What is Digg?34 Comments
- JWav3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Paul is showing his Libertarian side here.. Government regulation of industry rarely has the intended effect and usually helps large business, hurts small players and stifles competition.
- Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Voting against government interference is what libertarians do.
- gratefulspread, on 11/06/2007, -5/+16I think Ron Paul is the man and will almost definitely be getting my vote in 08. He wasn't joking, however, when he proclaimed himself the most conservative candidate. I would consider myself liberal and would never believe I would be supporting a conservative for president. With Paul, however, I am beginning to realize that its not the 'conservative' ideology that I hate, but the Republican party itself. I think that people have become confused recently as to what exactly liberals and conservatives are. A 'true' conservative like Ron Paul believes that the government shouldn't involve itself in every aspect of the lives of the American people. Ron Paul is not a flip-flopper and holds this same belief with the issue of net-neutrality. Although powerful cable companies might now have the power to screw us, Ron Paul is not changing his stance that there should be as little government intervention private matters as possible. I personally believe that the Internet should be declared public domain or given some other status that would promote a free and unadulterated exchange of information, but Ron Paul is still my man.
- Gadren, on 11/04/2007, -2/+9I just find it odd that Digg users, which had been some of the strongest supporters of net neutrality, just throw it away now that Ron Paul's against it.
- sk8oride, on 11/05/2007, -0/+7Maybe the government speaks for you, but I think I'll choose to speak for myself.
- jimmycleveland, on 11/07/2007, -1/+8Net neutrality means the government will impose rules on the Internet, and effectively regulate it. This is the furthest thing from freedom. As good as it sounds, when the government gets involved, freedom is rarely preserved. It's always a slippery slope. I think I'd rather trust private corporations - robber barons as they may be sometimes - to protect the freedom of the Internet through free market competition. Unfortunately, we the people have no real friend on this issue. In the short term Net Neutrality might look, sound, and feel nice, but in the long term, who knows how far government regulation can extend. Net Neutrality sounds nice and safe, but I think they need to keep their hands off the Internet to prevent a slippery-slope in Internet regulation.
Freedom means corporations can do what they want with what they own, and as unfair as that sounds, that's capitalism, and I'm a big fan of capitalism. Besides, I doubt ISPs will do something that offends their customers. They want their product to work well and keep the consumer happy. I trust the guiding principles of free market economics to always (in the long term) provide the best natural regulation. I will never trust the government, especially with the Internet. Whenever corporations gain undue power and control, it is usually with the help of the government.
Besides, the FCC shouldn't exist period. The FCC is why you can't broadcast your own radio station without breaking the law. Their regulation of the radio waves means we do not have the freedom to use them! Corporations won this one, but only with the help of the government. Pirate radio is true freedom, but it is illegal. The equivalent of being outside of a "free speech zone" at a rally. We have no radio frequency free speech zone! It's not entirely analogous, I know, but I think its one of those rhymes in history and there's a lesson to be learned.
Net Neutrality seems like a solution for the fearful; for those who think they need the government to protect them from "those evil corporations." Never give up liberty for temporary safety applies here I think. Keep the government out! If that means my bandwidth is cut so corporations can make a profit, then so be it. I don't think it will be long before we graduate from the cables that tether us to the web, and ISPs are deprecated like the phone company. And when that happens, I want the Internet to not have ever been regulated, completely untouched by government. I can only imagine what devastation the government can inflict on the Internet, if given the precedent of permissible regulation. Think about it... one should never fear capitalism. If we are inconvenienced in the short term, I think it will be worth it in the long term. The only way I think I could be wrong is if the ISPs collude with the government and sensor us on the government's behalf. If this is what is to happen, then government regulation (or "protection" as the Net Neutrality movement calls it) can't save us anyway, we'd be at their mercy either way. True freedom isn't always easy to swallow, but that is the nature of survival-of-the-fittest. The optimal solution always emerges on it's own given time, not from goverment beaurocracy. - specsaregood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Any Ron Paul supporters surprised by this should then go and see what the man himself has to say about it.
Ron Paul on the house floor explaining why this is a bad thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0
"Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to this legislation.....protecting Liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the internet..." - TheChuckster, on 10/23/2007, -5/+10You are getting it backwards. Network neutrality is another term for freedom to access all content and services. Ron Paul supports businesses regulating and restricting access to the Internet. In essence, he believes that if the government prevented them from regulating the Internet, it would be unfairly jeopardizing their freedom to do so. This viewpoint aligns with the Libertarian Party beliefs. The way I see it, though, as citizens and consumers, we have the right to access the entire network fairly and equally, and it is the mega corporations that are encroaching on our freedom to do so. This still conforms with the party beliefs and ultimately gives us more freedom. Although, I don't see corporate regulation lasting too long if put into place, provided there is an informed group of opposition.
- Heilige, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4It's very simple, the best way to have an open and free Internet is to keep the government OUT of it and to NOT give incentives to companies for restricting it etc. The ideology of a free market and capitalism is that the corporations provide a service to the people and if the PEOPLE don't like it then corporations must change in order to profit. But the way it is today is appeasement of government not the people so in that situation the people lose. KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT AND DO NOT REGULATE THE INTERNET, allow the PEOPLE to choose what service they want and the PEOPLE to provide the incentives to the companies.
- jaymz411, on 01/20/2008, -0/+3Ron Paul: Net neutrality legislation will hamper the development of new Internet services and harm consumers in the long run. The best way to address the concerns of proponents of Net neutrality is to "remove government-imposed barriers to entry into the Internet provider market."
