What is Digg?36 Comments
- gweedo767, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe of earl, earl earl!
http://digg.com/technology/Republicans_defeat_Net_neutrality_proposal - umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I know I'll be buried for pointing this out but: D'oh, front page dupe.
http://www.digg.com/technology/Republicans_defeat_Net_neutrality_proposal
I wonder if this one will net as many diggs? - fgiDangeresque, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8We need people to get some serious earmarking done against the interests of companies like these. The internet as we know it is being tugged out of our hands by people who dont care about society; only profit.
- boushley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7First... this story has already hit... and your right, this is apalling.
Second, It wasn't republicans, it was congressman in general. I highly doubt there was a republican vs democrat stance on this. It amazes me how ignorant someone could be as to believe that. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Subcommittee has 17 Republicans members and 14 Democratic members.
- nolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I 'm not usually one for conspiracy theories,but it seems like lately there has been a lot of inaccurate political stories posted on Digg, And given diggs popularity, I wouldn't be surprised if a political organization were behind this. I'm not naming any names, but certain organizations are known to use this practice. Just saying.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This barely has anything to do with "internet freedom", as the title falsely suggests. It is a mere matter of looking out for the little guy-- ensuring that the bandwidth scales are relatively even.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On one hand: This allows companies that don't tier the Internet to advertise it as such.
On the other: This allows companies to advertise high-speed ESPN content.
Unfortunately, most average Joe consumers would probably fall for the second one, without realizing that every other site (and probably every non-paying application or game) is going to suffer slow speeds. - ThrasherC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It usually annoys me when people point out dupes, but well put! (No offense, but the story has already been posted and people are going to digg it regardless.)
- justin22290, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does this have anything to do with them creating levels of internet? I believe we covered this!
Viva la resistance
Well I dont like republicans..most of them..but congressmen are congressmen and this isn't something thats down the party-lines... - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Inaccurate exaggerated political flamebait. And it's a dupe.
This DEFINITELY gets a lame vote. - Oline61, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5USA: Best government money can buy.
- justin22290, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does this have anything to do with them greating levels of internet? I believe we covered this!
Viva la resistance - Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Um.. this was already on the front page earlier guys stop digging this
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3As much as I despise today's Republican party philosophy, it's not just Republcians who pander to special interests.
"For the corporations by the corporations" - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5sometimes, it feels like the republicans aren't government officials, but corporation officials instead.
- TheAttacks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not so sure why I actually missed the story posted before mine. I seem to be a little behind every time i post something lol, this one was just weird.
- detrux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does anyone know if this would affect other counteries? Say, my Canadian packets are being routed through the US, would I have to pay a fee as well?
It better not, or we'll be seeing another war of 1812, if you know what I mean *sparky sparky* - Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Internet does not belong to these companies either. Common carriers do not have the right to filter or disrupt the flow of traffic in anyway. By doing this they damage the entire Internet because while I may not have Internet service from 'InternetCompanyA' but B, traffic to any site may go through A's network thus causing my speed to suffer because siteA doesn't want to pay extortion fees to CompanyA or because InternetCompanyA has decide to filter specific traffic.
The whole idea of not enforcing network neutrality means the fragmentation and eventual death of the Internet, weather the Democrats or Republicans idiots are defeating the network neutrality efforts or not I think we can all agree they either don't understand a single ***** thing about the internet or computers in general, get "educated" about it by lobbyists and or get paid off. - doafhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm bothered by many users politicizing digg and using it to further a particular agenda - and that goes for both sides of the aisle. I say just report the facts and leave the political spin for the news networks.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hopefully, no. I like capitalism.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly, so they all have their lobby group. The Democrats were being lobbied by Microsft, Google, Yahoo...etc etc a bunch of internet companies. The Republicans were being lobbied by the big telecoms.
- donatj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Old news.
- nolf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Inaccurate. no digg. What is it with people putting inaccurate political stuff on digg.
- MrSir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i gave it a skim...dont particularly like it if its accurate...but i think the invisible hand shall prevail. the public at large will get what they want because thats how the companies make $$$. is it our fault if most of the public isnt aware of whats happening? i mean, we paid lots to the company in form of taxes but they dont bother doing what the taxes were supposed to be for. this could be for 2 reasons. 1) congress is a whole bunch of old people who look out for themselves more than anyone else and lobbyest pay for thier vacations and such, or 2) they are old people who dont know anything about computer stuff. i know its a generalization, but its accurate for the most part, so dont get mad if you know of so-and-so whose not like this...
- fuzzmello, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2money money money. will it ever end?
- equusdc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uhm, yeah, we did used to own it.
- TheBeaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't understand this. There's too much back story that I don't know here. Is there a link that lays out the whole thing clearly?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The internet never belonged to you. What we know of it today was built through the investments of private companies. I dont like some of the crap that these companies would like to do, but if the web is running through their pipes then they make the call, not congress.
Dont like it? Then put some pressure on the companies not to screw around with a good thing or do business with companies that will state upfront that they will not engage in that type of practice. - beta1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Nice job with the Dupe of a story that was on the homepage 10 min ago...*****
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeah, it was already on the frontpage, but got taken down by people complaining that the story didn't spin the "Republicans voted against the proposal" into "Republicans voted for the proposal, while Democrats viciously ripped it to pieces"
- nolf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Inaccurate. no digg. What is it with people putting inaccurate political stuff on digg.
[reply] - chrisabraham, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Money money money" will never end although I never seem to have any of it.
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4haha! that so isn't clever.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Republacrats/Democans get the name right.
Double plus good post though. - ProtocolJ, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Well said...
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is