What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Audition for 2009 Holiday Campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy0 - The making of Best Buy's holiday campaign. Real employees 'Jingle Belling' their way to a stardom.
72 Comments
- AdeleMor, on 01/14/2009, -4/+56let's hope he sticks to his word on this one
- ousthouse, on 01/15/2009, -11/+35Government needs to stay away from the internet.
- akiratheoni, on 01/15/2009, -3/+26For those who are misunderstanding net neutrality...
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/sDefinition ...
It pains me to see fellow Digg users blindly against net neutrality because it involves the government. Do some research, please. If you are against net neutrality, then we are *****, because corporations can and will ***** us over already, and I'm sure you have already seen that (aka Comcast). - NinjaGod, on 01/15/2009, -3/+23Oh ***** yes. This is after the election also, why would he need to lie about it now?
- Xephyr, on 01/15/2009, -2/+17Except, the Internet is international.
- Murdats, on 01/15/2009, -7/+22Net Neutrality = government protection of consumer freedoms
- GhostyBoy, on 01/15/2009, -1/+11Barackalypse: You wouldn't need to spam 3 comments if you had any kind of point whatsoever.
- KillerBears, on 01/15/2009, -1/+10Internet startups like Digg, Facebook, or Flickr never would have become this popular if they had had to pay to providers. That sort of system creates the requirement of having lots of money in order to start a new website. The beauty of the internet is that Bob's blog land can exist, even if bob is flat broke. If it sucks, don't visit it. The site doesn't have to stop existing.
Also, your newspaper analogy fails. The providers do not host websites, they simply provide a way for you to get to servers, that's it. - cubicledrone, on 01/15/2009, -5/+14There is nothing desired more greatly by big business in this country at this moment than to own, vandalize and destroy the Internet. The Internet is what we gave up the space program for. If we allow it to be destroyed, we have literally forsaken our inheritance and given up our best chance for progress.
- bobthegreat1224, on 01/15/2009, -1/+8It's a matter of precedent. While the US's lead won't exactly become international law, it will go a long way toward establishing the norm.
- FreddieD, on 01/15/2009, -2/+8According to OpenCongress.org, HR 6304's controversial issue was granting *retroactive* immunity from the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It has nothing to do with net neutrality or the internet at all.
- akiratheoni, on 01/15/2009, -1/+7That's the way it should be. The only thing that there needs to be is a law that states that companies can't mess with what is inside the "tubes" then of course fine companies that break that law. Nothing else needed.
- benitojuarez, on 01/15/2009, -1/+7I don't know what you do for your job but I have tons of things on my agenda that never get done because I simply don' t have the time. With riaa lawyer appointments something tells me this is going to get brushed under the carpet.
I hope I'm wrong. - novenator, on 01/15/2009, -6/+11I think this is something that Obama is passionate about.
- xino, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5"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."
-Sir Tim Berners Lee - bobthegreat1224, on 01/15/2009, -0/+5The Internet is a medium for bi-directional, anonymous, ubiquitous communication. Your comparison to television and radio holds no weight because those are uni-directional mediums. The Internet's meteoric rise and sustainability both reside in the fact that it provides the average Joe with an almost limitless communication line to every other person and corporate entity on the planet.
It would be more accurate to compare the Internet to our telephone lines. Recall that in the '80s the United States government broke up the AT&T monopoly in order to insure price competition. When left to its own devices the market worked its way into a suboptimal arrangement, and it took government intervention to resume full optimization.
This is another such instance, but not in terms of price competition. Instead the commodity at risk is freedom of communication, something a good deal more valuable. You may not care to read the average Joe's blog, but for me the Internet loses its allure when my voice is silenced and the medium is reduced to a uni-directional bombardment of corporate drivel akin to television or radio. - Zarokima, on 01/15/2009, -2/+7That doesn't stop China from policing it on their end, so why should it stop us from protecting people on our end?
- NikoKun, on 01/15/2009, -6/+10No... I'm sorry... You've missed the point entirely.
- novenator, on 01/15/2009, -1/+5burn!
- UselessTrivia, on 01/15/2009, -2/+6Maybe not him personally, but Lawrence Lessig is one of his tech policy advisors...I'm pretty sure we can guess how HE feels on the subject.
- akiratheoni, on 01/15/2009, -2/+6Wow. Just... wow. I have no idea what to say to this, other than that you have no idea what net neutrality really is. Corporations are already trying to control the Internet and you want to let them do that?
I never said I trusted the government. I just hate telecoms more. - odigity, on 01/15/2009, -2/+6No quicker way to destroy it than to allow Congress to act is if it has the right to regulate it.
- Bartboy919, on 01/15/2009, -0/+3OMGZ GuYZ REGULATioNZ BReakZ STUFFZ
- and303, on 01/15/2009, -3/+6It is finally hitting us as Comcast is now controlling download speeds based on content. We need to act fast and set an example for the rest of the ISPs of what happens when you try and play favorites with access to information.
- and303, on 01/15/2009, -0/+3Asshat. All of the prime examples you used make revenue from advertising. I pay a hefty bill for my access to information and I demand that I get it ***** with. How you wouldn't demand the same is beyond me.
- Zarokima, on 01/15/2009, -2/+4Faded, you took the totally wrong meaning from that. I'm highly opposed to censorship in any form and was trying to point out that the whole "internet is international thing" is completely irrelevant to how it works within a country, using the well-known example of China. Thusly, there's nothing stopping us from making sure all of our access is net neutral.