- adamant1988, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I don't believe that in this situation, passing a bill that enforces 'net-neutrality' is the correct thing to do. Dr.Paul has it right in this situation, prohibition of anything is dangerous and rarely has the desired consequences. While I don't agree that these companies deserve the right to change the Internet as we know it, I don't agree that the government has the right to enter the playing field of businesses and set rules to keep them from doing this.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Why do you think these Authoritarian Democrats want this so-called "net neutrality"?
It's not because they care about some boogeyman big corporation coup of the net.
Control man...It's all about control. Just like everything else these tyrants in office perpetrate it's boils down to control....oh yea, money too.
Govco needs to just keep their damned hands off the internet before they screw it all up, like they do every single thing else they do. - JimXugle, on 11/05/2007, -1/+4Now... whats his stance on Telecom Competition?
I'd like to have my Pick of Telephone companies... but no... I'm only allowed to choose from one. - mesogen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I say don't institute net neutrality unless the telecom companies actually start crapping up the internet. BUT, what if they do? People will start disconnecting. Who the hell wants to use the internet if they can't use it the way they do now? The telecom companies will get a HUGE message real fast.
- geddon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why don't the other candidates appear on Digg.com? I would at least expect to see some Dennis Kucinich!
- Waterrat, on 10/13/2007, -4/+6 Net Neutrality,watch and learn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPap8ijDv5g&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgCWzU_uVM
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U - Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -0/+2you are all mixed up!
- heypetray, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Agreed, from a Californian raised democrat. Don't hate the conservative ideals -they work too- Hate the neocons and our current administration for betraying us.
- heypetray, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Check out the ratio of support. It's there, just relatively less as one would expect. I agree though Kuc is a great candidate, and second to RP in my books. For those of you who think that I'm a hypocrite for liking a dem and a rep, take a look beyond the parties and into the ideals and conviction that both candidates have.
- sk8oride, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The government's not your voice, you are your voice. If you want something to change, do something about it. Write your congressmen, start a petition, run for office. The whole idea is to give the government a smaller voice so people can make their voices heard over them.
- aknappjr, on 10/23/2007, -13/+14Net neutrality is another term for government regulation of the internet. Keep the internet free! NO REGULATION OF THE INTERNET. The Dems and the rest of the Republicans are o.k. taxing the internet. Ron Paul says NO Tax! and No Regulation of the Internet!
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Which negatives? Do you even understand the true conservative principles?
- dagoonmaster, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1finally someone else who knows capitalism is always better in the long run, you sir are my hero
- guinnessstout, on 11/05/2007, -0/+1I don't know if you were trying to be funny but good job, "choose from one."
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Net Neutrality: Great in principle, piss poor in practicality.
- FIAR, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Thank you very much for this great comment. I was always skeptical of net neutrality because Democrats support it. I am inherently cynical of anything Democrats support. It SOUNDED like a good thing, but I couldn't get past the fact that it is something promoted by the D's. This is the first time I have seen a good argument against net neutrality and it finally clicks as to why the Dems support it.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1You've got it backwards.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1And how are we to prevent the ISP's from doing that? Government regulation.
That is why Dr. Paul opposes it, government regulation. If AT&T starts dicking customers, we should be able to go to another ISP, it's called the free market. Once the government gets involved to "help things" it will only make things worse.
Having regulation to prevent these companies from changing the open nature of the net seems like a good idea from a liberal's perspective. When it comes right down to it though it's just going to pave the road to the US government controlling the net. - ghoti06, on 11/10/2007, -5/+5Waterrat, I don't see much substance to your reply. I see some pretty cogent arguments against net neutrality from some others in this thread -- but what's your defense of it? Government regulation works?
- ClannZu, on 11/10/2007, -2/+2Actually, like the Chuckster responded before, you are all getting this backwards. If the original poster is correct (who got the definition wrong as well) Ron Paul is *opposing* an unregulated internet. Savetheinternet.coom puts it like this: "net neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination." Openinternetcoalition says further that, "The principle of net neutrality is about keeping the hands of several powerful network operators – AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast – off the Internet, preventing them from taking steps to change the basic open nature of the Net that has led to its success."
So do your research, guys. We *want* the net to remain neutral, out of the hands of big business. We want the internet to be self-regulated like it is, not in the hands of those in power, but in the hands of individuals where information is free and unregulated. Vote *for* net neutrality if you want internet that is free from corporate control. - BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You've obviously missed out on the Libertarian takeover of Digg. It's been going on for awhile now. Libertarians decided to converge on Digg and make it their PR site, so anything anti-Libertarian gets Dugg down to death.
That's why all you see now are Ron Paul stories on Digg now. No other candidate gets the slightest bit of attention. - geddon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Help me understand how a small government is a good thing. Isn't the Government my voice? Do I seriously expect my interests to be protected by the Corporations? That the number of dollars I spend should decide my value in this Country?
I really don't care about the Right and Left, Conservative or Liberal, Democratic or Socialistic -- these seem to confuse the core issue that the Government is not only my voice, but the combined voices of all peoples in my country.
When did this change? How does a smaller voice promote greater freedom? I believe my government is "by the people, for the people." Anyone who would advocate the silencing of these voices is an enemy of the people. - geddon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Get off the Ron Paul addiction. The government is our voice. Anyone who would seek to silence us is an enemy of Democracy.
- NoOneButMe, on 11/06/2007, -14/+8How is it that Ron Paul supporters manage to twist ANYTHING this guy does into a positive, while ignoring the negatives and pretending they dont exist?
As such, i've Dugg and Buried this story.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is