What is Digg?97 Comments
- ssj2119, on 02/13/2008, -6/+41So as I understand it... - this is awesome right?
- fullphaser, on 02/13/2008, -13/+48Any Ron Paul supporter who also supports Net Neutrality needs to have a look at their canidate, just sayin. (in before -40 diggs)
- Tetraca, on 02/13/2008, -4/+27We don't need a law. We need an amendment that bars both the government and ISPs from filtering the internet.
- pintomp3, on 02/13/2008, -2/+17no, you obviously don't understand what net neutrality is about. it's about not letting corporations create separate tiers of traffic and filtering content. the internet is a successful because it is data agnostic. it doesn't care where it came from or where it's going. the telcos want to break that up in order to increase their profits, stifle competition, and potentially snuff out voices they don't want heard. net neutrality is about keeping the internet the way it is.
- rz8472, on 02/13/2008, -0/+13After retroactive immunity got shot down yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised if the telcos exerted their power and got a bunch of traitor senators to vote "nay" (I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman). On the other hand, companies like Google support NN, so at least we might have some lobbyists on the right side as well for once.
- starkruzr, on 02/13/2008, -1/+13You're either trolling or completely misinformed.
OPPOSING Net Neutrality is supporting internet censorship. It's supporting the right of corporations to, for example, nerf VoIP traffic that happens to be routed through a competitor's lines down to unusable levels. - MrWhite7, on 02/13/2008, -7/+19There's a difference between being for something, and believing it's the governments perogative to enforce every single one of our wishes.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 02/13/2008, -2/+10While I disagree on Ron paul on this one, I understand why he is against it and I respect that. Too bad he has no chance.
- scubasteve377, on 02/14/2008, -1/+9Ron Paul openly supports net neutrality (the practice), just not "Net Neutrality" (the piece of legislation). Seriously, Ron Paul is not opposed to a neutral internet (considering his online success, that would be an idiotic position to take), he simply knows that the better option is to encourage competition through deregulation. This will let the market correct the problem on its own (which should be very obvious if you have the slightest understanding of how the free market really works; Fun Fact: 90% of the country does not), without passing legislation that will open the door for more government regulation of the internet. Fear of opening the internet up to government control is the grounds on which he opposes "Net Neutrality."
If ISP's were subject to a free market, then there would be absolutely no need for "Net Neutrality" legislation, because customers would not pay for a tiered internet. Thus, in order to turn a profit, ISP's would be forced to adhere to the wishes of their customers. Otherwise, some competitor, who offered a neutral network, would steal all of their customers and they would go out of business. That's how a free market works, he who gives the people what they want, wins. He who doesn't, crashes and burns.
What is in place now is nowhere close to a free market. FCC (federal government) and local government regulations have restricted the market, giving a lucky few ISP's local monopolies and making it next to impossible for new ISP's to enter the market. This is called corporatism, and it is the basic opposite of free market capitalism. Its not about corporate regulation over government regulation, we already have corporate regulation, or have you never heard of lobbyists? The people should regulate the internet through their dollars in an environment of free and unrestrained market competition. The precedent of "Net Neutrality" legislation opens us up for unlimited regulation and control, as you have officially put the internet under the jurisdiction of the US government, and in turn, under the control of powerful corporate and special interests.
Another poster, geekanarchy, said it well in a different thread: "The problem is not net neutrality, which I support. The problem is once the government has taken the first step into regulating the internet, all subsequent steps are all the easier. Taxation is a natural next step after net neutrality, as someone has to pay to enforce the regulation. How does a neutrality fee of US $0.05 per gigabyte bandwidth used sound? To senators in D.C., I'm guessing it sounds pretty good. Of course, if you tax it, you need to be able to track it accurately. Might as well allow government full access to internet logs for auditing purposes. And the chain of regulation goes on." Ron Paul is dead right on this one. Net Neutrality is to actual internet neutrality as the PATRIOT Act is to patriotism. - Speed, on 02/13/2008, -2/+9Net Neutrality is not censorship. Net Neutrality is the belief that the internet is neutral, and everything is treated the same. Net Neutrality is the belief that the internet should stay the way it is now. Corporations like AT&T want to regulate it, by forcing websites to pay a fee for priority service. Net Neutrality is the idea that the corporations shouldn't be allowed to do this. Nothing else.
Do some research before you post. - kingmanic, on 02/13/2008, -0/+7Net neutrality helps content providers and aggregators hinders telecommunication companies. So AT&T can't decide a new revenue stream would be to charge people going to digg an extra $5. At the moment if they decided to extort digg or google for "priority" service they can.
