What is Digg?144 Comments
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+54This is a rather large issue, but I know what you mean. There is more then 1 issue, but this is up there for me.
- okdewit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Sorry, I'm not a single issue voter too, I'm not even american, but if my government would say it was going to allow this (ISP controlled and selected content is luckily forbidden in Holland), I would even go and paint the parliament black just out of anger....
It is not ONE issue, it is like saying no one is allowed to say the word "damn" anymore. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Single issues lead to multiple issues.
A principal is a single issue. Any single issue will give you great insight into people.
Those that voted against net neutrality stand with the corporations. Those who support it stand with the people. It's simple.
http://BSAlert.com - Jeremy82465, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33It is a sad day to be from Texas . . . well when Bush was elected (or re-elected) it was pretty bad too, but this is just insult to injury.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Digg exclusive: A short transcript of what went on during this vote:
Companies like Google: "Net neutrality is good. We can't have the corporations tiering the Internet. It breaks the freedom of speech and the very nature of Internet."
AT&T (and similar telecos): "Net neutrality is bad. A tiered Internet will let us make more money off these guys, and the consumers. Besides, only young people use the Internet, and this is a good way to show old people superiority over them. Mostly liberals use the Internet (remember Al Gore invented it) and mostly democrats are backing this bill, so this is a good partisan way to hurt them. Besides, this is AT&T. You know us! We're old, we've been around, we know how to make MONEY!! You can't trust young Internet companies like Google and eBay."
Conservatives: "I'll vote no on Net Neutrality. I like AT&T because they're old and so am I." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Texas is a pathetic joke. Backwards hillbillies. I say we block them from the internet.
- swoosh_bnd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Blame it on Texas, they only had 1 out of 32 vote YES on it. I'm glad my rep (ND) chose the right one.
- lava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27And Florida. God I hate my state.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22This is the same kind of sh*t which happened in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act. Big corporate lobbyists show-jobbed the public and politicians into thinking that "more competition" would bring about better services and lower prices. What the 1996 Telco act really did was allow media companies to further consolidate and shut down smaller operations. It led the way towards the big mega media companies we have today and the mafia cable networks. Shooting down Net Neutrality is the internet version of the same thing. Just like nowadays you can't see very much non-corporate-friendly content on mainstream media, pretty soon, any web sites that aren't part of the mainstream media master plan(tm) will disappear from the net - or be so slow they're unusable. The Internet will look like network television, or cable tv, with a limited number of choices depending upon which "provider" you use. It will totally suck, and everyone here who didn't raise a stink to their representatives will be at fault.
- unidentified, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22It even doubles as a list of sell outs!
- modernhumorist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19My representative "FAILED TO VOTE" which is almost as bad as voting no
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Umm... those who stand against it and for it, are both standing with corporations.
Think of the economic impact that a break in net neutrality will do to online companies, and that expense will be passed on to the consumer.
Free sites like digg.com, google, yahoo, etc that rely on ads for the most part to survive and/or profit, well, they're going to lose, but that's not where it's really going to hurt the general consumer like you or me.
I buy clothes online because i can get them from manufactuers that don't use sweat shops very easily. I can kiss a company that small good bye. If i run to bigger outlets online, well now we're going to see a product price hike.
Credit card and banking services? Price hike.
Filling out your insurance work online? Price hike.
I pay ALL of my bills online. My cellphone, my phone and dsl bill, my electric bill, my insurance, my car payment, my student loans, everything. Some of these charge me a small fee to do these transactions. I can see that fee increasing and those who didn't have fee's before, begin to add them in.
In fact, our taxes will go to all of the government offices in this country (on a local, state and federal level) to pay for the increase in price it will now cost them to operate their websites.
I can easily see ebay hiking prices and charges, and ticketmaster. I've been known to order pizza online, even that will probably see a price hike.
Every industry, except the telco's are hurt by this. The american economy as a whole, will be hurt by this. And small business owners? Well, any chance they have today to do business online, they better go back to their lemonade stands on street corners. B/c it's not going to happen anymore.
