What is Digg?39 Comments
- alexforcefive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+27"ISPs are mere conduits: they don't need to know, they don't have to know, they SHOULDN'T know what's being carried across their networks"
effing right. ISPs shouldn't be policing people, and they shouldn't be doing the dirty work of organisations like the RIAA, BPI etc. - SocialPoison, on 08/19/2008, -1/+9No... syrup wrestling is a sticky issue. Net Neutrality is a no brainer.
- Seldon2639, on 08/19/2008, -0/+6It depends. There are two fights right now, only one of which can actually be described as "net neutrality." This video, which takes issue with the government forcing ISPs to monitor their users, is not really attempting to fight for "net neutrality" as it is usually defined.
Net neutrality is essentially having the government force companies to be neutral in terms of providing bandwidth. Some ISPs have been thinking, and talking about, allowing websites to buy better bandwidth. It would mean that if Digg pays Comcast, you can access Digg faster, with the presumption that if they speed up Digg, they have to correspondingly slow down other sites that can't (or won't) pay. A lot of internet users want neutrality because they feel that there is a moral imperative to allow for unfettered access to the internet. The premise is that since I'm already paying for access to the internet, it isn't right for certain sites to load slower because they don't pay Comcast more.
There are arguments for and against. The biggest argument for is that the consumer should be protected, that when we're buying access, we should be buying unfettered access at whatever level we purchase. The biggest argument against is that anytime you regulate an industry, you end up stifling the creativity and innovation in the industry. - odinfire, on 08/19/2008, -2/+8They can all spy on this...
http://www.ivygateblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008 ...
** This link has been rated "T" for Teens. ** - inactive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+5Great stuff here - I can't believe the way this is going - ISP's are now the spies for the Big Boys?
- Jo9100, on 08/19/2008, -0/+4Links get an ESRB rating now?
- alexforcefive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+4Network neutrality is the concept that no-one should interfere with your internet connection. This includes government censorship as well as tiered internet access (ISPs doing deals with content providers for preferential access, or throttling bittorrent traffic).
So really, network neutrality says NO-ONE should control the internet - but realistically we're going to need government legislation to make sure that happens... - oli5993, on 08/19/2008, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality
- HonoredMule, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4@urgeigh:
That's about as pointless an argument as declaring that GPL licensed software isn't free (libre) software or that Constitutional Laws/Rights restrict freedom. You may be technically right in a totally pedantic way, but it's a moot point--without "enforced freedom" total slavery reigns supreme under whatever faction (or group of factions in cooperation/collusion) eventually wins the power struggle.
Without introducing the serpent, Eden is doomed. - pintomp3, on 08/19/2008, -1/+3wrong. net neutrality let's the government keep the corporations from controlling the internet. the internet works because it is neutral. net neutrality is about keeping it that way.
- cday, on 08/19/2008, -1/+4Okay, oh wise one of lofty morals, please define "stealing" for us. It seems to me that there are factions in the world that keep redefining and broadening its meaning...subject to change without notice, so to speak.
Just because you don't value your freedoms doesn't mean the rest of us should let people like you throw ours away too. Spying on ordinary citizens just for the sake of monitoring them in case they MIGHT do something wrong, is ugly and dangerous.
I hope your comment doesn't get buried at all. People need to see it. It's comments like yours that are part of the problem, not the solution. - urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -1/+3Yeah, it's a no brainer in a perfect world. You really trust American legislators to write and pass laws that are truly going to protect the internet for little people like you and me? Please.
- TheDreadDiggerD, on 08/19/2008, -0/+2This comment is rated "D" for Delicious.
- galeninjapan, on 08/19/2008, -1/+3Let me get this straight.. The government uses big telecommunication companies to spy on us. And our solution is to let the government (the people who were spying on us in the first place) regulate the internet?
You guys really think the government isn't going to perverse "net neutrality" to their own favor? - urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -1/+2So let me make sure I've got this straight. Net neutrality laws are necessary because corporations (ISP's) are documenting theft of copyrighted material via P2P software and such? Hmm, how about you just don't steal?