- tolbs, on 02/14/2008, -1/+8The Government should NEVER regulate the internet, even if it is for our benefit. I'm all for Net Neutrality, lets just not put the Feds in control over it
- GhostyBoy, on 02/13/2008, -3/+10He isn't against it. He voted against a bill that was called Net Neutrality, but contained provisions for internet regulation.
- manicallday, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6Wow. This actually makes sense. It doesn't stand a chance.
- Speed, on 02/13/2008, -0/+6Your opinion doesn't matter because you allowed it to not matter. Go out and vote, protest, anything to get your voice heard. Cut the apathetic "no one cares about me" *****, you and people like you are just political emos. Look at people like Morgan Spurlock, Micheal Moore, Keith Olbermann and even Bill O'Reilly: you may not agree with them, you may not like them, but you can't deny that they have an impact on the world. Why? Because they force themselves to be heard.
Digg is so damn quick to protest Scientology, and encourage protests against it. So ready to believe that they can destroy a major religion/cult. And yet, they aren't willing to protest their government? They aren't even willing to go out to the polls and vote? What the hell am I missing here? - schroeder, on 02/13/2008, -1/+7There is not a whole lot we can do if a telco does something we don't like. We can't always change what service we use and most are doing the same thing. There needs to be regulation to keep the field equal for everyone, nothing else. Either the government needs to step in to keep it fair or the government has to break up these monopolies that are in place, giving new companies a chance to make headway.
- pintomp3, on 02/13/2008, -3/+9you mean like sponsoring a bill to declare life as beginning at conception on the federal level?
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show - GhostyBoy, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5All I have to say is read the bill carefully.
There are a lot of people heavily invested in information control, and an open international forum like the internet pisses them off large. - koob, on 02/13/2008, -1/+6"He's against it, like he's against a bunch of progressive ideas and solutions."
No kidding. He's not a progressive candidate. He's a Republican. Republicans believe in limited government. Traditionally they believe the government shouldn't just step in and solve every problem that arises. It's not that Ron Paul doesn't want a solution to this issue. He just doesn't want the government to solve it. Is that really as stupid and as old fashioned as you seem to think?
And govern morality? Isn't congress stepping in and deciding on net neutrality and making laws for net neutrality the act of the government deciding on what is moral? - cbuddha42, on 02/14/2008, -2/+7I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and I think net neutrality is a crappy idea.
The company that owns the bandwidth should get to decide how they sell it. If they want to sell unlimited bandwidth capped speed like they do now, then they can. If they want to sell access to only certain sites, then they can. If they want to sell access that only supports certain protocols, then they can. If they want to sell you access where only companies who pay them can show you content (at all or at a higher speed), then they can. It might like my life suck like woah, but that doesn't give me a right to strong arm them into doing what I want using laws.
More regulations, even when those regulations appear to protect the consumer, are not the answer. - inactive, on 02/13/2008, -0/+5“It is a common practice of congressmen to make the title of acts promise a right, but in the body or text of the acts to rob the people of what is promised in the title.” -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.
- kingmanic, on 02/13/2008, -3/+8net neutrality in a nutshell: ISP will be given common carrier protection is they follow the guidelines of common carriers. That is if they don't interfere with the internet traffic they aren't legally responsible for what goes on in that traffic. ISP's don't like this because they wish to grab a piece of all the content providers revenue to top up their profits.
- cbuddha42, on 02/14/2008, -0/+4I think you mean against restrictions and for free..., but regardless, do you really think the government should do anything as long as a majority votes for it? That sounds like a crappy idea to me, and here is an extreme example: more white people than black people leads to slavery unless some of the white people in government stand up for what is "right" instead of what's popular.
While that may seem unlikely, taking a company's property is much more likely. Why? Simply because it's easier to convince the mob to take from a big, faceless corporation that makes more revenue than they can conceive than from an individual who they more readily identify with a victim.
Basically going for what's popular (majority vote) reduces us to mob rule, and that often isn't a good thing not only for businesses that really on stability but for social welfare in general. The mob isn't smart and doesn't exercise good judgment; our founding father understood this and it's one of the reasons we have a representational government rather than a true democracy.
Call me archaic and hide behind post modernism if you will, but I firmly believe that too much relativistic morality on a political scale would destroy stability.
Numbers don't make right any more than might makes right. - pintomp3, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5general welfare. it's the same reason the federal government built the interstate highway system.
