Should we give government control over the internet?

[Vaard]

Its coming November 20th, whether you like it or not under the guise of "Net Neutrality". Obama will have his thumb on anything you say. From what we've seen of this administration so far, though, its going to be more like his bootheel.

really?


what part of the net neutrality law will allow obama to do that?

 

[Vaard]

It's interesting that this thread started in response to net neutrality regulations, which would NOT represent "government control of the internet," but now that we have this bill up for a vote -- Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte: FYI That's the Incumbent Karen Kwiatkowski Is Running Against! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty -- which WOULD represent government control and censorship --

-- and we wait for the outrage from the right --

-- you could hear a pin drop.

republicans support govenrment control and censorship as long as they are the ones doing it.........

 

[occupied]

The right has much to fear from a free internet, net neutrality is target no.1.

 

[Dragon]

It's interesting that this thread started in response to net neutrality regulations, which would NOT represent "government control of the internet," but now that we have this bill up for a vote -- Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte: FYI That's the Incumbent Karen Kwiatkowski Is Running Against! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty -- which WOULD represent government control and censorship --

-- and we wait for the outrage from the right --

-- you could hear a pin drop.

republicans support govenrment control and censorship as long as they are the ones doing it.........

Honestly, I don't think that's the problem on this forum. I think that our right-wing posters, or a substantial percentage of them anyway, think what they're told to think and parrot back what they're told to say by right-wing talk radio and TV. Right-wing TV and radio, in turn, use this propaganda outlet to push the interests of the big corporations and ESPECIALLY the major media corps (makes since, as they ARE the major media corps). The media corps have no problem with a REAL government takeover of the Internet, since they mostly control the government anyway. This would allow them, via the government, to shut down social media networks on an intellectual-property pretext whenever a populist movement threatens to get out of hand.

Net neutrality, on the other hand, poses a problem to the media corps and corporate interests in general because it PREVENTS censorship or selective silencing of troublesome web sites. Right now, the Internet provides a way around the media corps' monopoly of information, and it's understandable that they would find that troubling. By suppressing web sites that offer a competing narrative, the media corps could neutralize the on-line danger.

Calling prevention of censorship a "government takeover" is a classic example of the Big Lie. Remaining silent when Congress threatens REAL government takeover is simply the other side of the coin.

 

[Photonic]

It's interesting that this thread started in response to net neutrality regulations, which would NOT represent "government control of the internet," but now that we have this bill up for a vote -- Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte: FYI That's the Incumbent Karen Kwiatkowski Is Running Against! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty -- which WOULD represent government control and censorship --

-- and we wait for the outrage from the right --

-- you could hear a pin drop.

republicans support govenrment control and censorship as long as they are the ones doing it.........

Honestly, I don't think that's the problem on this forum. I think that our right-wing posters, or a substantial percentage of them anyway, think what they're told to think and parrot back what they're told to say by right-wing talk radio and TV. Right-wing TV and radio, in turn, use this propaganda outlet to push the interests of the big corporations and ESPECIALLY the major media corps (makes since, as they ARE the major media corps). The media corps have no problem with a REAL government takeover of the Internet, since they mostly control the government anyway. This would allow them, via the government, to shut down social media networks on an intellectual-property pretext whenever a populist movement threatens to get out of hand.

Net neutrality, on the other hand, poses a problem to the media corps and corporate interests in general because it PREVENTS censorship or selective silencing of troublesome web sites. Right now, the Internet provides a way around the media corps' monopoly of information, and it's understandable that they would find that troubling. By suppressing web sites that offer a competing narrative, the media corps could neutralize the on-line danger.

Calling prevention of censorship a "government takeover" is a classic example of the Big Lie. Remaining silent when Congress threatens REAL government takeover is simply the other side of the coin.

SOPA. Go.

 

[paulitician]

The real question is how much more Government control of the Internet should we give. They already control it. They're spying on us all right now as we types our replies. They know exactly where you are at all times too. If you own a Cell Phone anyway. The Government is all about control. The only thing we can do now is fight the censorship and Taxation. So buck up Americans and get to fighting. Because they are coming.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No. I don't think that ANY government should have control over the internet. Imagine what would happen if someone got control......

First off, they would have shut down the transmissions of the protesters of the Arab Spring so that nothing would have gotten out.

Next, for the stuff that DOES leak out, the government would have full control over the story and they would be able to spin it any way they wanted.

Information would be limited and as a species, we would all get a bit dumber. I mean.......look at those that watch FAUX Nooze only.........studies have proven they are much less informed in many subjects than people who got their news from other sources.

I LIKE being able to check and see if someone is lying to me.

 

[paulitician]

No. I don't think that ANY government should have control over the internet. Imagine what would happen if someone got control......

First off, they would have shut down the transmissions of the protesters of the Arab Spring so that nothing would have gotten out.

Next, for the stuff that DOES leak out, the government would have full control over the story and they would be able to spin it any way they wanted.

Information would be limited and as a species, we would all get a bit dumber. I mean.......look at those that watch FAUX Nooze only.........studies have proven they are much less informed in many subjects than people who got their news from other sources.

I LIKE being able to check and see if someone is lying to me.

Yes all we have left is to try and hold off the censorship and Taxation. They're already moving in on both so there isn't much time left. So Americans better get up off their couches and get going. It will all be gone before they know it.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm sure there are plenty of our usual nanny staters who would think it's a fine idea.

Nah. Besides it being a bad idea, it's not like the Internet is a single place or entity. Try placing too many restrictions and I'm sure an Internet Underground would begin to grow.

 

[RDD_1210]

More misdirected outrage from the rightwingers who still hear a dial-tone when connecting to the internet and "You've got mail!" letting them know that the latest Obama is a Muslim/Nazi/Communist chain email has hit their inbox.