This will probably be my most buried comment ever. - UltraDavid, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1This is right.
- VigRoco, on 08/19/2008, -2/+3Net Neutrality is a sticky issue. In one corner, you have blood-sucking corporations controlling everything, and in the other corner, you have blood-sucking, technologically ignorant politicians controlling everything.
Who do we side with? - GruntboyX, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1There is one type of file sharing no matter how hard the RIAA/MPAA try will never be broken. That is the good ole sneaker network. Along those lines sharing between friends and family. Which bodes the question, When will social networking start file sharing. There is legal precedent that shows it is allowed eg Fair Use doctrine, and the whole VHS and Beta max wars in the past ruled that recording to show family and friends is a protected right.
Soo.....when is the file sharing facebook app going to be allowed? Currently I just share music with my buds and family and don't bother with searching the internet. - alexforcefive, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Jo9100's comment has been rated "E" for Everyone
- SQLserver, on 08/19/2008, -1/+2I'm really confused. Can someone straighten me out on Net Neutrality? Is Net Neutrality keeping corporations from being able to control the internet, or the opposite? And, also, what does it have to do with the government controlling it? Will the government just tell the corporations what to control?
- bryanedds, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Net Neutrality levels the playing field by giving the government control of the internet...
Although corporations control the government...
Hmmm...
Which means that net-neutrality takes power away from corporations... and gives that power to the government AND the corporations.
So now the government gets to f*ck up the internet as well as the corporations!
Hooray for stupidity!
With people like Net Neutrality supporters, it's no wonder how America became a fascist country! - ShadowofAres, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1"Throttle the Package" sounds like either the subtitle for a new Hackers movie or a Porno.
- RottNKorpse, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1"they dont have to know, they've no need to know, theres no reason for them to know and actually it's none of their damn business to know." - Martyn Warwick
Martyn Warwick FTW! - OmegaWolf, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Neither. The Internet should be controlled by those who know it: the techno-geeks!
- galeninjapan, on 08/19/2008, -1/+2You dont sound like a free market advocate at all.
"But at least with the govt version we have a _chance_of influencing their decisions."
You have to be kidding me. You ALWAYS have a choice in a free market, no one is forcing you to use a ISP. If they do shady things, just switch. If the government does something stupid with the internet. You have no choice but to leave the country or maybe change the governments mind. But, lets be serious here, how often does congress do anything right? - galeninjapan, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1If an ISP spies on you, you could always, I dont know... Change your ISP?
- bryanedds, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Of course, the problem with ISPs was created by the government in the first place. Government regulation initially allowed these companies to create their monopolies. Without the regulation, we wouldn't have the monopolies nor the issues that Net Neutrality is supposed to solve.
But of course, the only way to solve the problems created by government is to give the government more power. Then, the government can use that power to create more problems... which obviously require more government "solutions"... on and on until every part of our individual lives is regimented by the state.
Which is just dandy to the socialist democrats and fascist neocons of the world. But it never actually solves any of the problems. - urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -1/+1@HonoredMule:
So maybe we need a better ***** idea, eh?
..or a new government. - VigRoco, on 08/19/2008, -3/+2Basically, Net Neutrality lets the government control the internet, without Net Neutrality, the corporations have free reign.
Two links:
Pro Net Neutrality:
http://savetheinternet.com
Anti Net Neutrality:
http://handsoff.org - urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -1/+1Seriously, you people are vesting an awful lot of faith in Washington. I really don't get it, it boggles my mind actually. How bad of a job do our elected officials (on the federal level) have to do before people start realizing that everything they do gets messed up worse than it was before we let them get involved. This is just going to be one more thing our government ***** up worse than it already is. How many times do you need to get bit by a dog before you stop trying to pet it?
