What is Digg?47 Comments
- look4alec, on 12/02/2008, -0/+36Dangerous for the powers that be, desirable for us as an "open" society.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -4/+29Keep it free. Government is control.
- ryan83189, on 12/03/2008, -0/+24Desirable. Sure it may lead to temporary problems like this, but the internet corrects itself automatically, it does not need or want a regulating industry. Such an industry would be a futile attempt to regulate anything but the operations of major backbones. The internet sees censorship , or anything that can lead to it, as a threat and is incredibly informed about attempts at censorship. It can reroute anything instantly, and most data of value is backed up in several locations. No one but lemmings will want a regulated net, even at the highest, most superficial level.
- travis6690, on 12/03/2008, -3/+25A long, long time ago,
I can still remember..
How I used to browse those sites..
From Reddit, and Cracked, and Facebook,
And on Twitter, I was really hooked..
On the Internet is where I was all night...
But in December, I read a blog
Net neutrality was dead and gone
4chan was in uproar
Especially trolls and camwhores
And so the web, became a place
where everybody knew your face
Anon was gone without a trace
The day..
The Internet..
Died. - Waterrat, on 12/03/2008, -0/+17 Indeed.
Those with the power to control the mass media just hate that they can't control the net as well.
- frieddonuts, on 12/03/2008, -2/+15Forbes has such a horrible site.
- Siliconshaman, on 12/03/2008, -0/+12The internet should be unregulated....however, the Telecom companies that own the hardware *should* be, if only to ensure that the internet remains net neutral and unregulated. I.e regulate to create a 'free' zone.
Why?
Because as the article points out, when the companies can do what they like, and wall off sections of the net, bad things happen, and it's the ordinary users who suffer. As has been said, control the flow of information, and you can control what people think and thus the world. Or at least, a large chunk of it.
There is another reason. namely, the net is one of the last free 'spaces' around. We are all regulated to greater or lesser degree in our daily life..if you live in a city 'freedom' is something that's hedged with a forest of regulations and social customs. Being able to escape in WoW, or into the forums at 4chan, or whatever, is necessary to people's mental health. - meinrosebud, on 12/03/2008, -2/+10The Australian Government wants to be china and censor the internet! Filter Coffee not the 'Net!
- Shadess, on 12/02/2008, -3/+11Al Gore will fix it . . . or talk about it for a really long time
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7Well done sir. I salute you.
- thetanman, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7I'm gonna go with desirable.
- coopa, on 12/03/2008, -1/+8Who's government should regulate the Internet? I'm from the UK and i don't think either the US, UK...or any major government should regulate it at all.
- Phantom784, on 12/03/2008, -1/+8What I don't get is why Cognet and Sprint disconnecting their direct links to each other would result in an inability to communicate from the one ISP to the other at all. Shouldn't the traffic have then just taken a more indirect route?
- marshallpeck, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6It's all on one page this time...wft?
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Save The Net
The Federal Government is planning to force all Australian servers to filter internet traffic and block any material the Government deems ‘inappropriate’. Under the plan, the Government can add any ‘unwanted’ site to a secret blacklist.
Testing has already begun on systems that will slow our internet by up to 87%, make it more expensive, miss the vast majority of inappropriate content and accidentally block up to 1 in 12 legitimate sites. Our children deserve better protection - and that won't be achieved by wasting millions on this deeply flawed system.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 - marshallpeck, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6catchy
- mphree, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Forbes really should just stay away from technology stories.
- synapz, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5what ***** the!
- joshmoney, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6"The internet sees censorship, or anything that can lead to it, as a threat and is incredibly informed about attempts at censorship. It can reroute anything instantly, and most data of value is backed up in several locations."
Is this right before or after the internet has become self-aware? - addiktion, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5They have the power to control it by passing more laws in congress to patriot act the hell out of it and turn the Us into a China like internet. I want to be optimistic but congress has failed us many times. Net Neutrality ftw!
- Ghoztt, on 12/03/2008, -3/+7Open is Freedom.
Transparency is Truth.
Control is Tyranny.
Secrecy is for Liars. - Swivelstick, on 12/03/2008, -3/+6Government? In this case corporations though the distinction is hard to define.
- narbs, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Talk about bone-headed. When they cut that last line I bet a lot of customers were well pissed when their network went dark. This will cost Sprint so much more than the little game might earn them. Someone should lose their job fighting over something so trifling.
- Azerael, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3Profound.
- SqlByte, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Stupid idiots, i can understand how such big companies can be such dumbasses.
- synapz, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4I'm not fond of the corporations the government has brought us through corporate law, but more government regulation is never a good thing. http://www.mises.org/story/2139
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 12/03/2008, -1/+3Let's not write legislation based on shaky hypotheticals. That rarely ends well.
