What is Digg?143 Comments
- gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+85Me too, unfortunately this isn't a laughing matter. :(
- ngageguy, on 10/12/2007, -10/+62dugg just for the title, made me chuckle
- Phennim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54anybody else think it's strange both Ted Stevens and Bush used the word 'internets'?
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -12/+58what about the tubes?
SOMEONE THINK OF THE TUBES!!!
Btw, thanks a ***** lot, American media. Instead of spreading the word about this, you decided to talk about how Lance Bass is gay.
If only people werent so stupid and actually got news from other places than television :| - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+44@stephenwq
"Anyone wanna tell me which side will keep the net normal as it is and not screw it over with prioritizing or anything?"
This would be the pro network neutrality crowd. However, keep in mind that we do not argue against prioritizing based on protocol. For instance, we believe that ISPs should be free to prioritize VoIP over other protocols so that phone services work well for everyone.
We don't agree that they should be allowed to degrade access to other VoIP services than their own, forcing you to use their VoIP offering. We also don't believe they should be allowed to degrade service to sites that they disagree with etc.
This would be similar to granting a corporation the power to decide who get's to use which public roads, and how fast they may drive. - megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41*****. As long as we have bread and circuses, which the average American lives for, there will be no coup, no change. We've got NFL and Lindsay Lohan. We've got Paxil and Zoloft and Viagra and Budweiser and Kool. We've got Playstation and Harley Davidson, Democrats and Republicans and the Marines. Take some combination of the above or any of the multitude of other brands, tribes, and diversions that siphon our consciousness and you have all that 90% of people could ever want or even think about.
We used to be tough pioneers and well-educated, self-reliant revolutionaries. The British Crown dared to tax us for about one percent percent of our income and we were outside, shooting redcoats in the streets. Now it's 50% percent and we do nothing. - x713, on 10/12/2007, -15/+48*****
- Promantarius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33How could you possibly stop large/bandwidth intense corporations (search engines, pornography websites) from paying? Once one company does it, the others will have to in order to keep up with them. Eventually, most companies will pay and we'll be back at square one, with the second tier of the internet being the same speed as the system is today, only difference being a substantial amount of extra money in telco's pockets :)
Off hand Google is the only company I can think of that might not buy into it, then again to provide an optimal service they may have to. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+47***** you
- gargantuan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34With this 'Net Neutrality' thing, I might be missing something here, but humor me. What if no one paid? The way I understand it, The telcos want sites to pay for better service across their infastructures. But if no one pays, wouldn't we all get the same service anyway? And what about having a badge on all sites that don't pay the fee, so users can boycott sites that do pay?
Or have I got completely the wrong end of the stick here? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Coming to a Firefox extension near you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29I smell a coup coming.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24We must at all cost frame the issue as regulation vs free market.
The fact that no free market can exist in the face of a natural monopoly must be ignored.
That the really important issue is how the democratization of media and information is harming our ability to manipulate public opinion to our hearts content, must not be mentioned.
The obvious effects on free speech that allowing ISPs and backbone providers to `prioritize` traffic according to their preference, or according to who can pay the most, will have must suppressed.
If so many people speak up about it that we cannot completely ignore it, it must be categorically dismissed as lunatic raving by communist conspiracy theorists that the liberal media is irresponsible to even report on. Since we in fact own the media we will will not get called on the idiocy of this proposition.
This message brought to you by the propaganda education branch of our great leaders, the corporatocracy.
(If this post annoys the corporate fans out there, don't worry, with any `luck`, you wont have to be bothered by independent opinion on the net much longer.) - diggAddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I bet Google will say '***** You Telcos we have our own pipes thankyou!" and they will really put the screws on them - just wait and see all that dark fibre lit up that they have been buying over the past few years!
- vexter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Its not about getting money from big sites as much as controlling internet content. ISPs will begin to offer different teirs of internet to its home users as well. They will offer the "main internet" for a smaller fee then the "whole internet" making it impossible for smaller sites to get the same amout of exposure as before. Mark these words! In 5 years the internet will be as controlled in the USA as it is in China. Just more subversive then the communists..
