Internet Czar- Susan Crawford and Acorn

[ATLMediaGroup]

Internet Czar- Susan Crawford has direct ties to Acorn through her OneWebNow project, which lists Acorn as one of its “participating organizations” Crawford, a net neutrality advocate (Socialist redistribution of broadband and govt control in the guise of ‘openness), also has a board member, Mitchell Kapor, who is an Acorn apologist:

Full story LINK (http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/09/27/internet-czar-susan-crawfords-ties-to-acorn-another-rotten-nut/)

[Fitz]

Internet Czar- Susan Crawford has direct ties to Acorn through her OneWebNow project, which lists Acorn as one of its “participating organizations” Crawford, a net neutrality advocate (Socialist redistribution of broadband and govt control in the guise of ‘openness), also has a board member, Mitchell Kapor, who is an Acorn apologist:

Full story LINK (http://blog.obamacare.tv/2009/09/27/internet-czar-susan-crawfords-ties-to-acorn-another-rotten-nut/)
I knew the crazies would start latching onto net neutrality

[See It Clearly]

All of the nuts come from the same tree.

[SonsofLiberty]

I knew the crazies would start latching onto net neutrality

Im not sure I really understand what Net neutrality is...can you explain

[SonsofLiberty]

All of the nuts come from the same tree.

Acorns....nuts....who would've thought ;)

[Fitz]

Im not sure I really understand what Net neutrality is...can you explain
The basic premise of net neutrality is that carriers may not filter or control the content of their networks. Very thorough wikipedia article on it with arguments both for and against. There are valid arguments against net neutrality, but screaming socialist conspiracy is just ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[SonsofLiberty]

The basic premise of net neutrality is that carriers may not filter or control the content of their networks. Very thorough wikipedia article on it with arguments both for and against. There are valid arguments against net neutrality, but screaming socialist conspiracy is just ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

thanks for the link

[ATLMediaGroup]

From my link a quote from Susan:
And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”
Susan said: “This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,”

Picture government funded internet access, and therefore government controlled.

[brody]

What is Net Neutrality?

Think of China - you cannot search for certain things on Google.

It is basically censorship.

[ATLMediaGroup]

What is Net Neutrality?

Think of China - you cannot search for certain things on Google.

It is basically censorship.

Hmm.. Yes. Let's see... WHY would Acorn invest in it? HOW would they benefit? Hmm... Maybe by having the internet government funded to minorities and the poor... Then regulating what they see online. Hmm.. Great way to control the population and the ballot box don't you agree?

[SonsofLiberty]

Hmm.. Yes. Let's see... WHY would Acorn invest in it? HOW would they benefit? Hmm... Maybe by having the internet government funded to minorities and the poor... Then regulating what they see online. Hmm.. Great way to control the population and the ballot box don't you agree?

ok I really need someone to explain this better to me..... why does net neut. = censorship?

[Obummer]

Net Neutrality is nothing more than the government asserting its authority over the internet by REGULATING it.

The internet has been so successful because the government HAS NOT regulated it.

I am not sure why people think it is a good idea for the government to start regulating the internet.

The only think "net neutrality" will lead to is higher prices, slower speeds, and poor network quality.

[Fitz]

ok I really need someone to explain this better to me..... why does net neut. = censorship?
By definition it is the exact opposite of censorship

[FidelisAdMortem]

Acorn a nonprofit seems to only have ties with democrats.

Is that ok for a nonprofit?

[brody]

By definition it is the exact opposite of censorship
Yes, you are right - I should have pointed out that Net Neutrality PREVENTS limiting access to content. ENDING Net Neutrality is what opens the door to censorship.

Bye, bye.

[ATLMediaGroup]

By definition it is the exact opposite of censorship


But that's the TRICK... They pick this to make it sound as if they are NOT for censorship. Funny that Susan Crawford's orgainzation OneWebDay draws inspiration from "Earth day" which is the celebration of Lennin's 100th B-day.

Communists love to censor... Haven't you heard?

[ModerateVoice]

Acorn a nonprofit seems to only have ties with democrats.

Is that ok for a nonprofit?

I believe that is finally being brought into question.

[ModerateVoice]

If one does a Google search and reads only the headlines to each link, it appears that Net Neutrality is opposed by conservatives, many businesses, and supported by the Left.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Fixed this broken link from first page in OP:

"Internet Czar, Susan Crawford, founder of OneWorldWeb, has direct ties to the race-baiting Socialist organization, Ford Foundation, which advocates for a one-world government and world citizenship. Ford Foundation is listed as one of her supporters for ObeWorldWeb."