- thal3s, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Sure.
Unaccountable corporate douchebags owning the net is so much better than accountable public officials... - username7410, on 12/03/2008, -2/+3Is it a slideshow, I'll never know... because forbes site is so horrible I refuse to click.
- JustJoe4Life, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Desirable.
- asgardshill, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Nice.
(Time to bring that update of Don MacLean's classic I've been planning to the front burner - inspiration strikes at 5 in the morning ...) - Sendai129, on 12/03/2008, -5/+6Now I know my comment won't likely be taken well but here goes. I think that on some levels the government should regulate the internet. Not to the point where it controls what flows through the tubes, but it should ensure that everyone is always connected. Many (if not most) companies these days rely on the internet greatly. If it suddenly and without warning shuts down this can mean huge financial loses for those companies. It is for cases like this that I think the government should have some control over the internet so that private organizations don't have the power to cripple other companies.
One solution that might be possible is coast to coast free wireless internet provided by the government. Have it be a sort of backup or redundancy that the government will ensure to be working. Then if you want faster internet you can go through the telecom companies who should remain unregulated.
I just think that the internet has become nearly an essential service for many companies and as such they should be protected under law from the squabbles of private contracts and companies. - asgardshill, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2Good morning, Doctor Chandra. I am ready for my first lesson.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -3/+4@ 100,000 an hour....
Hey he has to pay for the heating of all those rooms and keep the hectares tidy.. - addiktion, on 12/07/2008, -0/+1@synapz Fail my friend,
A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams. - diggdatt, on 12/03/2008, -0/+19/12/2001 too many sites changed to a black backgrounds
- paulierocks, on 12/03/2008, -1/+2That's *****. There might have been a disruption after they cut the last link, but it shouldn't have lasted very long...oh, and I'll bet a ***** of VPN connections had to be reestablished. Whoever wrote that article doesn't know dick about internetworks. ***** Forbes.
- ronaldst, on 12/03/2008, -0/+1Accountable public officials? Since when?
- synapz, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1Agreed. http://mises.org/story/3060
- synapz, on 12/03/2008, -2/+2The policies you hope to avoid through net neutrality law are already in place. Government regulation of the internet would be far, far worse. Net neutrality is simply a foothold for government to do as they please with the internet. I, for one, will not stand for it.
http://www.mises.org/story/2139 - synapz, on 12/03/2008, -2/+2@addiktion: Net neutrality is the very regulation you are railing against. http://www.mises.org/story/2139
- synapz, on 12/04/2008, -1/+1@Sendai129:
I don't know that there is any such thing as inherent evil. I *do* know that government is composed of individuals in our society who, for some inexplicable reason, have been allowed to use aggressive force against others. If anything is inherently evil, aggressive force is.
The world would be a far _better_ place without people that use aggressive force, and so without governments. Why in the world are you using third world nations as your example? Third world nations have the most violent and oppressive governments in the world. Are you under the impression that they have no government? The fact that you are incorrect with such blithe smugness blows my mind.
What am I supposed to show gratitude for? Roads? Water? All of the ends of these means would be delivered far more efficiently by the free market. Why are you under the sad, mistaken impression that only government can provide these things?
I'm happy to help my fellow man, but I don't insist that my fellow man help my fellow man by pointing a gun at his head. The idea that this is somehow a moral or ethical duty is tragically erroneous.
Show a little compassion and selflessness, and when it comes time to help your fellow man, don't force someone else to do it. - synapz, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1You might find this uplifting:
"The tremendous ability of communication technologies to drive economic growth and prosperity implies that governments that do not embrace such technologies condemn themselves to falling greatly behind their freer counterparts. Failure to at least partially permit the spread of recent technological developments could be fatal to a regime that needs some semblance of economic growth to be seen as a possible alternative to Western political systems." --http://mises.org/story/3060 - Sendai129, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1@synapz
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
The government isn't inherently evil. The world would be a far worse place without them. You only need to look to 3rd world contries to see how bad it can get. No, it's not a perfect system but its a hell of a lot better than it is for a lot of the rest of the world. Show a little gratitude, and when the time calls for it help out in making it a better place for everyone. - synapz, on 12/03/2008, -1/+1The telecom industries are already heavily regulated. It's for this reason that we see so little competition in that market. We do not need more regulation, we need to repeal the reams of it that do exist to allow local ISPs to compete and develop into communication powerhouses.
http://www.mises.org/story/2139 - synapz, on 12/03/2008, -3/+1This is so awful. Government is not your friend, it is the enemy of human society. It's where all the thieves go to lead legal lives. Regulation is their bread and butter. Stop falling for the act.
http://www.mises.org/story/2139
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