Enjoy the internet while it is free...government will control it soon

[Vaard]

It's a known fact that our current Government employs spammers & spies to go onto political message boards and Social Media sites

Oh, for the love of God. First truthers, then birthers, now spammers. If it's a "known fact" then how come nobody seems to know about it other than you?

that and there is little return on the investment.......

most people who come to political message board are pretty set in their views and leanings and it would be a waste of resources to engage such.......

you might "recruit" or "turn" others to your cause in the course of a month or two, but that is not enough people to warrant the time needed to do it.......

social media sites might have a couple, but fakes are pretty easy to spot there and a person pushing their cause or view without being honest about their real persona would end up turning off more people than it attracted.......

most recruitment would involve events with open sponsors to show how "cool" their side is and try to attract people that way......

paulitician just comes off as paranoid and naraccistic thinking that his view are so important or "truthful" that paid people would waste their time worrying about the things he posts.........

he does enough damage to himself by exposing that he really has no clue about the things he is trying to discuss and just spends his posts regurgitating tired old cliches and talking points.......

and i am a paul supporter myself.......

 

[Vaard]

No offense,but you do sound like you work for the Government and are paid to be here. Next you'll probably be calling everyone 'Nutters" and "Wingnuts" right? I know the Government pays spammers to come to political message boards. You definitley fit the mold. So i wont be replying to your comments anymore. You are likely a Government bot. Have a nice day.

Link?

You dont need a link for something that is logical, and has a high probability. Campains funding is supposed to hit 1 billion dollars from both candidates in 2012. Kinda makes a salary for a english major small and insignificant doesnt it??

We will spend millions on advertising on the news networks, but we wont spend 50k a year for a propagandist to spam dumb shit on the net?? Yea right.

it all rests on your return on investment.....

advertising on tv and media reaches millions, many who are undecided or can be influenced.......

you dont get the same return from spamming and it often turns away people who might otherwise join you.......

if anything, you might get spammers pretnding to be on the other side spamming dumb shit to make the other side look bad, which is good grounds to suspect paultician is really a perry or obama operative out to make paul supporters look bad, although that is not really needed on the internet.. there are enough honest "paulbots" driving away people who might otherwise support paul to not need paid people to do it......

 

[Uncensored2008]

It pains me that someone could be this completely and utterly misguided. Which radio host told you this information?

Yeah, the FCC would never interfere with content.

Just ask CBS and Janet Jackson.

 

[8537]

It pains me that someone could be this completely and utterly misguided. Which radio host told you this information?

Yeah, the FCC would never interfere with content.

Just ask CBS and Janet Jackson.

Yeah, if you look at Cable television the first thing to come to mind is "Wow! There sure is no diversity of content here. The government is so restrictive".

Broadcasts across public airways are restricted because they use ....em...PUBLIC airways. The public has agreed to a specific set of decency standards. Do I think they're way too strict? Yes. I think passing nudity and mild sexual content should be allowed on public airways, for instance. But I'm only one person in a public of 310M.

 

[Uncensored2008]

LOL, it will? Please show ANYWHERE that this is what will be happening or even remotely close to what will be happening. So if the government is deciding "who shows up on searches" that means the government will be taking over Microsoft and Google and telling them what to do?

Obviously to you, this topic is as equally confusing as rocket science. You're arguing a topic you are making blatantly clear you don't understand at all.

The current Net Neutrality deals with the ability of telcos and backbone providers to prioritize packets. The left, being stupid, thinks "Duh, yeah - they can't slow down my pron and warez." What these nimrods don't and can't grasp is that all networks prioritize packets. If I run VOIP over a layer 3 switch, damn right I'm going to create a QOS priority for the ports carrying voice traffic that is higher than those of web surfing.

To deny the right of service providers, particularly at the backbone level, to offer higher QOS priority to voice and video conference traffic effectively destroys the unified communication efforts of the industry.

This is idiots with no technical knowledge ******* with that which they don't comprehend.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, if they do do something we don't like, we can vote people out. That's not so easy when you're talking a corporation.

Quite the opposite, Konrad.

