Should we give government control over the internet?

[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.

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

Sounds like Democrats to me.

 

[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.

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.

Can you explain the left wing posters like yourself who do the same thing?

Tell me something, whay, exactly, is Obamacare a good thing? Can you actually mount a cogent defense for it? Can you cite SCOTUS cases that support that position? If so challeneged, I could easily mount a defense of Obamacare based on why it would help the economy, and how the government has authority to actually pass an individual mandate, and even cite case law were the courts actually supported the government ordering people to purchase things. I can also mount a cogent attack on it, explaining why it is wrong, and why the mandate is a gross misuse of the government's power to regulate a market.

That is because, unlike you, this right wing nut case exttremist actually thinks for himself, examines the evidence, and forms and opinion based on what he himself thinks, not what others think.

Net neutrality is a real problem only in the feeble brains of stupid politiciians. There has never beeen a single successful attempt mounted by any one company to regulate the traffic over their network in a way that allows them to choke off the programming that their competitors provide. Do you have any reason why that is true? Do you think the government, despite continued failures to prevent that from happening and loosing every single case they actually brought under existing law to punish anyone who did anything remotely resembling controlling the internet? If not, who did?

If the "media corps." whatever the fuch that is, actually opposes net neutrality why did the FCC write net neutrality rules that where lobbied for by the media? Do you ever think for yourself, or do you just listen to consumer advocates who tell you what you need to do to stay safe?

The reason I personally call net neutrality a "Government Takeover of the Internet" is actually pretty simple, at this point in time the government cannot say anything about the internet or its content. Since they have no say in it, giving them a say in it is giving them control. If you understood simple logic this conversation would be over.

Feel free to mek me look like an idiot by admitting I am right here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

More misdirected intellectual superiority from the resident philosophaster.


Google it, then think about it, you might get it.

 

[whitehall]

I think the government has a duty to monitor the internet and probably at least one building in the massive CIA complex is dedicated to just that. Think about which end of the political spectrum is always pushing for control of information. Hint: it ain't the right side. Think about that.