If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   The most tech-friendly candidates, plus Hillary Clinton   (news.com) divider line 189
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3926 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2008 at 11:41 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-05 09:56:32 AM  
Obama is for net "neutrality"?


:(


Although, they loaded the question with "...which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?", to paint it like net neutrality is a good thing...


I hate pollsters.
 
2008-02-05 11:18:13 AM  
OldScotch

How is it not discriminatory conduct?

Net Neutrality (new window)

Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, that does not restrict content, sites, or platforms and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.

I'm pretty happy Obama is for net neutrality.
 
2008-02-05 11:45:40 AM  
what's wrong with net neutrality?
 
2008-02-05 11:46:37 AM  
Duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...
 
2008-02-05 11:46:54 AM  
OldScotch: Obama is for net "neutrality"?


:(


Although, they loaded the question with "...which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?", to paint it like net neutrality is a good thing...


I hate pollsters.


You're against net neutrality?
 
2008-02-05 11:47:06 AM  
As far as this series of Q&A goes, looks like Obama gets my vote.
 
2008-02-05 11:47:54 AM  
Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.
 
2008-02-05 11:49:11 AM  
FTA: Any would-be president should be able to answer without equivocation. Only Barack Obama and Ron Paul gave us forthright replies, and they deserve credit for their directness.

Which is part of why I'm voting for Ron Paul, and why I feel like I could stomach an Obama presidency. I like it when politicans are actually willing to discuss issues in realistic terms, and come up with answers. :-)
 
2008-02-05 11:49:49 AM  
HillBill 3 Ducks
Obama 0


/Yes We Can.
 
2008-02-05 11:50:55 AM  
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

I think it's a bottom-up thing, not a top-down thing. More Farkers support Obama, so there are more headlines submitted in his favor.
 
2008-02-05 11:51:37 AM  
OldScotch: Although, they loaded the question with "...which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?", to paint it like net neutrality is a good thing...

Net neutrality is not communism. Apparently people seem to think that.

It's about infrastructure. You don't want your power company telling you what kind of light bulbs to buy. You don't want the highway department restricting what roads you can drive on with what kind of car and what stores you can drive to. You don't want your cell phone company to restrict you from calling other networks. You don't want your ISP telling you what web sites you can visit or giving priority to some websites over others. For capitalism to work, the infrastructure has to be open to leave a good playing field for competition.

I'm still convinced that the only reason some republicans haven't caught on to this is sheer ignorance.
 
2008-02-05 11:52:16 AM  
I'm for net neutrality.

Let's see, which one should I trust?

1. Trust the corporations. Give free reign to the corporations, because we can trust them, and the free market means we'll have all this great neat new stuff, the corporation will make tons of money which (of course) they'll use to put in more infrastructure and bigger, better things, and THEY WOULDN'T DARE SCREW US, CUT CORNERS, OR PROFIT-TAKE, RIGHT?

2. Trust the government. Keep net neutrality in, regulate the telecoms, and prevent corporations from legally using packet discrimination to make even MORE money from people. Keep neutrality in to prevent corporations from, say, discriminating against certain websites they don't like (oh like political parties for instance) and favoring those they do.

I'm going to go with support net neutrality. Why? Because it's easier to hold the government accountable than it is a private corporation, that's why; you can always vote in new politicians if you don't like what your current ones are doing.
 
2008-02-05 11:52:46 AM  
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

its remarkable the way that drew has this ability to create and post on thousands of accounts per day, and all of them support obama.

or is it just that obama has a lot of support from internet people?

if you were looking for a more right wing site, then i suggest littlegreenfootballs.com those guys are slightly less crazy than the freepers.
 
2008-02-05 11:53:58 AM  
SexOnTV
what's wrong with net neutrality?

It allows for web content that diverges from the common consensus of decency.

Or to use different words to say the same thing, it supports content that does not financially benefit in a direct manner major business and major internet servers.
 
2008-02-05 11:54:00 AM  
Hillary Clinton supports Jack Thompson and wants to ban violence in video games.

Chew on that a while.
 
2008-02-05 11:54:39 AM  
OldScotch: Obama is for net "neutrality"? ensuring that all users have internet connectivity that does not give data packet priority to those who are capable of paying premiums.

Putting it in language you might understand better. I'm not a techie, but I think I have that right.

Remember the Ted Stevens "series of tubes" meltdown? That was a rant against net neutrality.
 
2008-02-05 11:55:37 AM  
Yeah, I'm gonna go with "this link is crap."

Gizmodo did the same thing, and then added what types of tech devices the cadidates were- all and all, more informative to the slightly less tech savy.

http://gizmodo.com/352139/super-tuesday-tech-special-republican-edition

the link the the democrat equivlent I don't feel like getting.
 
2008-02-05 11:58:18 AM  
Massa Damnata: Or to use different words to say the same thing, it supports content that does not financially benefit in a direct manner major business and major internet servers.