- wastern, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31they're just words. get over it
and umm......*****...... - Flyngwalrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I really like the 'badge' idea, but it doesn't settle everything.
First, big companies will pay whatever fees they're told to and receive larger bandwidths than us common folk.
Second, the telecom companies will have larger bandwidths still.
Third, AT&T, which is a major player in the to the soon-to-be-legal NSA wiretapping program, wouldn't hesitate to censor 'offending' websites if asked by the Bush terror network. - AaronHoffman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You just might be watching the start of a recession back into the Dark Ages, ladies and gentlemen.
I - for one - pretty much LIVE on the net during the day (and, still online through WoW, at night), but the day I can't find an ISP without surcharges for certain 'extras' is the day I log off for good.
(Watch me get dugg down for my next comment. Fascist bastards.)
If the Net Neutrality Act fails to go through, and you see prices begin to rise, I'd strongly encourage each and every one of you to grow some balls until the ISPs grow a brain. If the money-hungry corporations get greedy, it's as simple as cutting off their cashflow. Boycott. - spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I almost DIDN'T digg this for the title too...but, I agree with it and the blog post. It is astounding that elected leaders can do the kind of stuff they do-- right in front of everyone's eyes and get away with it. Before anyone passes judgment on this post or the expletive in the title, I really suggest you read the submission.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12i hope you are right saudama
- livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13If this went in to affect, imagine the amount of money digg's will have to pay.
Title is appropriate. And I say: ***** You too Congress.
We can't let this happen, that's censorship in so many ways.
Alas, the last "free" voice will be silenced if this happens. - mentok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Gargantuan, in a perfect world that would be a great idea. The problem arises when a single website (and there will be much more than one) agrees to pay more. People who are ignorant (apparently most of America) will flock to sites with faster service and then everyone who can afford it suddenly can't afford to not have it. And even if every one refused to pay extra that still doesn't necessarily mean that they wont throttle everyone down.
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -14/+23we are *****!
- Scott2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"they're just words. get over it"
I don't care. The severely over-zealous people in my MIS department do.
I like having digg available at work - this kind of stuff will ruin it for me (and 4,000 others, plus 27,000 kids in my district). - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12i believe your Internet will be late not your email. Don't you know how this interweb thingy works?
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8and when google offers fast, cheap, neutral net access with 90% less evil then say hooray to google stock, goodbye evil telcos
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8its the end of the net as we know it, and i feel fine...
who is going to pull the plug with me...
when the internet is turned in to a marketing tool for corporate greed and real humans can no longer communicate i will pull the plug and say good night to the internet forever...
that flushing sound you hear is freedom and liberty being flushed down the toilet... - JoeBlunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is going to stifle anything left of the entrepreneurial chances for start up developers these days. This is a move that only helps large corporations.
There are still thousands of small companies around the country that may not fall on the same side if they knew what was happening. - CloakandSwagger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14The Internet has turned to poo anyway.
I say let them have it and turn it into a casino.
Start something else somewhere else with someone else. - spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8if you guys would like this -or- anything else to be taken seriously by as many people as possible, gerkin has a really good point about the language. He's not flaming the digger either...it's the actual title of the blog. Dugg anyway
- ghm101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The mobile phone networks are controlled by the telcos, not the users. Those networks are full of restrictions, pay as you go services and handicapped technology.
Seems to me they want to do the same with the web. - empraptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The only way congressmen are going to go against big money is if their incumbency is threatened.
If we want to get Net Neutrality (or any other public interest that conflits with corporate interests) through Congress is if enough of each representative's constituents pledge to vote against the incumbent candidate in the next election should they not represent us properly.
Otherwise, with only 5% of voters even familiar with the term Net Neutrality let alone well-informed about it, our representatives will see this won't affect the upcoming election and choose to listen to big money. - Interex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7bubba9999: "Until they own the last mile of tubes going to your house, it doesn't matter."