Here's the URL (http://onewebday.org/funders/) Check founders.

[brody]

Here you go:
Net Neutrality (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html)
What is Net Neutrality?

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.
You see, NN is what prevents providers from limiting your access to content.

I'm going back to heavy drinking.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Here you go:
Net Neutrality (http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html)

You see, NN is what prevents providers from limiting your access to content.

I'm going back to heavy drinking.

Okay, then WHO (which provider) is trying to limit your access to content? hmm?

[brody]

From the article you posted, it sounds to me like they are trying to entirely misrepresent it by implying that it is the opposite of what it actually is.

That's what threw me off there.

[Dale in GA]

From my link a quote from Susan:
And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”
Susan said: “This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,”

Picture government funded internet access, and therefore government controlled.

Um, you might want to rethink that - some of the utilities we deal with are the water and power companies and the telecoms - not quite "government funded and controlled," as you mistakenly aver.

They're utilities, and thus under relatively tight government regulation, because we all know that giving a capitalist control over one of life's basic necessities (like, say, water) makes him think he's been given a license to steal.

But hey - we still pay for our water, and our power, and our telephone access. And the biggest impact government has now is to make sure that people arent cut off from vital services arbitrarily or prematurely.

[The Bos'un]

IN 2005, forum members thought I was rather paranoid, but, we are seeing come to pass. Between Obama, his czars, and the United Nations, we will not have a very good Internet or freedom of speech any longer.... Conservative bloggers will be out, criticizing the DNC, Gongress, or President Oby and his predecessors will be out, anything that is against liberal progressivism will be out, anything that is disrespectful to Islam will be out, I wonder if they will mess with porn (doubt it).

[ATLMediaGroup]

From the article you posted, it sounds to me like they are trying to entirely misrepresent it by implying that it is the opposite of what it actually is.

How so? It's about a woman who has ties to Acorn and was funded through the Ford Foundation with ties to the TIDES foundation trying to provide high speed internet to everyone as if it's a right. She runs an organization built on communist ideas and we are to believe that once the government provides the internet they won't control the content?

LOL

[tinydancer]

Ding ding ding.....we have another socialist.

From http://onewebday.org



OneWebDay was founded by Susan Crawford, cyberlaw scholar, former Board Member of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, and current technology policy advisor to President Obama.

According to Ms. Crawford, “Earth Day was the model when I founded OneWebDay in 2006.

In 1969, one man asked the people to do what their elected representatives would not: take the future of the environment into their own hands.”

Today, a worldwide citizens’ movement has put the environment front and center politically.

According to Crawford, “peoples’ lives now are as dependent on the Internet as they are on the basics like roads, energy supplies and running water. We can no longer take that for granted, and

we must advocate for the Internet politically and support its vitality personally.”

[jbPurdue]

Okay, then WHO (which provider) is trying to limit your access to content? hmm?

Have you read up on Net Neutrality at all?

From google

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

"Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

I will go find more if you want but that right there explains why Net Neutrality is bad. Its actually the OPPOSITE of what you think it is. Its asking for safe guard to be in place so NOBODY can control what we can and cannot go to on the internet. Not the government, not broadband carriers, nobody.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Um, you might want to rethink that - some of the utilities we deal with are the water and power companies and the telecoms - not quite "government funded and controlled," as you mistakenly aver.

They're utilities, and thus under relatively tight government regulation, because we all know that giving a capitalist control over one of life's basic necessities (like, say, water) makes him think he's been given a license to steal.

But hey - we still pay for our water, and our power, and our telephone access. And the biggest impact government has now is to make sure that people arent cut off from vital services arbitrarily or prematurely.

While true... Once you agree that the internet is a necessity then the government will provide it to the poor (as they do power and water and now cell phones). Once the government is the provider then they have the right to control it's content.

[brody]

If she is FOR Net Neutrality, then she would be AGAINST the government getting involved.

I think the article is all bass ackwards.

I don't believe that I mentioned ACORN at all.

[The Bos'un]

Liberalism is a mental disorder (and a misnomer) :wall:

[ATLMediaGroup]

Have you read up on Net Neutrality at all?