 

[paulitician]

I'm sure there are plenty of our usual nanny staters who would think it's a fine idea.

Nah. Besides it being a bad idea, it's not like the Internet is a single place or entity. Try placing too many restrictions and I'm sure an Internet Underground would begin to grow.

lol! They would immediately be labelled 'Terrorists' and targeted for death. So don't count on that "Internet Underground" ever happening. The Government would never allow that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm sure there are plenty of our usual nanny staters who would think it's a fine idea.

Nah. Besides it being a bad idea, it's not like the Internet is a single place or entity. Try placing too many restrictions and I'm sure an Internet Underground would begin to grow.

lol! They would immediately be labelled 'Terrorists' and targeted for death. So don't count on that "Internet Underground" ever happening. The Government would never allow that.

Wanna bet? Have you ever met some of these computer geeks? One is my friend, and that dude can do just about anything he wants to when it comes to the 'net and free cable.

 

[kwc57]

Anyone really want the government, any government, control the internet?

Some governments are pushing to be more than mere stakeholders and instead to have the final say in important matters. China and Russia want the United Nations General Assembly to adopt an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security”. India, Brazil and South Africa have called for a “new global body” to control the internet. Other countries want to give a UN agency, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a supervisory role. The upcoming renegotiation of the treaty that defines the ITU’s competences is regarded as an opportunity to push this agenda. Even Western governments, which usually favour the multi-stakeholder system, would like to rein in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose board decides which top-level domains to add (such as .com or .biz). ICANN has just started the process to introduce a lot more high-level domains (expect to see .pepsi and .lawyer), which is why governments are increasingly nervous about the body’s sometimes opaque decision-making process—and why some would like to have a veto over controversial new domains (such as .jesus, .gay and .tibet).
Governments have a role to play—such as defending their citizens’ interests—but they should not be allowed the final say over such matters, for creeping state control would suffocate the internet. Imagine if the ITU, a classic example of a sluggish international bureaucracy with antiquated diplomatic rituals, or indeed any other inter-governmental organisation, had been put in charge of the nascent global network two decades ago. Would it have produced a world-changing fount of innovation? We think not.

Internet governance: In praise of chaos | The Economist

Come on comrade, you know the state always knows what's best for you.

 

[paulitician]

Nah. Besides it being a bad idea, it's not like the Internet is a single place or entity. Try placing too many restrictions and I'm sure an Internet Underground would begin to grow.

lol! They would immediately be labelled 'Terrorists' and targeted for death. So don't count on that "Internet Underground" ever happening. The Government would never allow that.

Wanna bet? Have you ever met some of these computer geeks? One is my friend, and that dude can do just about anything he wants to when it comes to the 'net and free cable.

He would end up at GITMO. When the Government takes control,they take control. There can be no exceptions. He would likely be arrested under a Patriot Act provision. Labeling an American a 'Terrorist' really isn't too hard these days.

 

[ABikerSailor]

lol! They would immediately be labelled 'Terrorists' and targeted for death. So don't count on that "Internet Underground" ever happening. The Government would never allow that.

Wanna bet? Have you ever met some of these computer geeks? One is my friend, and that dude can do just about anything he wants to when it comes to the 'net and free cable.

He would end up at GITMO. When the Government takes control,they take control. There can be no exceptions. He would likely be arrested under a Patriot Act provision. Labeling an American a 'Terrorist' really isn't too hard these days.

Sorry..........but you've gotta catch them first, and many know how to bounce a signal so that it can't be tracked.

 

[paulitician]

Wanna bet? Have you ever met some of these computer geeks? One is my friend, and that dude can do just about anything he wants to when it comes to the 'net and free cable.

He would end up at GITMO. When the Government takes control,they take control. There can be no exceptions. He would likely be arrested under a Patriot Act provision. Labeling an American a 'Terrorist' really isn't too hard these days.

Sorry..........but you've gotta catch them first, and many know how to bounce a signal so that it can't be tracked.

Hey i wish em luck. I really do.

 

[dilloduck]

Wanna bet? Have you ever met some of these computer geeks? One is my friend, and that dude can do just about anything he wants to when it comes to the 'net and free cable.

He would end up at GITMO. When the Government takes control,they take control. There can be no exceptions. He would likely be arrested under a Patriot Act provision. Labeling an American a 'Terrorist' really isn't too hard these days.

Sorry..........but you've gotta catch them first, and many know how to bounce a signal so that it can't be tracked.

Enough to catch your geek buddies.

 

[BOBO]

I mean ALL people are already suspected...

ATTENTION PREPPERS - Having More Than 7 Days Of Food Makes You A Suspected Terrorist - YouTube

...terrorists if their not employed in the field of government & it's security apparatus. Sieg Heil!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a few years ago you were cheerleading warrantless wiretapping.

Prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's interesting that this thread started in response to net neutrality regulations, which would NOT represent "government control of the internet," but now that we have this bill up for a vote -- Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte: FYI That's the Incumbent Karen Kwiatkowski Is Running Against! | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty -- which WOULD represent government control and censorship --

-- and we wait for the outrage from the right --

-- you could hear a pin drop.

Anyone can hear a pin drop in the vast cavern that is supposed to contain your brain. I oppose any government involvement over the the content or flow of the internet. I spent so much time making noise about SOPA/E-PARASITE/PROTECT-IP that I actually spent less time on this site where all I get is idiots that want to blame the other side for the problem. That, in case you missed the point, is you, which makes you part of the problem, and the enemy. Your views on anything are therefore worthless to any thinking person, which probably makes you safe among your friends.