That might explain why google is experimenting with city wide wifi. ;) - Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It's needed for the 15 year olds who think the profanity is cool.... Especially seeing it on the front page of a news site.
Using profanity anywhere but in uncontrollable anger, shows that you are either stupid, and/or you're just plain rude.
Grow up. - Seanpr123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5posting when digg count was 1337
- P5ycHo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@cal3b:
People already pay for their connection.
So if a person fills his bought bandwidth with traffic, he/she is just using what he/she has paid for.
The telco's problem is they over-sold their bandwidth. Now they are going to charge extra to discourage 'heavy' usage? That's not fair. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5that is exactly what i am going to do this next election, i will vote against every incumbant i possibly can...
i urge all other voters to do the same... - cuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you read the article linked
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=248662&Month=9&Year=2006
it says "The poll was funded by Verizon", there's non-partial for you. - geocar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@msafi
"It is argued that if you, the consumer, don't like how your ISP distributes bandwidth, don't do business with them."
And those people don't have any idea what they're arguing about.
Net-neutrality is designed to prevent a company like AT&T which is not your ISP, and is not Google's ISP, from extorting money from Google. It has nothing to do with your DSL provider. It has nothing to do with Google's DS3 providers. - cfizzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4***** old ass people in Congress just don't get anything
term limits anyone? - schlik1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I don't find this very informative. I wish it was longer and more comprehensive.
- SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cal3b
"how can you expect to receive your streaming movies (that you paid for) if the pipe is being trashed "
No sensible person is arguing against the ability to prioritize based on protocol.
Network neutrality forbids discriminating based on who is sending and receiving.
No more, no less.
Without network neutrality there is no free market and no freedom of speech on the net. Instead you have the dictatorship of those operating `the tubes`. - Aooogah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@maiku00: The telcos own the mainstream media, hence why it was never put on the air.
- geocar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Digital Dud
"It's no different than regulating the energy companies and then bitching them out when they don't have the money to keep up with increased demand"
The problem is that what you describe never happened; The whole rolling blackouts in California, and Enron's raping of retirement funds happened when regulations were relaxed, not because of the regulations.
At this point, corporations believe that their mandate to maximize profits for their shareholders extends to killing people, just so long as they don't get caught, or they might be able to argue that it's technically legal.
So long as this goes on, regulations in public energy and net-neutrality will simply be required. - blankoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Won't 'Net Neutrality' only affect the USA and push it further down the rung in terms of Internet standings on the global stage?
When will the US population stand up and say enough is enough to their greedy, corrupt government (by greedy and corrupt, I mean moreso than that of other countries as all gov's are thieving slimeballs). - theron1n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well...it's times like this that i'm reminded of how much of an utter failure parliamentary democracy really is. Of the people, by the people and for the people huh? It makes me sick. Tell enough lies to get into office and then it's playtime with big business. Grab all the cash you can before it's reelection time!
- stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4*Sigh*
It doesn't matter what's right or wrong. The only thing that matters now in politics is that the majority of people are going to do/vote/believe whatever they're told by government and/or big business.
In situations like this where the vast majority of the population has no chance of understanding the issue that things get really hopeless.
The sad thing is most people just accept (or are even proud) of their ignorance. - bubba9999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
Until they own the last mile of tubes going to your house, it doesn't matter. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4you think the issue is speed?
its about control and power
the internet gives a voice to everyone equally, it lets sally start up a clothes shop in her basement, it lets 2 collage students start a search engine and move onto being a massively powerful company
it lets people find information, and the one thing that is bad for a dictatorship is a population that thinks.
if it was about speed why do you think there is so much dark fiber everywhere - saudama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The Internet will never be controlled by the service providers, no matter how hard they try. People all over the world will pressure them until they break, and when they do, they'll have to take their greedy paws off the Internet and forever leave people to go where they want to go online.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
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