And people think this is a bad thing?
 
2008-02-05 12:01:42 PM  
Hmmmm ... each and every candidate from each party has at least one stance on a position (I mean overall, this poll just filled in some blanks)that I absolutely despise.

Can't we come up with better than this group? Seriously. Maybe we can, but then they can't get elected because they either don't have enough money or powerful friends/backers and our ADD society can't sit still long enough to pay attention.
 
2008-02-05 12:05:11 PM  
Mr. Robo-Pants: Hmmmm ... each and every candidate from each party has at least one stance on a position (I mean overall, this poll just filled in some blanks)that I absolutely despise.

Can't we come up with better than this group?


If you're holding out for a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every conceivable issue, you're going to be waiting for a long, long time.

Unless you write-in your own name on the ballot.
 
2008-02-05 12:12:05 PM  
Even though they admit this poll wasn't the most scientific, if nothing else, it showed Obama the most forthcoming in answering the questions.
 
2008-02-05 12:15:59 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: I'm going to go with support net neutrality. Why? Because it's easier to hold the government accountable than it is a private corporation

Oh really? How's that impeachment process working out for you dems?
 
2008-02-05 12:17:11 PM  
If that corporate whore wins, I'm going to vote republican for the first time in my life. ANYBODY BUT HILLARY.
 
2008-02-05 12:18:26 PM  
jonny_q: I'm still convinced that the only reason some republicans haven't caught on to this is sheer ignorance.

Yeah, either that or we see that the slippery slope leads to Internet taxation to fund the FCC so they have the resources to "regulate."

Look at your phone bill.
 
2008-02-05 12:19:16 PM  
are ANY polls scientific? i mean, lets be REAL about it.

they are all BULLSHIAT and riddled with bias.
 
2008-02-05 12:23:37 PM  
sarcastrophe: Oh really? How's that impeachment process working out for you dems?

I don't want Bush impeached. In fact, I believe we should vote in more Republicans in 2008, especially if they're authoritarian. Don't you agree?
 
2008-02-05 12:24:51 PM  
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

That probably has to do with the fact one of the demographics from which Obama draws strong support (well educated centrist/liberal professionals) is well represented on Fark.

Or perhaps it could be all a part of The Vast Right-Wing ConspiracyTM!!
 
2008-02-05 12:27:22 PM  
sarcastrophe: Oh really? How's that impeachment process working out for you dems?

The election worked out pretty well in 2006, and is shaping up to look well for 2008.

Let's see you try to vote out the CEO of a major US corporation.
 
2008-02-05 12:28:01 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: I don't want Bush impeached. In fact, I believe we should vote in more Republicans in 2008, especially if they're authoritarian. Don't you agree?

Nope. I'm a Ron Paul guy. Nice try, though.
 
2008-02-05 12:29:51 PM  
Gregory F. Stuart: I'm for net neutrality.

Let's see, which one should I trust?

1. Trust the corporations. Give free reign to the corporations, because we can trust them, and the free market means we'll have all this great neat new stuff, the corporation will make tons of money which (of course) they'll use to put in more infrastructure and bigger, better things, and THEY WOULDN'T DARE SCREW US, CUT CORNERS, OR PROFIT-TAKE, RIGHT?

2. Trust the government. Keep net neutrality in, regulate the telecoms, and prevent corporations from legally using packet discrimination to make even MORE money from people. Keep neutrality in to prevent corporations from, say, discriminating against certain websites they don't like (oh like political parties for instance) and favoring those they do.

I'm going to go with support net neutrality. Why? Because it's easier to hold the government accountable than it is a private corporation, that's why; you can always vote in new politicians if you don't like what your current ones are doing.


OH NO! PROFIT IS BAD!~@

Time to hand it over to the government since we farked up it so bad. How could we have been so stupid all along to let the bastard corporations run the net into the ground?

Wait a minute, we didn't, and technology and internet commerce has basically reinvented the entire market and revitalized our economy from your precious Clinton years up until today.

By all means though, let the government take it over. We can always change it by electing new people, and ya know I'm with ya.

Just like you, I am constantly searching to pay more taxes. I really do think it's time for change. Why? I dunno. Just for the sake of it! OMG PROFITZ
 
2008-02-05 12:32:38 PM  
stiletto_the_wise: The election worked out pretty well in 2006, and is shaping up to look well for 2008.

Let's see you try to vote out the CEO of a major US corporation.


You don't have to vote them out. You just have to affect their bottom line. The government, on the other hand, doesn't really seem to have accountability to anyone.
 
2008-02-05 12:34:25 PM  
Family Entertainment Protection Act introduced by Sen. Clinton (new window)

Even JACK THOMPSON called this bill "unconstitiounal" (new window) which says a lot.