The FCC is not an elective body, you cannot "vote them out," nor do anything to them. If you don't like the way your ISP operates, you are free to switch to a different one, lowering the sales of the corporation.

You claim that this isn't effective, yet the largest Telco, AT&T went bankrupt due to their failure to serve customer needs. (The current AT&T is actually SBC, who bought the name from the defunct company)

We have power over corporations, but none over bureaucracies.

Even shareholder revolts don't work so well, because so much stock is held by other corporations.

As usual, the shit you spew has no relation to reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

ironic is that your screen name is Liberty yet you are arguing against that very thing when it comes to the internet.

You think that "liberty" means government control?

 

[Si modo]

Cool! Let's give government even MORE power.

They would never, ever abuse power.

Would they?????????

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do do you think the net neutrality bill should have been defeated? Or should the GOP have gotten its way?

Let's be clear here; the Republicans passed a measure that would END the so-called "net neutrality" that gave the federal government, through the FCC, control of the traffic flowing over the private networks that form the backbone of the Internet. The fascist democrats are the one demanding federal control.


Standard Disclaimer: I don't give a **** if you're ignoring me, stupid - I will still expose your idiocy for what it is.

 

[konradv]

Well, if they do do something we don't like, we can vote people out. That's not so easy when you're talking a corporation.

The FCC is not an elective body, you cannot "vote them out," nor do anything to them. If you don't like the way your ISP operates, you are free to switch to a different one, lowering the sales of the corporation.

You claim that this isn't effective, yet the largest Telco, AT&T went bankrupt due to their failure to serve customer needs. (The current AT&T is actually SBC, who bought the name from the defunct company)

We have power over corporations, but none over bureaucracies.

But you want us to give up a large portion of the power we have. Excuse me, I don't want to bend over and take it, like you do. What happens when the controls come down, one company or a small number corner a market and have all the power? People like you would have already pissed away any recourse we might have against monopoly practice. Sorry, but I "Lean Forward". Save your 19th century Gilded Age fantasies for someone who cares.

 

[Vaard]

Do do you think the net neutrality bill should have been defeated? Or should the GOP have gotten its way?

Let's be clear here; the Republicans passed a measure that would END the so-called "net neutrality" that gave the federal government, through the FCC, control of the traffic flowing over the private networks that form the backbone of the Internet. The fascist democrats are the one demanding federal control.


Standard Disclaimer: I don't give a **** if you're ignoring me, stupid - I will still expose your idiocy for what it is.

which part of net neutrality allows the govenrment to control internet internet traffic?

do you have a link to an actual part of the law that allows them to do that?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the FCC is going to control the spiders, web crawlers and Metatags.

Get a grip.

Anyone remember Gohper?

Yeah, remember that it was Gopher servers that Algore promoted with his moronic boast of "creating the internet."

I remember Archie and Veronica as well.

Times change.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It was the government that created and deployed it in the first place.

Not really.

What DARPA spawned was restricted to a few universities and government facilities.

Kahn was on the government payroll when he invented TCP/IP - I'll grant you that. Metcalf was NOT when he invented Ethernet. No Ethernet, no internet. Regardless, we depend on private networks to carry the packets from one place to another. The Internet rides on 99% private lines, switches and routers.

 

[konradv]

It was the government that created and deployed it in the first place.

Not really.

What DARPA spawned was restricted to a few universities and government facilities.

Kahn was on the government payroll when he invented TCP/IP - I'll grant you that. Metcalf was NOT when he invented Ethernet. No Ethernet, no internet. Regardless, we depend on private networks to carry the packets from one place to another. The Internet rides on 99% private lines, switches and routers.

Thanks to Al Gore. If it weren't for his leadership, you'd be right. The government would have control of the internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You guys seriously don't know anything about the internet. It was created by the government and in government labs. They slowly allowed people to have things like "messageboards" in the beginning.

Utter bullshit.

The BBS networks with Doors and Wildcat had not a damned thing to do with Government. I ran a Wildcat BBS for years.

And generally it was only hobbyists that used them. The "internet" actually exploded when Al Gore put through a bill that financed telecommunication upgrades and internet research.

