What is Digg?Sponsored by Backblaze
Your Hard Drive Died? There, there... view!
backblaze.com - Find out how to back everything up over the Internet--your girlish sobs are making us uncomfortable.
415 Comments
- rwbrinso, on 10/27/2009, -2/+592I just love that a guy who admitted (while running for President!) that he couldn't use a Blackberry somehow thinks he knows enough about the internet to draft legislation that screws people over.
- blueduck4ever, on 10/27/2009, -11/+499Glenn Beck had a show against net-neutrality. So that should give you a good idea of where this is heading.
- stinklez, on 10/27/2009, -1/+458the Internet Freedom Act is such a clever name. You're against the Internet Freedom Act? so you're against freedom? Why do you hate America?
- inactive, on 10/27/2009, -5/+383this is a big IQ test for americans. how many of then capable to understand, what net neutrality means. I hope enough
- jessemoya, on 10/27/2009, -3/+359Government, keep your hands off of the internet! It belongs to the people!
...of giant corporations with no accountability to the public. - Mujokan, on 10/27/2009, -3/+329Corporate lobbying ***** sucks. That is all.
- rypic7, on 10/27/2009, -14/+284I don't mind Glenn Beck being against net neutrality, but I just don't get why he won't deny these allegations that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I'm not saying that he did, but he's not saying he didn't.
- tgc1, on 10/27/2009, -0/+175We already have Net Neutrality.
The big problem we have now is preserving it, as the concept itself is attacked by big business interests keen on finding a new way to ***** us all by imposing a tiered internet. Basically making you and the people who host their web sites pay twice. You pay to access them, they pay to serve it to you (we already pay that -- you with an ISP, them with Hosting Fees). And these ***** toolboxes become the middlemen.
This rings a lot like the music industry. The people who ultimately sell the product have little input in it, but reap all of the profit. They basically want to be given an access fee. Every. Single. Time. On every web site on the Internet.
Come to think of it, what the telcos and big business interests are proposing is a lot like a mafia protection racket.
Pay-per-website? How about ***** YOU. - bjenidles, on 10/27/2009, -7/+168Canadian mirror:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-wi ... - Hetman, on 10/27/2009, -4/+152I understand why Beck is against it. He works for one of the biggest media corporations in the world. It just shows how big of a hypocrite he really is.
- spilt, on 10/27/2009, -5/+122It depends on how it is explained to them. If it can be distorted and then simplified into a catch phrase slogan and repeated ad nauseum on Fox News, the battle is lost.
- toleshei, on 10/27/2009, -5/+112Republicans are a series of noobs.
- juliusthecat, on 10/27/2009, -2/+109The republican party has nothing to do with conservatism any more.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/27/2009, -0/+98John Hodgman explained it best:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-19-2006 ... - cride11, on 10/27/2009, -1/+90I caught that show. All I could think was wow Beck is not even hiding his true agenda anymore. Big business and status quo.
- boo3710, on 10/27/2009, -2/+84The Internet is a series of tubes.
- deathandtaverns, on 10/27/2009, -4/+86too late. It'll be "We don't want a government takeover of the internet"
It makes it sound like the government is censoring the blogs when they're just trying to make sure that the people who own the (largely publicly funded but cannot be publicly owned because omg socialism) networks don't effectively censor people. The republicans are bad at many things but boiling complex issues down to 10 words or less in an incredibly misleading way isn't one of them. - zoomer123, on 10/27/2009, -3/+76Stewart works for one of the biggest media corporations in the world too. But he ain't no bitch to his boss.
- shaka776, on 10/27/2009, -5/+78How to argue against Net Neutrality?
"The interwebs - ther takin yer jobs...." - jessemoya, on 10/27/2009, -3/+70No, they're accountable to their shareholders. You act like you've never dealt with an ISP.
- JeniBurns, on 10/27/2009, -2/+64I hate America because it ran over my dog. And then laughed and told me to buy a leash.
- master69better, on 10/27/2009, -0/+62Coming soon - Internet plans
Free AnyTime Accelerated Access*: Macy's, Amazon, CNN, AOL, MySpace, Best Buy, Yahoo and 50 other selected web partners hand picked for a superior internet experience $34.99 per month
Weekend Free Accelerated Access*: ESPN, Gawker Media, New York Times, Dailymotion and 150 other preferred web partners. Add $19.99 per month
Add a URL for Accelerated Access*#: Add $3.99 per URL
* - "Broadband" and "Accelerated Access" experience only applies to partner sites. Some restrictions may apply.
# - not all sites support acceleration. Please check approved site list to see if your site supports acceleration. You may submit a site for an acceleration test by our experts. Music and video streaming sites and Google acceleration not available under current plan. Rules may change without notice. - tugcow80, on 10/27/2009, -3/+63The customers with how many options?
- CaptObvious, on 10/27/2009, -0/+57The funny thing is, he didn't really attack net neutrality, he chose to attack the people supporting it, calling them Marxists and Maoists, just throwing this ***** around.
- ell0bo, on 10/27/2009, -0/+55Considering how mindless the majority of your rant was, and how easily confused by the top post you were, I fear that last sentence wasn't actually sarcasm. Please, oh please, tell me you were kidding...
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/27/2009, -0/+55Comedy Central is owned by Viacom/MTV Networks, one of the OTHER biggest media corporations in the world.
The reason Stewart does not share Beck's views is because he is intelligent and actually has standards and ethics, not because he doesn't work for a large media corporation. - c010rb1indusa, on 10/27/2009, -0/+53Campaign finance reform NOW!
the only real way to change washington - bsou, on 10/27/2009, -1/+53***** CORPORATE LOBBYISTS
- overridemymind, on 10/27/2009, -3/+52Fox News is a series of boobs.