From google

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

"Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

I will go find more if you want but that right there explains why Net Neutrality is bad. Its actually the OPPOSITE of what you think it is. Its asking for safe guard to be in place so NOBODY can control what we can and cannot go to on the internet. Not the government, not broadband carriers, nobody.


YES, and Google is not the problem, They have it right... Just let the government get involved providing it and bam... no more net-nutrality as defined by Google.

THAT is my point.

[jbPurdue]

While true... Once you agree that the internet is a necessity then the government will provide it to the poor (as they do power and water and now cell phones). Once the government is the provider then they have the right to control it's content.

No. they don't and that's what you fail to realize. They can control its ACCESS (aka limiting you to use like 5 gigs worth of data a month) if they provide it to the poor, but they cannot control its content and thats what Net Neutrality is all about.

You just proved it yourself in your "now cell phones" comment. Do they control who you call or what you talk about? No, from whats been seen they just control the ammount of access you have to it to a standard ammount (68 minutes or whatever it is).

[ATLMediaGroup]

No. they don't and that's what you fail to realize. They can control its ACCESS (aka limiting you to use like 5 gigs worth of data a month) if they provide it to the poor, but they cannot control its content and thats what Net Neutrality is all about.

You just proved it yourself in your "now cell phones" comment. Do they control who you call or what you talk about? No, from whats been seen they just control the ammount of access you have to it to a standard ammount (68 minutes or whatever it is).

Sure.. NOW... The plans are just now being laid. Government provided internet, cellphones...

Sounds like "Obama is goonna pay for my car, my house, my cellphone, my internet.."
If you are for socialism then that's fine. That's what we're getting.

[jbPurdue]

Sure.. NOW... The plans are just now being laid. Government provided internet, cellphones...

Sounds like "Obama is goonna pay for my car, my house, my cellphone, my internet.."
If you are for socialism then that's fine. That's what we're getting.

I never said I was for it, I was just proving your faux outrage about Net Neutrality and the government controlling the content on the internet (Obama is for Net Neutrality btw) was wrong.

What idiotic people think the government is going to provide for them is none of my concern. I don't believe in big bad boogeymen like "Acorn".

[brody]

This is another bunch of "just get your foot in the door" bull****.

Her quote implies that she is FOR Net Neutrality,
while she actually supports ENDING Net Neutrality.

The article implies that NN is about the gov getting involved,
when it is actually the exact opposite - it keeps the gov from getting involved.

Nice spin and misdirection - no suprise that the link is to an Obama site.

[ATLMediaGroup]

I never said I was for it, I was just proving your faux outrage about Net Neutrality and the government controlling the content on the internet (Obama is for Net Neutrality btw) was wrong.

What idiotic people think the government is going to provide for them is none of my concern. I don't believe in big bad boogeymen like "Acorn".


I'm sure they say they are for it. I'm sure they all want to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

[jbPurdue]

I'm sure they say they are for it. I'm sure they all want to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

Yikes, random phoey after being proven wrong because you didn't do your research and I didn't fall into your hysteria?

[brody]

Well it certainly is quite an eye opener in understanding how they get the Obamabots to buy the **** they are selling - through shameless misrepresentation in this case.

The spin on this one really tripped me up there for a minute.

This is a perfect example of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

[Dale in GA]

How so? It's about a woman who has ties to Acorn and was funded through the Ford Foundation with ties to the TIDES foundation trying to provide high speed internet to everyone as if it's a right. She runs an organization built on communist ideas and we are to believe that once the government provides the internet they won't control the content?

LOL

These "ties" she supposedly has to these nefarious organizations remind me of the time Nancy Pelosi was accused (here, naturally) of being a pedophile because she appeared in a parade in her home district in which a known Nambla member marched.

Kind of like if I go to a movie and Jesse Jackson's in the same audience, I support whatever he says.

[ATLMediaGroup]

These "ties" she supposedly has to these nefarious organizations remind me of the time Nancy Pelosi was accused (here, naturally) of being a pedophile because she appeared in a parade in her home district in which a known Nambla member marched.

Kind of like if I go to a movie and Jesse Jackson's in the same audience, I support whatever he says.

Supposed ties? You mean like.. I dunno.. Advertising them as supporters on her website?
ACORN donated to her group... Gimme a break!

It's not like she just appeared in the same room (or a parade) with these people.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Yikes, random phoey after being proven wrong because you didn't do your research and I didn't fall into your hysteria?

