!
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -9/+33The Democrats have done a horrible job as the majority party in Congress. They have an all-time low single digit approval rating. They have failed to pass a balanced budget, failed to stand by their promises and watching Congress on C-SPAN is like picking at a scab.
They spend countless hours passing meaningless resolutions. They spend countless hours renaming post offices and other government buildings.They spend countless hours in hearings that resolve nothing and leave no new ideas to solve problems when they are done. The last thing in the world I would do is vote for a Democrat unless they were the only person running against an incumbent.
There will be plenty of Libertarian candidates to vote for all across the land. There are other third parties offering up candidates.
If we want change we need to change Congress and voting out all of the incumbents is a good start. - arvvvs, on 07/25/2008, -3/+20Clinton tried to censer the internet though. With a republican congress.
At last the democrats are waking up. - ousthouse, on 07/25/2008, -7/+22Government regulation does not lead to more freedom. How many of you support the FCC?
- roddack, on 07/25/2008, -10/+22Yay a bunch of people who don't support the idea that people should be able to do what ever they want with their property
- nelsonjs, on 07/24/2008, -10/+22Democrats offered the only resistance there was to FISA. Obama's FISA vote was a political calculation to save face. When he is elected, he'll revisit it.
You'll never find a candidate you agree with 100%. That doesn't mean you shouldn't support those who are with you 90% of the time. - jeremyduffy, on 07/25/2008, -6/+16And Obama supported a fillibuster of Telco immunity and you see how THAT turned out.
- lacronicus, on 07/25/2008, -1/+10Someone has to do it. Perhaps you forget, but net neutrality is a government enforced regulation; if the government simply leaves everything alone, net neutrality is gone in the united states.
- MutatedNantuko, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9I'm voting for Mark Begich.
You're welcome. - notruth, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8"They" own the lines.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12This is excellent news. I think within the next five years, the internet will be a very different being under the eyes of the law.
- AbsurdParadox, on 07/25/2008, -2/+10While I fundamentally agree with what you're saying, Net Neutrality is a complex issue, as many telecoms were granted monopolies.
Personally I think the true answer is just complete deregulation. - digitalpencil, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7Because the premium is paid for. You think hosting high-quality video is cheap? It costs a fortune for these companies to make their content available! It isn't content providers' responsibility to pay off every network for the right to exist. We pay, to view their content at a specific level of service, they pay (staggering fees) to make that content available and all of this is subsidized by advertising.
ISPs want to become gatekeepers charging customers and forcing content providers to pay protection money or suffer blocks and throttles.. it's already happening. They want to squeeze every media packet for every penny they can garner as it enters and leaves their network and if it continues we will see a tiered pricing system arise that results in only the rich and connected being able to make their voice heard.
Individually created content weighs in around 80% online which, is phenomenal in comparison to traditional broadcast media.. If you look back though the same thing was true of radio and newspapers in their hayday. Prior to the American Civil War, everyone was their own crude radio broadcaster with home-made radio shows flooding the airwaves. That was until the spectrum was sold off to corporations and by the mid-1930s, NBC and CBS represented 97% of all airtime. The democratic voice of radio was practically quashed overnight.. Newspapers follow the same trend as a result of dramatic increases in the cost of printing presses..
This is a really big deal! People severley underestimate the democratizing potential of the Internet as a global body but it isn't just myspace and porn. Change can and does occur.. look at digg. Articles which would ordinarily see no coverage in mainstream media are highlighted by communities such as this and we've all seen countless examples of real-world change as a result of this online exposure.. Of course this won't cease to be overnight but if left unchecked, we will begin to see the democratic voice slowly phased out to make way for corporate propaganda and this might sound like hippy BS but you only need look at history to see it in action.. Please, don't let the Internet turn into another one-way broadcast medium! These pipes aren't theirs, they're ours, we paid for them, we get a say in how they are operated!
"Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it."
Tim Burners Lee - Inventor of the World Wide Web
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jev2Um-4_TQ
http://www.savetheinternet.com - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7Alaska traditionally votes this way. They have a lot of interests that they believe are represented by the Repubs. Each Alaskan gets oil money from the pipeline. Given the distance from D.C. and the low population density they tend to have a view that smaller government is better. They are pro-gun mostly...lots of bears and moose running around up there.