More bullshit. Gore pushed funding for Gopher servers, a technology overshadowed by Berners-Lee and the advent of the Web.

Most things computer related were initiated by the government in one form or another.

You are completely full of shit.

Solid state RAM - Motorola, Integrated circuit - Texas Instruments, program logic modules - IBM, Unix - Dennis Ritchie (RIP), CP/M - Gary Kildall, Visacalc - Dan Bricklin, ad nasium.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, if you look at Cable television the first thing to come to mind is "Wow! There sure is no diversity of content here. The government is so restrictive".

ROFL

You do understand that cable is unrestricted - the FCC has no authority over it. Broadcast TV is under FCC control

So look again, and see the wonders that the FCC bestows upon us...

Broadcasts across public airways are restricted because they use ....em...PUBLIC airways. The public has agreed to a specific set of decency standards. Do I think they're way too strict? Yes. I think passing nudity and mild sexual content should be allowed on public airways, for instance. But I'm only one person in a public of 310M.

Public, my ass. Government enforces a monopoly for the well connected - there is nothing even approaching public to the airwaves.

 

[BlindBoo]

So the FCC is going to control the spiders, web crawlers and Metatags.

Get a grip.

Anyone remember Gohper?

Yeah, remember that it was Gopher servers that Algore promoted with his moronic boast of "creating the internet."

I remember Archie and Veronica as well.

Times change.

Anyone who claims Al said that has never investigated the issue.

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.

What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.

The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down so much that it's unusable.

The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be in the slow lane.

What's the Problem Here?
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site, every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.

Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view content.

Net Neutrality 101 | Save the Internet

 

[BlindBoo]

Do do you think the net neutrality bill should have been defeated? Or should the GOP have gotten its way?

Let's be clear here; the Republicans passed a measure that would END the so-called "net neutrality" that gave the federal government, through the FCC, control of the traffic flowing over the private networks that form the backbone of the Internet. The fascist democrats are the one demanding federal control.


Standard Disclaimer: I don't give a **** if you're ignoring me, stupid - I will still expose your idiocy for what it is.

which part of net neutrality allows the govenrment to control internet internet traffic?

do you have a link to an actual part of the law that allows them to do that?

It doesn't. The only thing the government can do is put in a kill switch. Possibly shut down access to the main DNS servers but with all the switches and hubs that make up the phyical layer of the internet and WWW, folks (well geeks) could still access alot with IP addresses instead of names.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you want us to give up a large portion of the power we have.

No Konrad, that would be you. You want the FCC to take over the internet to "make it fair." I prefer the internet being open and free.

Excuse me, I don't want to bend over and take it, like you do.

That's exactly what you want - you're just not bright enough to grasp it.

What happens when the controls come down, one company or a small number corner a market and have all the power?

What controls?

Is it your delusion that the FCC has been in charge of the Internet and the Republicans want to deregulate it?

That isn't the case, the Internet has been free and open, with the fascist democrats wanting to put it under the thumb of the FCC.

People like you would have already pissed away any recourse we might have against monopoly practice.

What "monopoly practice?" The only monopoly here is the government. YOU want to establish a monopoly and end the free internet. (I don't mean cost here.)

Sorry, but I "Lean Forward".

You "lean forward" by instituting the failed policies that thwarted broadcast television and radio?

You lean stupid.

Save your 19th century Gilded Age fantasies for someone who cares.

It isn't I in the 19th century, harboring Marxian fantasy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

which part of net neutrality allows the govenrment to control internet internet traffic?

That is what the measure does. It has nothing to do with websites or search engines. This is about packet prioritization.

Certain backbone operators, AT&T(SBC) and Verizon in particular, moved to prioritize packet traffic for business applications such as video conferencing and telecommunications. The little snots of the left threw a tantrum - "WHAT ABOUT OUR PORN? We want to see girls we don't know from the Ukrain take it up the cooter, and that's just as important as business being able to conduct telepresence - so what if they pay for it and we want it free?"

do you have a link to an actual part of the law that allows them to do that?

{Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of network neutrality.[5][6]}

Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia