What is Digg?144 Comments
- StoneTSR, on 11/14/2008, -18/+149Just one more reason I'm so happy Barack Obama got elected.
- thepoliticalcat, on 11/15/2008, -10/+101Yes! Finally, we have a President who really understands the internet, or InnerTubes.
- d0ugfunny, on 11/15/2008, -3/+62Every website is created equal. News or Video, Porn or Social Networking. Shopping or Searching. Isn't that what America's all about?
- redcolumbine, on 11/14/2008, -11/+63Microsoft and others have repeatedly sabotaged computing in their attempts to "de-commoditize the Internet" and create barriers to entry. Having a net neutrality champion in the White House will ensure that the Internet remains an incubator for small business and a haven for global communication without the interference of monopolist gatekeepers.
- darkened, on 11/15/2008, -31/+69Don't hold your breath, this is the same guy that voted for the Telecom's immunity for spying on us online.
- Target91, on 11/15/2008, -3/+41No, but Obama is his boss and he supports net neutrality.
- darkened, on 11/15/2008, -12/+46Whoever is digging me down, you aren't changing the fact he really did vote for it.
- FreddieD, on 11/15/2008, -1/+31Biden has actually spoken in favor of Net Neutrality, long before this election cycle.
He has, however, been good buddies with the MPAA and (if I remember correctly) in the past has tried to pass legislation to try to somehow ban (or limit in some way) encrypted traffic over the internet.
Now your definition of net neutrality may expand to having the freedom of being able to encrypt what you want, when you want. But as far as a tiered internet is concerned, he has been in favor of net neutrality from the beginning. - FishHammer, on 11/15/2008, -1/+26Obama's said he supports neutrality but Biden is strongly against it. Hopefully Obama can show his stupid VP the error of his ways.
- logandurand, on 11/15/2008, -6/+28Remember, we've had similar regulations throughout history. For example, there was a federal law (I don't recall the name) that mandated a similar neutrality for interstate cargo trains, the idea being that neutrality was needed to protect commerce. The new regulations and burdens, however, actually created artificial barriers to entry, lowering competition and achieving the exact opposite of what was intended.
Edit: It was the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. - Sheeplike, on 11/15/2008, -2/+24FTA:
“It’s against AT&T’s economic interest to block or slow Internet content, because customers demand an open Internet, he added. “Our core asset is our network,” he said. “We get paid for carrying bits.”
This coming from AT&T? Yeah right... - Frixionburne, on 11/15/2008, -11/+32Did everyone just up and forget Biden? That man is the anti-interwebs.
- DavidGX, on 11/15/2008, -6/+26See rootfiend here demonstrates why republicans just don't get it.
What does almost every republican say he/she's for? Less government, lower taxes, etc, etc.
How many democrats have you ever heard running on the platform of higher taxes and bigger government? None. Painting the world as a black and white place where it's all or nothing, completely one way or completely the other is foolish. Some cases call for less government interference, some for more. Same with taxes. - Bith8654, on 11/15/2008, -5/+24Why not?
- Swellin, on 11/15/2008, -0/+19Good thing Biden is not the President.
- Lekio, on 11/15/2008, -8/+25While we're at it, let's rearrange the libraries. No more of this alphabetical stuff, from now on books are kept in order of which author paid the most to the library. Are you an author that didn't pay the library? Well then your book gets put in the back so people take longer to find it.
- LifeNova, on 11/15/2008, -5/+21Are you ***** stupid?
- Bith8654, on 11/15/2008, -1/+15Are you hearing voices or something?
- irvin666, on 11/15/2008, -2/+12Do you guys REALLY want an FCC-like regulation on the internet?
- DavidGX, on 11/15/2008, -7/+17That's a load of nonsense. Let me guess what's next, Obama is a socialist? Wait, you guys already tried that one.
Stop lying, for once. - vinceislegend, on 11/15/2008, -7/+16For all of you who seem to be confused:
Net neutrality is a good thing. It's what you want. - Chebsi, on 11/15/2008, -2/+11Well, that's his name. Get used to it.
- locojones, on 11/15/2008, -2/+11I have to admit that I'm simply shocked that a site mostly built on decrying interference in the free market is so willing to give up the country's internet to government regulation. It's simply naive to think that, if Congress got involved, that you'd get some clean bill. The federal government doesn't work like that, and such a bill would become so laden with strings and amendments that the original purpose would become completely lost to the world. Ultimately what you will get is a piece of legislation that is detrimental to the internet rather than beneficial to it. So be careful what you wish for.
- BrendanSheehan, on 11/15/2008, -3/+12The www isn't just in America you know.
- gullyben, on 11/15/2008, -21/+29O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!
- netneutrality, on 11/15/2008, -1/+8Net neutrality is my username and even I'm totally confused as to whether it's a good thing or not. I wish governments would just forget the Internet exists actually.