- penguinsix, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6Of course, as for existing Democratic Senators and Congressman....well that's another story that won't get Digg'd up very high...
- Riggo, on 07/25/2008, -4/+10Couldn't agree more....and, oh, by-the-way.....the Internet is not confined to the US. If the US enacts legislation the becomes too stringent, people will move their businesses offshore. Now, of course the infrastructure providers cannot do that but other content providers can.
I do not think regulation is a good thing. The government has enough "REAL" problems to solve without meddling in the Internet. If that happens, you'll likely see increased taxation and restrictions for any number of things we may take for granted today. We have standards bodies to ensure everyone works from the same playbook. I dont see how Government intervention helps us improve the Internet. - turbopro, on 07/25/2008, -3/+9So are the pro "control what you can see" on the internet people fronting this as for a faster better internet when in reality it's for a tiered pay more to go to google and less to go to dogpile? I pay a monthly fee to use the internet, did they forget about that? I mean in all reality the internet should be free since it's a network. Tell you what AT&T and verizon and Comcast(shudder), take all those ads of of my screen and then we'll talk about why I should even pay for the internet I am using now.
- algaeturd, on 07/25/2008, -7/+13Yeah, they all agree to stand up for what's right at election time. Nothing new but these people have failed us time and time again and stabbed American ideals in the back. Get rid of the whole lot when election time comes around
- SpartanErik, on 07/25/2008, -2/+7Article should be titled "Every Politician Supports Their Voters' Opinions"
- penguinsix, on 07/25/2008, -3/+8Fantasy Land is calling. They miss you.
The head of the MPAA Is a former Democratic Congressman. The RIAA's right-hand-man is John Conyers, chairman of the judiciary committee. And let's not forget Obamas 'I was for it before I was against it and against even though I voted for it' moment.
If you think Democrats are the savior of the Internet you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. - kjizzle, on 07/25/2008, -1/+6If it'll get them elected. I can't believe anyone believes this *****
- pentupentropy, on 07/25/2008, -3/+8I think this, to be honest, is unfortunately BS coming from a bunch of politicians I don't trust. I hope for the best though, and that they will keep this stance even after RIAA and Comcast fund their next elections.
- Rahodeb, on 07/25/2008, -1/+6I don't think our country would survive more political discontent. Also, the way to "set the stage" is to vote. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.
At the very least, if there are enough libertarian votes, then both parties will change their platforms to include liberterian ideals in order to sway those voters to their side. - klco, on 07/25/2008, -3/+7What the ***** ever.
A. These people are (for the most part ie as far as I know) running for their first term in national office, lets not let party identification cloud that.
B. Do you remember the 1990's? It was a damn sight better than things are today! - Waiting2awake, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5HERE HERE!!
- GhostyBoy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4The internet is fine the way it is. What the government needs to do is stay the ***** out entirely, forever.
Once they get their foot in the door they ***** ruin everything. - Rahodeb, on 07/25/2008, -6/+10You guys are sheep. A political calculation to save face? That bill was at the expense of your freedom. You're willing to give that up because you thought it was a crafty political manuever and respect his willingness to say or do anything to get elected?
The whole notion of the Democrats being the party of less evil is bullcrap. Wake up and realize that neither the Replicans, nor the Democrats, including the new black Jesus Obama, give a ***** about you, and they vote that way to prove it. - CanTheSpam, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Wouldn't doing "whatever you want with your property" include offering a less expensive internet to people that only need to be taken to a few sites?
We are using our ISP's lines, after all. I agree with Absurd about complete deregulation. - cyrax04, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3concur
- Aethirig, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Without net neutrality, your example would never happen. What *would* happen is that AT&T's service that competes with Netflix would get bundled in with your basic Internet access, because AT&T has your basic internet revenues to fund its other services with. You'd have to pay more to access Netflix because Netflix needs something to pay its employees with.
Further, without net neutrality, AT&T can screw Netflix's connectivity unless Netflix gives AT&T money, thus putting them at a double disadvantage. It's basically IE versus Netscape all over again.