Being against Net Neutrality, means you're anti-corporation, anti-"the people", anti- christian, anti-gay, ant-muslim, anti-free press (bloggers), anti-conservative, anti-liberal, anti-small business, anti-gun owner, anti-black, anti-white, anti everything, except the interest of about 10 telco's... and in particular.. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and HDNet. - jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19http://www.duggmirror.com/technology/Net_Neutrality:_Who_Voted_for_What_/
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16It's not been a good couple of years for you guys, eh.
- Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I just cannot understand why _anyone_ would vote "NO" for something (Net Neutrality) that seems so blatantly right and logical. A lack of net neutrality affects ALL of us, conservative and liberal.
Oh, that Greenpeace website got shutdown because they failed to pay the ISP? And the NRA website is running super slow because they opted out of AT&T's Platinum billing plan? Web surfers from both sides of the aisle are going to get royally *****.
Come on you politicians who were elected by people who use the internet on a daily basis (read: everyone). Work together to do what's right. - TigerClaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Its pretty obvious, Those companies would give them campaign contributions if they voted no.
- Alegis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14More like: "NO, I will not let this chance for another 1000$ in my pocket slip away."
*Daddy's gonna buy you a pony, darling!* - Genius16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I am now 97% un-proud to be an American today. The only thing to top this will be if th Patriot Act is passed once again when comes up for renewal.
- Jeremy82465, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16We will get it right one of these days. Give us some time.
- tounchin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I believe this is a real enough problem.
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's with all the NO's from California and New York? Really surprised me. Only one NO from Massachusites. I guess we won't be seeing that guy return after the mid-terms '08.
For the record, my rep (McNulty, NY-D) voted YES on this bill :-) - phildo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Barbara Lee did vote YES, according to the House Clerk's tally. I'm starting to doubt gargles.net's accuracy on this one...
- phildo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Waait a minute... Wisconsin's Gwen Moore is listed as a NO on gargles.net, but she's listed under the AYES on house.gov. Whaa?
- JamesBrown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Hmmm... I'm surprised my rep, Barbara Lee, voted no. She's nutoriously one of the most left-leaning people in Congress. I was under the impression this was a Republican/Democrat divide. Maybe not.
- FuzzyCat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8
Forgive me if I'm talking outta my ass, but I thought the way that the US did stuff like this was - for example
You'd have a bill that says they're going to spend more money on books in schools and then someone tags something on the end 'and we want the white lines in the road to be orange'
Then the house votes, and it's all or nothing, ie if the money gets spent on books in schools, the lines will be orange..
So was this only a net neutrality bill or was there something else tagged on, or was net neutrality tagged on the end of another bill ? - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10which is why it wasn't passed...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I live in the ass-backwards state of Louisiana, where our super-corrupt politicians all vote no for anything that may even remotely benefit people of mid to low income.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wooo! My boy voted YES. Good. I'm glad that little chat we had made him see the light.
I guess I should let his kids go already, they're getting hungry anyways. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The ISPs are not wholly a "private industry"
The mom/pop BBQ restaurant down the street is part of a pirvate industry.
Any industry that recieves subsidy, is not wholly private IMO.
Any industry that has the authority to erect a telephone pole, or lay lines on MY property, against my wishes, is not a wholly private industry.
And while this doesn't in fact dictate whether they're private or not, lets not forget they got rich on the technology that the US military and the US university system funded.
Until they're willing to hand my subsidy back they can kiss my ass. - ij00mini, on 10/12/2007, -1/+710,000? It says 301.
- Insolence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If there wasn't a reason to be emo before, now we have this.
Go MySpace! - floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well my phone call seemed to matter, my representative ended up voting YES, but not the other two, whom I didn't actually call (not my district). So I guess it made differene, but not enough, at least he listened. (Reffering to Lee Terry, NE-R)
- projectducky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Just tell them: "X Representative voted for the internet to be slow unless companies pay the ISP money!". That will be enough. Don't confuse them with technical language like "net neutrality" ;)
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have contacted my representative, Don Sherwood, to tell him I am dissapointed by his vote on this issue, and that I will tell everyone I know to vote accordingly.
- Genius16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And what is this act trying to do? Its legislating it either way its passed. In such a case, you should legislate it the way it benefits the public, not corporations who are already super rich.
- gathly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Now that the information superhighway has been built, they want to control who uses it. Now that all our lives and everything we own is processed and/or routed through the internet, they want to let only those who can pay play.
The first hit is free, then you gotta pay.