- Speed, on 02/13/2008, -2/+6There is a difference between implementing regulations that say no one can regulate the internet and implementing internet regulations. Net Neutrality is the former.
Also, using your argument: under what constitutional authority does the government regulate how you drive your car? When you can drink? When you can smoke? The constitution is 200 years old, so of course it's not going to have anything regarding the internet. You can't always rely on a 200 year old document written by men for everything. - pintomp3, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5or you could learn about it for yourself
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html - ceraphin, on 02/13/2008, -1/+5better to have it in the constitution than something that can be overwritten real easily by some clever politician
- theratdotus, on 02/13/2008, -3/+6i thought ron pizzaul would let the state decide if yu can kill babies. anyways....the more power we give states, wouldnt that cause some huge divides and *****...like maybe missouri wants to ban blacks or something?
- asforme, on 02/14/2008, -0/+3Give me my freedom of contract back. All I demand from the government is that they enforce that all details of a contract be fully disclosed. If Comcast is going to kick me off for downloading 450GB I want to know about it BEFORE I sign up.
- SQLserver, on 02/13/2008, -2/+5God darn it!
I'm getting annoyed with the confusion about what 'Net Neutrality' means.
Net Neutrality is KEEPING THE NET NEUTRAL!
Not to hard to understand people. - MrWhite7, on 02/13/2008, -0/+3Quite the contrary, I'm in favor of the little guys. I'm a bit confused as to the "pay for a slot" bit you're referring to. Slot's for airwaves a la television are regulated and given out by the FCC. On the internet, anyone can host a worthwhile website. If someone wants to host something they may do so at a reasonable price. If it's access to the internet you are referring to, I'd say that it's the government subsidation of the telecommunications indsutry that's gotten us into this mess. If anything we need to significantly deregulate the internet, not regulate it more.
- CoolWind, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2Businessmen cannot be expected/trusted to act in the public interest, but lawmakers are elected to do exactly that. Let US government regulation of the internet begin with a net neutrality law. Otherwise, ATT will begin evaluating everything you download to determine if they want to support you or impede you. And if ATT gets away with it, other ISPs will follow suit. You can count on it.
- MrWhite7, on 02/13/2008, -2/+4*shrug* You should be more concerned with the rest of what that bill would do, rather than the definition it provides.. I'm pro-choice myself, but frankly I pay more attention to Paul's overarching philosophy of a smaller Federal Government. It's clear that at times the man's personal morals clash with themselves. Who's don't?
- dinostabOMG, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2No.
- dacomputerfreak, on 02/14/2008, -1/+3@MrWhite7: If there are only 1 or two services available in a given area that provide the same crippled service, how are you to refuse the services? People rely on the internet for more than playing games now you know... We need the government to be on our side and stop the insane "contributions" from swaying the law toward big business. The Internet is something that needs to be free with no regulation as to what content flows through it because many of us use it for doing taxes, banking, employment, and keeping in touch with family. It's also a platform for entertainment and has a big potential for profit that big business intends to funnel right into their pockets, regardless of who it hurts or how it prevents progression of free ideas. The more control we let the US government have, the harder it is to get those rights back! US citizens are too afraid of our government to step up and do anything to stop the "take your rights away because it's for your own good and protection" philosophy. You know that there are many countries where the government follows the wishes of the people, I wish it were like that here in the US.
- phybere, on 02/13/2008, -2/+4Ron Paul is not the man in the case of net neutrality.
- doublsh0t, on 02/13/2008, -1/+3Can we just wait for Obama to get elected President before anyone accidentally SCREWS THINGS UP EVEN MORE?
- inactive, on 02/14/2008, -2/+4Only if you want the government to control and police the internet, it's awesome.
If you want to give the innocent/trusty government an inch, and you don't believe that innocent/trusty lobbyists won't take a mile, that they won't hijack the law and morph it into something that will benefit them -- you can cheer all day long. - cbuddha42, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2Same reason the federal government uses? Those individual freedoms impose on someone else's freedoms?
- hypermite, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1here's an essay i wrote in college about net neutrality, for those who don't know much about it:
http://darylclaudio.com/blog/the-electricity-aroun ... - jeezus, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1You know, people, this bill has been proposed twice before. The point that should have been made (and hasn't) is that it has a somewhat better chance now that the Democrats control the Congress. But given that the Republicans have killed the last two bills, do you think that there's any hope that Bush will sign it?
- MrWhite7, on 02/13/2008, -3/+4you realize the FCC is a government agency and your Net Neutrality will likely be folded into an agency of similar dimensions...
- scubasteve377, on 02/13/2008, -1/+2'General welfare' is NOT a power of Congress. James Madison, the principle author of the US Constitution, thought the idea that someone could be so utterly stupid to interpret it as such was so ridiculous that he didn't even feel it warranted discussion.
From an excellent article on the subject from sobran.com: "...this broad and vague interpretation endows the federal government with an unlimited range of power, making redundant nonsense of the rest of Section 8, which lists the particular powers of Congress. In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: 'For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?'” http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991123.sht ... - Genghis1, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2I'm a Democrat with 15 years of Experience as a Network Engineer for both big and small companies. Please believe me when I say that NN would be bad for the Internet. The people in government that would write the law have no clue what they are doing when it comes to the technology. They will just do what the lobbyist tell them.
- dinostabOMG, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Perhaps not as awesome as it could be. It says the FCC has to listen to what people have to say about it, but doesn't tell them what the people are saying: i.e., keep the net neutral.
- scubasteve377, on 02/13/2008, -2/+3US Constitution, Article V. - Amendment: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
- freyaXgefn, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1when i read "chip pickering" all i could imagine is someone stealing potato chips while they thought no one was looking
- scubasteve377, on 02/14/2008, -1/+2That's right! There's no sense in reading anything past the title of the bill, or researching the actual root cause of the problem, before forming an opinion! Go us!
- pentalive, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1Or they want to provide content themselves, so to avoid competition they want to limit other content. ( ISPcompany provides you with VOIP, but if you use VIOPCOMPANY voip they mess with your bandwithd)
- inactive, on 02/14/2008, -2/+3Here is something for you to consider
'Jane Roe' endorses Ron Paul:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/22/ ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And...
It is wrong to tax those who are against abortion, in order to build abortion clinics. When anti-abortion people are taxed to pay for abortions, clearly, that's just wrong. When a woman is anti-abortion, the government should not force her to pay for another woman's abortions, not even indirectly.
What's more, there are State vs. Federal issues to worry about. Beyond enforcing the Constitution, the Federal Government can't tell states what to do. States are supposed to be free, to compete against other states, to seek and to adapt to the best of *whatever* newly discovered ways. When the Federal Government forces itself upon the states, rapes them with unconstitutional tyrannical laws, and gives all fifty states one way to operate, then this takes away fifty or more chances for each state to adapt, to learn, and to grow. And, thinking generally, not entirely about abortion ... excuse the extremely fuzzy math, but ... imagine ... when the federal government takes away fifty chances, it really takes away more than three-hundred million chances, because it takes away every individual American's chance to compete, to seek out new solutions, to adapt, and to grow.
What's more, Ron Paul isn't necessarily anti-abortion; he knows that 'when it must be done, it must be done.' For the most part, he does recognize abortion as a violent act; however, he doesn't believe that the Federal Government should have central control over such personal issues. Ron Paul believes that abortion issues should be locally dealt with, on [at most] the State Level, so Ron Paul is in line with the US Constitution, because according to the US Constitution, the Federal Government isn't supposed to overpower a state's sovereignty, let alone EVERY state's sovereignty. And, any form of government is not supposed to steal personal property; there are property rights -- you have rights to your personal property, and your body is your personal property; the government is not supposed to assume that it owns/controls any part of your property, unless you and your body are doing harm to others.
About harm... "Harm" is where the ultimate kink is. Ron Paul wrote that bill a while back, and he tried to define where life begins, and he tried to have people agree that life starts at conception -- not for the sake of playing God, but because he was an OB/GYN and he could get sued for killing a baby that he was responsible for; he wanted to minimize abortions at all costs, to protect not just babies, but to protect the many people who might intentionally or accidentally kill a baby. He wouldn't want to get sued; he wouldn't want a woman accusing him of murdering her baby, after she told him to abort it. He wouldn't want a person whom ACCIDENTALLY killed a pregnant woman and her unborn baby, to be tried for double-manslaughter or two counts of murder, while he and others like him are paid to kill unborn babies.
Basically, I've listened to him from every angle, and I can't find a reason to disagree with him. He makes very strong points, and I don't have all of the details from his articulated points locked permanently within my mind, so here is one of his best conversations about the Abortion issue -- Ron Paul addresses Nashua NH Telegraph 11-07-07 ((Abortion Clip)): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJKbEs5HgE -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is