- japisda, on 05/18/2009, -0/+0Nope... We, the techno-geeks, already hold too much power. hahahaha
- subgeniusd, on 08/19/2008, -1/+1In principle I'm a free market advocate and oppose any expansion of govt control. But this is the 21st century and we are still in the middle of an IT revolution.
High level corporate monopolists think and behave similarly to high level govt regulators. But at least with the govt version we have a _chance_of influencing their decisions. Whereas with the corporate monopolists we have none (eg Microsoft).
This is why I support the net neutrality movement despite finding myself working with some rather "difficult' partners.
In this specific case "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" works for me. - TelecomsNoodle, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0The interview with Viviane Reding is brilliant (http://web20.telecomtv.com/pages/?id=f387e4d7-6312 ... a real insight into how Europe is not in complete control. She even admits it in the end! We've got to sign their petition. The whole point of Digg is freedom of speech after all, why let them take it away? Click on http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/20756.html to add your name!!! I have.
- TelecomsNoodle, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0You are absolutely spot on! Have you signed the petition? I've done some digging and the debate goes to parliament next week, but they haven't got many names yet.
- TelecomsNoodle, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0Sorry to be dumb, what does FTW mean? Doh!
- urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -2/+1You have no idea how much I value my freedom, jackass. You act like ISP's are just stomping all over people's rights as if they are some big tyrannical entity that is just ruining the lives of people left and right. If no one ever stole any intellectual property this would be a non-issue, so I ask you, where did it start? With the ISP or the illegal downloading? I think it's the latter.
Furthermore, I have about 20 gigs of music, probably less than half of which I actually own on CD or purchased online. But my point is, I don't go parading around acting like the corporations are the only ones involved in the "net neutrality" issue that are doing anything wrong. (In other words, at least I'm not a hypocrite). Stealing is what people do on a daily basis with P2P software. If you're not willing to admit that downloading copyrighted material that you didn't purchase is theft you're lying to yourself. Never did I say ISP's should be allowed to spy on people, I was simply implying that there's a whole bunch of people out there who just want "net neutrality" enforced by the government so they can continue to steal without fear of consequence. They don't give two ***** about the rights to privacy issue at hand.
The fact that you can even try to assume that I don't value freedom, or that you say things like, "people like you" are part of the problem is laughable. You said absolutely nothing constructive nor did you actually make a point pertaining to the issue. You just throw around some useless rhetoric about liberty and attack the person instead of the argument. And if you need someone to define stealing for you, you really do have morality issues. If you steal, you know when you're stealing. You don't steal media out of necessity for survival.
I don't see GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS resulting in any sort of deliverance from this supposed tyrannical entity we call ISP's. You all assume that legislators are just going to make this perfect little resolution that's going to do exactly what you want and have no negative impact on the internet. Do you know what an earmark is? Do you know how politicians operate? They will squeeze so much extra ***** into a bill pertaining to the internet that it will allow the government to get it's foot in the door and do god knows what to the internet in the name of keeping it "neutral". Like banning pornography or ending up policing people via the internet for the corporations (so they don't have to illegaly spy on us, the government will just do it for them!) or restricting access to sites they deem "inappropriate". Just say it's a terrorist website and don't let anyone see it, problem solved.
My problem isn't so much with the idea of net neutrality, I know the intentions are good. And in a perfect society, I'd probably even like the idea. I just cannot trust our lawmakers or those who enforce the laws. Words are too open for interpretation in law, just look what's been done to our Constitution. If you look at the 4th amendment we already have a law that should make any spying via ISP's illegal, but the constitution is "just a god damned piece of paper" so we have to go through all this ***** when it's already been covered for us 232 years ago.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Who needs Net Neutrality laws to stop the evil ISP? We already have one. ^ - urgeigh, on 08/19/2008, -4/+2No that's not WRONG, Pintomp3. If you pass legislation to let government regulate the internet it's effectively not neutral anymore, even if they are protecting it from the corporations who's going to protect the net from the government? The intentions are good, but I just really don't like the idea of letting those slimy bastards pass laws in America that will effect my precious internets.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 