Say goodbye to blogs and online 'zines that report real news. Only FoxNews will get to use the superhighway. They say that the bad part is that only those who pay the top-tier will get the faster loading times, but that's nothing. How long before those who pay top-tier are the only people who load at all? How long before the internet is just another cable line-up where there's 500 channels (infinite variety) run by only 4 major companies? Once you set up tiers, you've already paved the road that "the little people" can't afford to travel.
If your representatives in Government voted for this, don't vote them out, go steal their car. They owe you. - Karisson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5There are far too many NOs on that list.
- Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Good thought. How much extra dead weight was added to this?
This is quiet upsetting that it did not pass. Seems these internet providers are all in culusion and damned near a monopoly. In my city you cant get anything but Comcast due to some exclusive city contract. what happens if they block digg, or forward it to slashdot?
I do not like this. - macguy815, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yikes! My entire state (missouri) voted against it! Why must I be in a state run by crappy leaders?? (I can't vote yet...)
I was trying to think of an analogy for this entire debate and I think I've come up with a good one: In a sense, if net neutrality were to fail, the internet would become what cable and satellite tv are today- you would be presented with different "internet packages" "Oh you want to get google? Well sign up for the gold package.", they'll say. "But if you get the Deluxe package, you get access to not only your favorite websites, like google and cnn, you also get the startup companies that make the web what it's all about, like Digg"
I'm also writing a new book, A Death of an Internet < /sarcasm - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Seems like Government, Inc. is one step closer to stamping out the independent media.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@flashboca
Remember who initially funded an built the Internet. The US taxpayer. It's not like this is an invention of the ISPs -- this is our invention and we have a right to oversee its administration. - bowiestyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If energy wasting is the problem than charge the consumers more for higher bandwidth. If they want to watch videos online all the time and use up tons of bandwidth (similar to leaving tons of lights on in the house) than charge them more in order to have that freedom. Charge more money for more bandwidth not more money for better content. voting no on this is like charging people more to run a phillips bulb than a GE bulb.
- sillywampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think Craig Newmark makes the best analogy of all to explain this to the common folk in his commentary on CNN.com.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/index.html
http://digg.com/technology/_Commentary:_Keep_the_Internet_neutral,_fair_and_free
FTA: "Let's say you call Joe's Pizza and the first thing you hear is a message saying you'll be connected in a minute or two, but if you want, you can be connected to Pizza Hut right away. That's not fair, right?" - ericab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sellouts you say?
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=tally - floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yep, that's exactly how it works. I don't know if it was an attachment bill or not.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@yorn
"If the federal government had never established itself as having authority in matters of regulation and control, we would never have had these companies abusing it to their own ends."
Yeah, it's just like before there were environmental protection laws and no companies polluted... I'm sorry, but this is just the most idiotic comment I've read on digg today. (Congrats, that's hard to do.) - Jeffrey903, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think that list is accurate. If you do a find in page for "Lowey" (my congresswoman) on the blog, it says no, however if you go to the actual house.gov site (linked from the blog - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml), it says that she voted Aye.
- veloscaper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4how, your districts have been gerrymandered. You'll be seeing the same faces representing your state till their old and gray.
- ripcord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, the mouth breathers in the red states screwed us again. I guess it's the general disdain for those hippies that use that "Internet" thing.
- jahue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If big companies have the right to pick and choose what you are able to see then it is a violation of free speech, if they tell me I cant tell my story and I think your wrong. And NO I would not sue my publisher and I do mean my publisher for not publishing my book I would find another publisher. If I went into a book store and they were the only place that sold that book and they would not allow me to see or buy that book then that is a violation of my rights. (IF THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE TO GET THAT BOOK) granted that I can go elsewhere to get what I need, I CAN NOT get my internet but from two providers and if those provides block my access to a website because that website tells me what those telecoms are doing wrong and how they are screwing customers(which will happen) then that is a violation of my rights. I don't have to go to your club, but I have to use either bellsouth's lines or the cable companies lines so in effect I have no choice if there are two book stores and they wont allow me to buy a book because the publisher haven't paid there taxes to the store then they are violating my rights and the publishers rights to EQUAL AND FAIR opportunity. Now whether its a free speech issue is a double edge-sword but i do believe that this will in-some way violate my freedom.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is