- akula89, on 01/15/2009, -1/+3Net Neutrality should include total non-involvement of the government aside from maintaining network neutrality, then i'm sold
- pizzaface200, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2Separation of servers and state.
- bobthegreat1224, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2Accelerating and decelerating specific websites is of little to no concern. What's more likely is a satellite TV style package system with tiered levels of access. Pay the basic fee to get basic sites like Google, Ebay, or CNN. Want a movie upgrade for sites like Hulu? Want public access sites like Bob's Blogland? Want "illegitimate" sites with torrents? Those are all extra.
That is where my concern lies, and it's far more probable than altering access speeds to specific sites. It has nothing to do with corporate espionage and ideology wars. This is an established, profit-making business model, and from the corporate side of the argument there is absolutely no reason not to adopt it. It increases profits, and as long as every big provider follows suit there are no substantial risks or losses. Maintaining user access databases with IP filters is not difficult in the slightest. - mycutepetpics, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2"Politicians are "passionate" about anything that gets them elected.
They don't care about you. None of them."
I can't believe you are being dugg down for stating the absolute truth. - Target91, on 01/15/2009, -1/+3The problem comes in when a company, let's say comcast, decides it wants to do certain things. Like block or slow websites that say good things about their competitors, or completely block competitors websites. Or a big company decides it wants to muscle out a new guy with an idea before it can take off.
- slabdigger, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2Net Neutrality is simply an anti-extortion regulation. It keeps telecoms from demanding extra money based on content. Bits are bits folks. The free market will not keep it this way. What do you propose?
- alexforcefive, on 01/15/2009, -4/+6*Except to enforce network neutrality.
- squigglethecow, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1The lack of net neutrality, maybe. Net neutrality itself makes it impossible for anyone to control the internet. Provided its actually followed.
- magus_melchior, on 01/16/2009, -0/+1Google the name, djlethal-- he's one of the good guys.
Lessig for IPEC! - AmidTheSnow, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1Fascism FTL!
- ziadeh, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1lol so true
- FreddieD, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1I'll repeat my message...
"According to OpenCongress.org, HR 6304's controversial issue was granting *retroactive* immunity from the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It has nothing to do with net neutrality or the internet at all."
He's not being dugg down for stating facts. He is being dugg down for citing a house resolution that is mutually exclusive from net neutrality. Perhaps if you would bother to spend time fact checking instead of calling people "stupid mindless *****", you'd learn more. - billrdio, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1Just curious, but what if traffic prioritization was allowed only in a sort of "destination agnostic" manner - i.e., packets were only prioritized according to the type of data, not according to the source or destination of said packet? I seem to remember reading that this was being proposed as an alternative. Wouldn't this stay true to the ideals of the internet while allowing ISPs the ability to guarantee the quality of services like online gaming and streaming video?
- squigglethecow, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1Yes, they do. However, net neutrality laws PROTECT the internet. If the government starts to regulate it (past getting rid of child porn and such) then I will agree with you.
However, in this issue, the Gov. needs to take a stand. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -4/+5Obama does not give a ***** about you, you ***** idiots.
- xino, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1"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."
-Sir Tim Berners Lee - djlethal, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1I've never heard of him. Is he bad for net neutrality?
- squigglethecow, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1agree'd AlexForceFive
- michaelrsa, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1I fully support net neutrality, but I find that most users believe that it gives them full reign to do whatever they want. I'll be clear here, I don't support piracy out of the belief that it takes away capital to develop further software and also encourages people to pirate instead of using excellent alternative Freeware. I just feel that expecting companies to not interfere with our internet rights isn't fair when so many of us interfere with their right to make a profit. Digg had that story about that cracked iPhone game that was a dollar, and everyone was railing against the cracker, and supporting the small developer. My question is, what is the difference between the small dev and the big one?
- championchap, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1'___'
{0,0}
/]__]
_"_"_
O RLY? - zeroskater0310, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1It makes complete sense. An ISP controlling downloads is step 1 of eliminating net neutrality. Companies like Virgin have already been in talks of limited site access to sites that don't directly pay the ISP, which will shut down tons of websites. Another thing is "high speed", where the ISP has the ability to easily give you faster internet, but purposely restricts you unless you pay extra for it. To combat your analogy, even if Disney doesn't buy ad space in New York Times, Disney still exists. And New York Times isn't cutting off the story until you view the Disney ad. Even still, your analogy is circled around advertising. This is not about advertising, its about forcing users and web owners alike to pay the ISP even more money just to stick around, if you don't they may restrict your site access and can even look at your favorite sites and block them, as well as shut down websites from loading on their internet as well. If companies like Virgin get their way to use the exact same internet your using now would cost you and Digg itself more money. Digg would probably put up more adds (indirectly slowing down the site) to help pay this new bill, etc etc. I hope Obama succeeds here or we can expect that to be our future internet.
- championchap, on 01/15/2009, -0/+1Obama once stopped me from eating bad chicken.
He pointed out that it was not quite ready and might make me sick.
He cares :) - GhostyBoy, on 01/15/2009, -6/+6Politicians are "passionate" about anything that gets them elected.
They don't care about you. None of them. - bobthegreat1224, on 01/15/2009, -1/+1Bob Loblaw's Law Blog?
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 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