Thank God for the Internet

July 9th, 2010

Because we’re no longer dependent on the mainstream media to decide what’s important and what’s not:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

Entry Filed under: Media

15 Comments Add your own

  • 1. neomom  |  July 9th, 2010 at 11:34 am

    At least until the “Kill Switch” legislation and “Net Neutrality” get put in place.

    sigh

  • 2. Debunked  |  July 9th, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    Do you even know what net neutrality is?

    Net neutrality is a good thing.

    Net neutrality, in a nut shell, means that all bits sent down the wire are treated like all other bits sent down the wire. Net neutrality means that internet service providers can not discriminate at content being sent from anywhere on the web to anywhere else on the web.

    Without net neutrality, you give ISPs the power to control what you do with your internet. For example, without net neutrality they can charge money based on the content you’re downloading.

    If you think net neutrality is a bad thing then you are grossly ignorant of what you are talking about.

    Seriously, educate yourself before posting things like that. If you type “net neutrality” into Google, the very first sentence of the very first link states it perfectly:

    “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.”

  • 3. neomom  |  July 9th, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    No – “Net Neutrality” is politispeak for the government basically taking over the internet. But then again – they want to take over everything.

    It will put the FCC bureaucrats into a position of picking winners and losers and dictating to private businesses how their private property must be run. Turning the internet, essentially, into a public utlity.

    And if you don’t think that means content censorship, I have some lovely beachfront property in Tulsa for you.

    Besides, anything being pushed this hard by the Orwellian group “Free Press” cannot be a good thing.

  • 4. Debunked  |  July 9th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    Congratulations on getting one part right. The only thing net neutrality will do is dictate to private businesses (read that, internet service providers) on what they can not do.

    Namely, exactly what I said above. Charge fees for being able to download particular content off the web that would, otherwise, be freely available.

    We currently DO generally have net neutrality in the United States. The legislation is attempting to keep it that way. There has been various things implemented by ISPs in the past few years which are beginning to limit net neutrality. For example, torrents or filesharing programs being reduced in bandwidth or blocked by certain ISPs.

    It is these filters starting to be created to block particular content that is precisely what net neutrality is meant to make illegal. Start educating yourself more on what it really is and stop repeating GOP talking points.

    But hey, if you want your internet bill to look like this:
    $40 – broadband access
    $10 – Google search
    $5 – Google maps
    $5 – WordPress blog access

    Then keep on believing that net neutrality is a bad thing. I’ll be here to say I told you so by stealing somebody else’s wifi, since I sure as hell won’t be supporting those payment models.

  • 5. David Casper  |  July 10th, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Debunked, you’re demonstrating yourself to be as grossly ignorant as you accuse others, at least when it comes to throwing down an assertion and firmly believing there’s no possible alternative.

    As you describe net neutrality it does sound just perfect. But you completely ignore the fact that the government will be dictating to private businesses how to use the infrastructure they built.

    That’s just wrong.

  • 6. neomom  |  July 10th, 2010 at 8:53 am

    That’s OK Dave,

    Debunked can’t see past his Free Press, MoveOn and DNC talking points about how the Kind and Benevolent Government will ensure that life will be fair for him. Debunked has a right to it. And the Government would never try to shut down – er, regulate, opposing views (Don’t watch Fox News or read conservative blogs – watch MSNBC and read HuffPo instead!) or have media blackouts of major events they are botching the response on (gulf oil spill) right?

    Those ISPs were supposed to build infrastructure with their private funds for the Government to be able to dictate to them. They are just evil businesses anyway.

    The Kind and Benevolent Government will provide every need.

    I’m guessing Debunked isn’t old enough to remember what really happened in the Soviet Bloc or Tianannamen Square. Lord knows they don’t teach it in school anymore.

  • 7. Debunked  |  July 10th, 2010 at 9:15 am

    It’s not how I describe net neutrality. It’s the exact definition of net neutrality. It’s what we had for the first decade of the internet and it’s what is starting to become less so with ISPs filtering or blocking content to their users.

    News flash. Net neutrality has been around long before the recent politicization of it. And, as an aside, I do not read MoveOn or Free Press.

    But I see that neomom has shifted from net neutrality is bad to government shouldn’t control private businesses, so we should let the ISPs kill net neutrality (as I described it above).

    Way to go. You went from saying net neutrality is bad because you thought it would be government regulating what would be on the internet. Now you’re saying net neutrality is bad because ISPs “build the infrastructure” so they should have a say in what content they provide.

    In all of five total posts you’ve done a complete 180 just so you can maintain your jaded view that net neutrality is bad, despite it actually being the very thing that you were saying it would destroy in your very first post.

  • 8. neomom  |  July 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Um no –

    I think its bad because of all of the above.

    The internet has thrived on its own. If you don’t like your ISP get another one.

    Your naivete is telling of your own jaded thoughts.

  • 9. neomom  |  July 10th, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. (George Washington)

  • 10. Elliot  |  July 10th, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    I’m in favor of Net Neutrality as I understand it…but I also have no faith that how I understand it is how it would acutally work.

  • 11. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Dave, you too quickly and naively dismiss more than a century of intensely complicated relationships between government and private business when it comes to telecom. For how many decades did the government subsidize and monopolize AT&T? How much of that fiber is on public right-of-way, and was some oversight contractually allowed? What dark cooperations at MAE-East and MAE-West have allowed the government to watch most USA Internet traffic already, even before Obama came along? What market pressures exist (naturally through practical market forces, or unnaturally from government interaction) that result in many people having only one choice of high-speed provider? What’s unfair about this? What’s wrong with an ISP watching what you do on the Internet, and slowing or favoring your traffic on a packet by packet basis? The Second Amendment might protect guns, but it doesn’t protect encryption tools. Am I a criminal for using them?

    Government favors continue to this day. Wisconsin’s own telecom law was rewritten two years ago because ATT came to Madison, handed out money and a bill-mill draft of the new law. The first drafts wanted to effectively exempt ATT from any oversight on U-Verse at all. There’s a practical reality for you. Should ATT be able to examine and throttle Internet traffic? Using the wires we subsidized? They received billions in subsidies in Wisconsin alone under Tommy.

    Are over-the-air radio and TV broadcasters paying a fair market rate for their exclusive use of frequencies? Are cable operators paying their fair share for the use of the public right-of-way? Maybe the government could charge a higher rent for unbridled unregulated pipes, and a cheaper price if ISPs agreed to not preferentially examine traffic. Why are low-power local broadcasters effectively prohibited by the FCC? To what extent has government served to codify and protect particular broadcast technologies – again, using the same sort of public benefit argument?

  • 12. David Casper  |  July 12th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Soooooo, because the government’s been sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong all this time there’s a justification for doing more of it?

  • 13. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Sooooo, you’re saying it’s great that ATT can lobby state after state, dictating to government how they’ll profit from the infrastructure they were subsidized to build, but it’s not proper for government today to oversee the regulatory decisions made by past administrations.

    What’s next, you want to sell the roads, too? At some point in a Libertarian’s maturity, you realize that you can cause plenty of harm by only partially undo-ing what has come before, as well as realizing that big corporations like ATT aren’t in business to be concerned about what’s fair and just.

    If you want to play with the grown-ups today, you’ve got to realize you can’t just snap your fingers and make all the good stuff appear and all the bad stuff go away because you’ve deregulated one small aspect of a very complex subject. This is why you went to college.

  • 14. David Casper  |  July 12th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    And another thing I learned in college is to know when to stop paying attention to the pompous know-it-alls.

    Thanks.

  • 15. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    So you got your degree in “throwing down an assertion and firmly believing there‚Äôs no possible alternative”?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.