- akchrs, on 11/15/2008, -14/+21Biden does not like net neutrality..... or file sharing, encryption, pro RIAA. This administration is going to make my internet experience somewhat unpleasant.
- Jeepy, on 11/15/2008, -2/+9Did you even read the article or are you just replying to the title?
- LongShlong, on 11/15/2008, -2/+8"I've heard about this thing coming... It's called the internet."
"Isn't that the inner lining of swim shorts?"
"... Yeah. I think I just logged onto my internet..." - TEEMANOID, on 11/15/2008, -1/+7I think some people commenting don't understand what net neutrality means...
- FreddieD, on 11/15/2008, -1/+7I somehow doubt they would be singing this tune had McCain gotten elected.
- FishHammer, on 11/15/2008, -2/+8I'm Barrying your post.
- digitaldivinci, on 11/15/2008, -4/+9Net Neutrality would be.
- rocke86, on 11/15/2008, -1/+6The Obama youth on digg don't like it when you talk negatively about their messiah. The truth is irrelevant. /Sarcasm
- Jareth86, on 11/15/2008, -1/+6Biden is not president, and contrary to the last eight years, the VP usually does little to nothing in the way of policy.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -1/+6I always thought 'B-Rock' was cool.
- DavidGX, on 11/15/2008, -8/+12Shove it right up your ass, yep, right in there. I'm so tired of the endless "LESS GOVERNMENT" mantra. No one stops and thinks about where we need more government and where we need less. It's single minded garbage. The world isn't black and white.
- AndrewWiggin, on 11/15/2008, -1/+5I opened this link to expect some hype about net neutrality without any actual content. But it was nice to see that there was an article here with some very positive news. Things are looking very promising.
- FreddieD, on 11/15/2008, -3/+7Some real Net Neutrality legislation can be passed during the next congress. There will be at WORST 57 democratic senators, though 58-59 is the odds on favorite (depending on the Coleman/Franken coin flip), and Olympia Snowe of Maine is a moderate republican who has sponsored Net Neutrality legislation. So far I have not heard of one democratic senator who is against net neutrality.
Plus, it is not a super hot topic among many mainstream voters, so if some moderate republicans would like to pad their "i reach across the aisle" numbers, this could be a good way to do it. - ray4389, on 11/15/2008, -3/+7Contact your Congressmen now!
- pintomp3, on 11/15/2008, -5/+9you are a ***** idiot. the internet works because it is source and data agnostic. net neutrality is about keeping it that way. the telcos want to create a tiered system where content providers are charged for premium access. anyone who can't afford to pay or the telcos don't want heard will have their traffic relegated to the slow lane or traffic dropped. they want to break the internet to squeeze out more profits. corporate ***** suckers like yourself won't be happy until the world is run by enrons, haliburtons, and blackwaters.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -7/+11This isn't censorship of content. The regulations prevent ISPs From censoring content.
It's analogous to the government "censoring" meat packing companies from putting rat feces in your food.
It's so amusing that everyone who seems to oppose Net Neutrality is either a corporate apologist or has a completely propagandized view of what they think it does.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in Evolution or the separation of church and state. I find it laughable you're so proud of being ignorant. - GhostyBoy, on 11/15/2008, -1/+5I think that 99% of the people here want a free, open internet.
I just think there is a huge number of those people who have lost all faith in the governments ability to maintain it. Government does have a history of screwing up everything it touches. - oboshoe, on 11/15/2008, -3/+7Didn't vote for Obama and he makes me nervous about many things.
But kudos to him if he can make Net Neutrality a reality. The Republicans are wrong on Net Neutrality. - Crumbeast, on 11/15/2008, -3/+7i'm assuming this is sarcasm, and while i love obama, it's great sarcasm. dugg up.
- thallium205, on 11/15/2008, -1/+4How about we wait until it starts happening BEFORE we react? I don't like how government is getting involved in one of the last things it does not yet control...
- smokejayson, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3It was just campaign politics. At least he voted to remove the immunity provision first, which ultimately failed.
- digitronix, on 11/15/2008, -1/+4If the internet companies are left totally free, than they will be competing for your services, and you will get great and cheap internet.
As it is, the internet companies are monopolies because they have lobbying influence on the government.
If you want to take away internet neutrality, then you support net neutrality and giving power of the internet to the FCC.
We don't need the government to regulate the internet, we need them to stop taking money from lobbyists and interfering in the internet. - mephitix, on 11/15/2008, -6/+9Yeah, because the past decade of deregulation really helped us out.
1. Economy
2. Healthcare
3. Threats to net neutrality
The question you should ask yourself is: who is more evil? Corporations or the government? It is a good question to ask, but at this point in time, given the ridiculous amount of freedom corporations have had in stepping on OUR rights and generally screwing up the entire nation, I would say that an Obama administration is safe to drive this. - JCPahl, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3Srsly, unlimited information at your fingertips gets old fast.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 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