If the ISPs are granted a monopoly by the government, it behooves AT&T to not leverage that monopoly. However, leveraging it is what they want to do, and that's why they're against net neutrality.
(not to pick on AT&T ... substitute in your favorite ISP :) ) - nelsonjs, on 07/25/2008, -2/+5Help Research Republicans and Telecom PACs
Ok, so I just broke the news that every Senate Democratic challenger has come out for net neutrality, and that there is basically no telecom and cable money going to Democrats. What about the other side? I need your help to figure that out.
http://digg.com/politics/Help_Research_Republicans ... - klco, on 07/25/2008, -6/+9Don't forget that Democrats did still manage to get a few concessions, if it would have been a Republican instead of barely Democratic (if you include Lieberman) majority it would have been the FISA and Clubbing Baby Seals with the Elderly Act of 2008.
- digitalpencil, on 07/25/2008, -3/+6Tim Berners-Lee on Net Neutrality
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jev2Um-4_TQ - GhostyBoy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3The government made the internet this way? How? When? Source?
- cph1, on 07/25/2008, -7/+10Congress is deadlocked, which is why nothing ever gets done. While I agree that the political system needs to change, voting Libertarian is about as futile as voting for a Black president back in the early 1800 when there was still slavery in America. The stage needs to be set and we need to make gradual progress toward a third party candidate. There is currently not enough public discontent with both parties to allow for this to happen in 2008.
- mahsah, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Part of me wishes Gravel with show up outta nowhere and win back Alaska.
- AutoTom, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3no illiterate comment my digg
- digitalpencil, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2^ Yes, sorry.. I was typing in a hurry and confused examples.
During the American Civil War costs of printing presses grew significantly, pushing them way beyond the means of individuals and small groups. To this day, broadsheet distribution is a staggeringly expensive media for a variety of reasons. There are of course smaller publications these days, rag mags etc. however most of these have died out as well to make way for the modern blog and their audience was very limited during 60s-80s at any rate.
Radio on the other hand, was generally considered to be conceived in 1920 after the historic KDKA broadcast airing the US Presidential Elections and saw a meteoric rise in popularity with 60% of all American households purchasing radio sets between 1923-1930. During this period the spectrum was governed by the Commerce Secretary who had no power to restrict the airwaves which resulted in chaotic oversubscription and the ultimate birth of the FRC (later the FCC) who eventually sold off the spectrum.
Both examples however, describe an exogenous technological change that initially results in an explosion of free speech, ultimately quashed by corporate interest. The point of course is, if nothing is done to stop this now, many fear the Internet will go the same way and i'd hate to refer to the Golden Age of Internet with the same dejected pride my grandfather described the Golden Age of Radio to me.. - Flambo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2There's nothing like closing with a rhetorical question that you *really don't know the answer to*. Do some research.
- Flambo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Before I begin, I agree with what you're saying and most of what you've posted looks to be accurate. But:
"If you look back though the same thing was true of radio and newspapers in their hayday. Prior to the American Civil War, everyone was their own crude radio broadcaster with home-made radio shows flooding the airwaves. That was until the spectrum was sold off to corporations and by the mid-1930s, NBC and CBS represented 97% of all airtime."
Did I read that right? "Before the American Civil War", we had radio? Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Anyways, otherwise nice post. Dugg. - homercles337, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2FTA: Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner : "It's inspiring to see that the movement for internet freedom is tapping the same American spirit that fueled the movement against media consolidation. Working together, we can make sure that the internet remains open and neutral - of the people, by the people, and for the people."
"Movement against media consolidation" was stopped by the government when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished by Reagan. We currently have nearly total media consolidation with 5 corporations controlling everything we hear and watch. - canyoodiggit, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2some ***** will figure out a way to ***** this up...
- maiku00, on 07/25/2008, -3/+5where are all the libertarian paultards frothing about how regulation is evil?
- ToxNub, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2The internets cannot be regulated. The internets cannot be legislated. The internets is awakening... yesss.... now is the hour.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2I would like to add "for the time being" to that headline.
- inactive, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2Most congressmen have no clue about anything involving the internet. Why are they deciding it's fate?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is