Yep.. Got me. I was going crazy over a non-story about the government providing high speed internet access and how possible communists are in charge of the plan. Why should I worry? They just want it to be fair.. Right. Not that they would try to regulate it....

Sounds like the same people saying "Hey, Obama may have gone to church with Wright for 20 years but that doesn't mean anything. He's not radical."

[Redd]

While true... Once you agree that the internet is a necessity then the government will provide it to the poor (as they do power and water and now cell phones). Once the government is the provider then they have the right to control it's content.

My guess is the above would be a pretty accurate prediction. Many on the left are already encouraging eliminating the theoretical "Internet gap" in poor and minority communities by making access another entitlement program.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Okay.... Let's see.. Who controls content now:

Public libraries Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-control_software#USA) : "In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIPA) that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software."



Does Comcast, AT&T or any other (evil capitalist) provider require filters that filter content? NOPE..


So, Government funded internet will more than likely be filtered and controlled.


Yep... I'm wacko.

:flag:

[jbPurdue]

Okay.... Let's see.. Who controls content now:

Public libraries Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-control_software#USA) : "In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIPA) that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software."



Does Comcast, AT&T or any other (evil capitalist) provider require filters that filter content? NOPE..


So, Government funded internet will more than likely be filtered and controlled.


Yep... I'm wacko.

:flag:

Not yet, but they sure want to. Which is why Net Neutrality exists, so they can't..........


And a public library putting filtering software so they can't patrons can't visit porn or whatever? I'm pretty sure just about every school ever has that too. At least they did in 2000 when I looked up www.porn.com in school. Once again I'm not saying I want the government to provide subsidized internet, truthfully I couldn't care less one way or another. I'm saying you have/had no idea what Net Neutrality is, and why people are against it.

[mtbeaches]

From my link a quote from Susan:
And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”
Susan said: “This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,”

Picture government funded internet access, and therefore government controlled.Something we need? In the same way we need water? Is she kidding to actually put this in the same class as water...and even electricity and sewage for that matter??? That ludicrousness raises doubt to the the validity of the rest of her position.

I guess soon we'll be hearing how everyone has a right to the internet and we'll have to hurry to pass a bill giving free internet to those who can't afford it. :rolleyes:

[ATLMediaGroup]

Not yet, but they sure want to. Which is why Net Neutrality exists, so they can't..........


And a public library putting filtering software so they can't patrons can't visit porn or whatever? I'm pretty sure just about every school ever has that too. At least they did in 2000 when I looked up www.porn.com (http://www.porn.com) in school. Once again I'm not saying I want the government to provide subsidized internet, truthfully I couldn't care less one way or another. I'm saying you have/had no idea what Net Neutrality is, and why people are against it.


Again.. YES, I DO know what it is... Read my other post. "Under the GUISE of net neutrality."
I'm saying thay are using the good idea of net neutrality to make us THINK they want open access, when in fact they want to first provide it, then control it so they can control the content coming to the people they provide it to aka the poor.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Something we need? In the same way we need water? Is she kidding to actually put this in the same class as water...and even electricity and sewage for that matter??? That ludicrousness raises doubt to the the validity of the rest of her position.

I guess soon we'll be hearing how everyone has a right to the internet and we'll have to hurry to pass a bill giving free internet to those who can't afford it. :rolleyes:


DIN DING DING.... You sir get it!

Once they provide it as a NEED, then they MUST provide it, and if they provide it then they can control what they provide just as they already do in public libraries and schools.

[mtbeaches]

DIN DING DING.... You sir get it!

Once they provide it as a NEED, then they MUST provide it, and if they provide it then they can control what they provide just as they already do in public libraries and schools.And this administration knows just how powerful the internet can be.

[nanajan]

I do not totally understand net neutrality, but if the government is for it I am against it. Especially this administration.

[ATLMediaGroup]

I do not totally understand net neutrality, but if the government is for it I am against it. Especially this administration.

That's terrible... It's actually a GOOD idea.. The problem is the government is using it as a cover for what they really want to do.
Don't believe me? Are they for the fairness doctrine? Wait.. Obamas guy (too lazy to look up his name) says the fairness doctrine didn't do ENOUGH! (saw the video and heard the audio)

This administration is full of communists, socialists and Marxists... Yep.. all in the name of fairness!