- mrboojangles04, on 10/27/2009, -0/+48Digg, I'm appalled at how many jokes are being cracked about this article. Our Internet is being ***** with. This is for real this time.
- Hetman, on 10/27/2009, -4/+49Correction Barbara Bush is a guy.
- thrashertm, on 10/27/2009, -7/+51"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Ben Franklin - joculator, on 10/27/2009, -3/+46haha, the Hitler line was awesome.
- jessemoya, on 10/27/2009, -0/+41THIS is why this bill was written. This confusion is exactly what they wanted.
- ghuytro, on 10/27/2009, -1/+42And BOOM there it is, naked and laid bare.
Corporations are the new government and we the customers and shareholders speak with our dollars.
One dollar, one vote.
100 dollars, 100 votes
1 million dollars…… well, you get the idea - marcb83, on 10/27/2009, -4/+45It's hard being a young conservative. I guess I will have to chalk my self up as an independent these days.
- GolfDude, on 10/27/2009, -0/+40oh why cant there just be a new law signed that says if your campaign was given money by a certain group, you can not introduce or vote on legislation that is releated to that group, if you get big bucks from a phone company, you should be banend from making a bill or voting on a bill that directly deals with a phone company in any way, and if you do you should be found guilty of bribery and removed from your seat. hey obama, by bush's standards, were still in wartime, so you can override those little pussies if they refuse to look at such a bill..
- Slicklines, on 10/27/2009, -1/+41What I really want to see are the neocons get on here and defend the idea that providers should control what they see. My guess is they are too blinded by hate of anything deemed "liberal" to do anything than try to support McCain and Beck here. Hilarious hi-jinks ensue...
- rypic7, on 10/27/2009, -0/+37You can't say handjob on tv?
- Slicklines, on 10/27/2009, -1/+37Several things wrong with what seems like a logical point of view.
First: You assume that somehow defeating McCain's bill means all of the sudden the government will act differently than they have over the last many years. That is, suddenly they will take over the Internet. Despite the constant fear mongering there has been no move by anyone in the current administration to do this.
Second, the government in its infinite charity to corporations has for all intents and purposes granted area monopolies to providers. Even here in Denver I have all of three choices for high speed internet, and two of those stink. This idea you have of competition has been doomed by the very people (such as McCain) who now stand behind giving the providers even more power.
Third, your reliance on purely open market forces is (alas) naive in 2009. The 'open market' is an abstract concept. In reality companies will do everything thing they can to get away with everything they can. This includes shutting down competitors. (Note how United was charged with that very thing here in Colorado) Introducing truly open competition in the US market would take massive regulation by the very government you fear.
Fourth, you assume that the companies in question deserve the right to choose what we see. This when massive amounts of public money was used to help them set up their systems in the first place.
Fifth, how will you introduce competition in (say) small town Nebraska? There simply isn't enough money to be made in rural areas to support seven or eight providers. Without government subsidies, that is. You willing to have your taxes raised for that? I'm guessing no.
Sixth, If all competitors in a certain area are (let's say for the sake of argument) liberal in their leanings, and they start charging money to see the Fox News site, will you still think McCain's bill is a good idea? I think not.
In short, fear of the government is all well and good, but irrational fear is being used here to pressure people into a very very very bad idea. - Mejari, on 10/27/2009, -2/+35[citation needed]
- bradacus, on 10/27/2009, -0/+33Ummmm...
I'm sorry but that might actually pass. When your typical American reads "Internet Freedom Act" they will support it without any clue as to what it actually means.
I'm actually kind of worried about this. - inactive, on 10/28/2009, -0/+32While I personally don't believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, there are some facts about his case that are pretty disconcerting.
FACT: Glenn Beck was sexually mature in 1990.
FACT: There were young girls in 1990.
FACT: At least one young girl was raped and murdered in 1990.
These are facts, people! If Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990, then why won't he just come out and deny his horrible allegation? If he's truly innocent, then why can't he tell us where he was on the night of 1990? - TheLoneWolf071, on 10/27/2009, -0/+31If you've heard McCain's Argument against NN, it's complete BS. He says that a "free" internet eliminates competition and puts people out of a job that they might other wise have if they were working for big Telecom.
- Raz4Life, on 10/27/2009, -1/+32But what if you CAN'T get your service from someone else? What if AT&T is the only broadband ISP in your neighborhood? Then you're *****.
- chippyr, on 10/27/2009, -1/+32[common sense needed]
- non00b, on 10/27/2009, -0/+29In the USA bloggers who review products must mention if they receive any gifts or incentives from the companies. Anyone who proposes bills/laws should have to mention any campaign contributions they received from relevant corporations, IN THE BILL.
- okayokayokay, on 10/27/2009, -0/+29JeniBurns, allow me to clear this up for you: rwbrinso's comments clearly indicates that he is in favor of KEEPING our current system of Net Nuetrality (as evidenced by the blatant mockery of John McCain - the guy who wants to give Verizon and AT&T unprecedented power over the internet.) You totally missed his point, thought he was arguing for the OPPOSITE of what he really was, and thus your rebuttal is being dugg down because it's COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, and poorly constructed to boot. Make sense? Cleared up? Can we all go back to making Unicorn Butt Sex Jokes now?
- non00b, on 10/27/2009, -1/+30net neutrality = keeping the internet competitive = pro-business.
- Hetman, on 10/27/2009, -0/+28It is like reverse double speak. Which is technically regular speech. People are so used to hearing thinks like the patriot act "which has nothing to do with patriots." or the department of defense which is always on the offense. So now that they hear something like net neutrality they are just going to assume that it is bad because it was introduced by the government.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 420 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is