[Pocket Ace]

Yeah let's just do away with Net Neutrality because the government believes in it. Just don't complain when your internet provider decides to not let you view the Hannity forums, or better yet tries to charge you extra to view it.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Yeah let's just do away with Net Neutrality because the government believes in it. Just don't complain when your internet provider decides to not let you view the Hannity forums, or better yet tries to charge you extra to view it.

Okay.. Who censors the internet now? Who should we be afraid of taking away this forum?

Comcast? AT&T? Do you think that they will risk losing customers or would it be the government who ALREADY censors the internet at Public schools and Libraries?

[Pocket Ace]

Okay.. Who censors the internet now? Who should we be afraid of taking away this forum?

Comcast? AT&T? Do you think that they will risk losing customers or would it be the government who ALREADY censors the internet at Public schools and Libraries?
Nobody does and I believe that is the point of Net Neutrality. Do you believe that people should be able to go to school or libraries and access offensive material? It sure sounds like you do.

[ATLMediaGroup]

Nobody does and I believe that is the point of Net Neutrality. Do you believe that people should be able to go to school or libraries and access offensive material? It sure sounds like you do.

No... sheesh. Look, if they have the right to censor the content at public places because they receive government funding then one could conclude that they will censor it when the government funds it to the poor.

How is this hard to understand? In one breath you say We don't want censorship from providers. Then say The government are against censorship!

When in fact Providers don't censor and the government DOES.

[Billy_Bob]

Okay.... Let's see.. Who controls content now:

Public libraries Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-control_software#USA) : "In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIPA) that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software."



Does Comcast, AT&T or any other (evil capitalist) provider require filters that filter content? NOPE..


So, Government funded internet will more than likely be filtered and controlled.


Yep... I'm wacko.

:flag:

ON THE MONEY!

You receive federal funds you live by their rules...

why do you think Obama is making so many dependent on federal funds.. he is intentionally destroying the economy... when proven methods show we can grow despite world issues...

Obama needs to be reassigned to toilet duties...and then flushed

[ATLMediaGroup]

ON THE MONEY!

You receive federal funds you live by their rules...

why do you think Obama is making so many dependent on federal funds.. he is intentionally destroying the economy... when proven methods show we can grow despite world issues...

Obama needs to be reassigned to toilet duties...and then flushed

I wouldn't go so far as to say Obama is making people dependent. He sure isn't upset about it.
Unemployment high? Okay... gotta provide healthcare and cellphones and internet.

[See It Clearly]

Nobody does and I believe that is the point of Net Neutrality. Do you believe that people should be able to go to school or libraries and access offensive material? It sure sounds like you do.

Different people have different standards of what "offensive" is. Why should an individual relinquish that responsibility to the givernment?

"Net Neutrality" is not what it sounds like, kind of like the "fairness" doctrine.

[zantax]

Um, you might want to rethink that - some of the utilities we deal with are the water and power companies and the telecoms - not quite "government funded and controlled," as you mistakenly aver.

They're utilities, and thus under relatively tight government regulation, because we all know that giving a capitalist control over one of life's basic necessities (like, say, water) makes him think he's been given a license to steal.

But hey - we still pay for our water, and our power, and our telephone access. And the biggest impact government has now is to make sure that people arent cut off from vital services arbitrarily or prematurely.

Maybe you can explain how the ability to watch broadband porn is like having access to clean water?

[zantax]

Different people have different standards of what "offensive" is. Why should an individual relinquish that responsibility to the givernment?

"Net Neutrality" is not what it sounds like, kind of like the "fairness" doctrine.

They're cute aren't they? "The government needs this new power to regulate to keep the net the way it has always been", say what?

[zantax]

Yeah let's just do away with Net Neutrality because the government believes in it. Just don't complain when your internet provider decides to not let you view the Hannity forums, or better yet tries to charge you extra to view it.


Can't wait, always wanted to do an isp start up and get rich.

[AvgGuyIA]

I don't care what Google says what Net Neutrality is; if liberals are adamantly FOR it, I've got my doubts it will be good for this American's freedom.

[FreedomRing]

Do you believe that people should be able to go to school or libraries and access offensive material? It sure sounds like you do.

This is going to sound crazy, but I believe people should stop using the internet like a babysitter. Just as children should be supervised in the real world, they should be supervised on the internet.

But if schools and libraries want to block some material, they should install software that allows them to do so... not expect the government to filter 'offensive' material.

[Mohawk5]

And the hits keep on coming!

Criminals always work with other criminals to get the job done!

[agent_86]

Every minute that you lefties refuse to see the light, we get closer to a Soviet style society.

Think about it, would it really surprise anyone if you logged on one day and this forum was down permanently?

It's coming. I think I can actually hear the jackboots...

[penner01]

From my link a quote from Susan:
And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”
Susan said: “This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,”

Picture government funded internet access, and therefore government controlled.dismal? What is she talking about? How exactly are we doing very badly? Just another one of those things the libs need to say is "broke" or "failed" - my god they have a horrible view of this country. Seems to me the net works pretty dang good. And if it were dismal - what exactly is net neutrality going to do to fix it?

[zantax]

Every minute that you lefties refuse to see the light, we get closer to a Soviet style society.

Think about it, would it really surprise anyone if you logged on one day and this forum was down permanently?

It's coming. I think I can actually hear the jackboots...

They don't care, as long as they happen to agree with the people wearing the boots, it's all good.

[zantax]

dismal? What is she talking about? How exactly are we doing very badly? Just another one of those things the libs need to say is "broke" or "failed" - my god they have a horrible view of this country. Seems to me the net works pretty dang good. And if it were dismal - what exactly is net neutrality going to do to fix it?

Dismal as in, not every homeless person has an unlimited broadband plan and a state of the art lap top.

[penner01]

Nobody does and I believe that is the point of Net Neutrality. Do you believe that people should be able to go to school or libraries and access offensive material? It sure sounds like you do. I have no problem with public computers being locked out of content that offends the public decency. But what has that got to do with the government regulating the net? Do you have any concept of what a government can do with controlling access? Even the article citing in the OP is nothing but propoganda and this sort of effort can totally control what kind of message goes to the masses 24 hours a day.

[FreedomRing]

To Susan Crawford (and most in Obama's administration) freedom of speech only applies if you happen to be spreading the version of truth they happen to agree with.

I'm sure they'd love to purge the net of 'disinformation' and 'fishy rumors'.

[ATLMediaGroup]

It's not like the government would try to control anything they took over.
Obama: Government control over GM to be short-term (http://www.dailyitem.com/homepage/local_story_152112548.html)

So, why be worried if they took over high speed internet access? It's not like they could take over AT&T or Comcast.

It's not like they want to control the media...
Obama: We need to bailout newspapers or blogs will run the world. (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carney-obama-we-need-to-bailout-newspapers-or-blog-will-run-the-world-2009-9)

Can't have that!

[brody]

I don't care what Google says what Net Neutrality is; if liberals are adamantly FOR it, I've got my doubts it will be good for this American's freedom.
That's what they want you to think.

The fact is that Net Neutrality is good for the end consumer.

They want to end it.

And if it ends, beaureucrats like this who should have no actual authority can pressure providers to deny access to content through regulation.

Just keep your eyes and ears open as I am sure the subject will be discussed elsewhere sooner or later. ;)

[ATLMediaGroup]

Just keep your eyes and ears open as I am sure the subject will be discussed elsewhere sooner or later. ;)

The problem is "later" will never come! If they get their way we won't have a chance to discuss it!

[brody]

Notice how some like to point out that "czars" are nothing more than "special advisors" to the president and have no real authority.

This is a perfect example of "expanding the power of the Presidency" by essentially giving a "czar" the authority to regulate.

Oh, and if you want to discuss the subject with anyone, do so by stating something like "Have you heard that they want to regulate the Internet?" instead of the misdirection in the quote from the "Internet Czar".

[spearmaster]

By definition it is the exact opposite of censorship

The government would provide the internet therefore the government most likely would control the content.

[Fitz]

The government would provide the internet therefore the government most likely would control the content.
Your initial assumption has absolutely nothing to do with the quote you replied to therefore ***?

[JerryN]

But that's the TRICK... They pick this to make it sound as if they are NOT for censorship. Funny that Susan Crawford's orgainzation OneWebDay draws inspiration from "Earth day" which is the celebration of Lennin's 100th B-day.

Communists love to censor... Haven't you heard?

I see it as chapter 2 of Affirmative Action.
Chapter 1: How do you demonstrate that you are NOT prejudiced based on race?
You have to finely discrimate data on every color of the rainbow to document that you are NOT making decisions based on color.

Chapter 2: How do you PROVE that your network is neutral????
See chapter 1.

[penner01]

The government would provide the internet therefore the government most likely would control the content. "Yes we can!" pop ups on every website.