/FEPA expired at the end of the last session of Congress
 
2008-02-05 12:36:17 PM  
Doc Daneeka: Unless you write-in your own name on the ballot.

I did this for the mayoral race right after I moved to Carpinteria, CA. I didn't win.

/I did, however, garner a vote in a mayoral election. =D
 
2008-02-05 12:36:35 PM  
eatin' fetus

Breaking it down real simple: being FOR net nuetrality leaves everything the way it is now - being AGAINST net neutrality hands the reins over to corporations. Your rant, in the light of what net neutrality actually is, has no meaning.
 
2008-02-05 12:36:48 PM  
sarcastrophe: You don't have to vote them out. You just have to affect their bottom line. The government, on the other hand, doesn't really seem to have accountability to anyone.

OK, then go try to organize a boycott that even has a minuscule effect on a major US company's bottom line. It's about as possible as voting out their CEO.

If there's one lesson to be learned from the USA, especially from technology consumers, it's this: Consumers will always consume. You cannot convince them to stop, for any reason. They will keep on handing their money over to a company, over and over, no matter how much that company abuses them.
 
2008-02-05 12:37:36 PM  
eatin' fetus: Wait a minute, we didn't, and technology and internet commerce has basically reinvented the entire market and revitalized our economy from your precious Clinton years up until today.

By all means though, let the government take it over. We can always change it by electing new people, and ya know I'm with ya.


How is the government taking things over? Haven't they had net neutrality laws since the Clinton days and only recently have these laws expired?
 
2008-02-05 12:41:29 PM  
mofomisfit: Breaking it down real simple: being FOR net nuetrality leaves everything the way it is now - being AGAINST net neutrality hands the reins over to corporations. Your rant, in the light of what net neutrality actually is, has no meaning.

The evil corporations have had the power to do this since the very beginning. Taking their power away from business decisions and giving it to the FCC would not be "the way it is now."

stiletto_the_wise: If there's one lesson to be learned from the USA, especially from technology consumers, it's this: Consumers will always consume. You cannot convince them to stop, for any reason. They will keep on handing their money over to a company, over and over, no matter how much that company abuses them.

Sounds a lot like taxes, although with taxes, it's taken at the barrel of a gun instead of by choice.
 
2008-02-05 12:42:04 PM  
Ryan2065: How is the government taking things over? Haven't they had net neutrality laws since the Clinton days and only recently have these laws expired?

No.
 
2008-02-05 12:45:51 PM  
eatin' fetus: OH NO! PROFIT IS BAD!~@

Time to hand it over to the government since we farked up it so bad. How could we have been so stupid all along to let the bastard corporations run the net into the ground?

Wait a minute, we didn't, and technology and internet commerce has basically reinvented the entire market and revitalized our economy from your precious Clinton years up until today.

By all means though, let the government take it over. We can always change it by electing new people, and ya know I'm with ya.

Just like you, I am constantly searching to pay more taxes. I really do think it's time for change. Why? I dunno. Just for the sake of it! OMG PROFITZ


You have no idea what you're talking about. None.

Net neutrality is about preserving what makes the internet such a powerful tool--that it allows information to flow to the masses at negligible costs, with nobody's information getting priority over anyone else's. It isn't about taxes (hell, Obama endorses a permanent Net-tax ban). It isn't about trying to limit profits. It isn't about handing control over to the government.

It's about ensuring that the information flow stays as flat and freeform as it is currently. Period.

Take your Randroid kneejerk reactionism elsewhere.

/Capitalist
//MBA
///Life-long Republican
 
2008-02-05 12:50:01 PM  
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

Fark is very misogynistic. I'm only slightly surprised.
 
2008-02-05 12:50:21 PM  
series of tubes.
 
2008-02-05 12:51:25 PM  
ultimatedrivingmachine: Not for nothing, but anyone else detect a bias on this site toward a certain Democrat from Illinois? Gee, I wonder who Drew is voting for.

You can wonder all you want, but your chances of being right are equal to someone biatching about the pro-Hilldog slant. Articles and comments on fark are 99.999% not by Curtis. And you're one of a dozen+ people a day that thinks there's a bias on Fark for any candidate or side of an issue you'd care to name.
 
2008-02-05 12:56:10 PM  
Net Neutrality is a sticky issue...

I have to choose, who do I trust more with the limitless information of the net: the government or corporations?

/excuse me while I put a bullet in my head.
 
2008-02-05 12:59:14 PM  
sarcastrophe

Net neutrality would ensure that everyone's packets are treated the same - the way it is now. If the corporations have their way, packets will not be treated equally. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
 
2008-02-05 01:04:54 PM  
sarcastrophe: Gregory F. Stuart: I don't want Bush impeached. In fact, I believe we should vote in more Republicans in 2008, especially if they're authoritarian. Don't you agree?

Nope. I'm a Ron Paul guy. Nice try, though.


This explains a lot.
 
2008-02-05 01:12:09 PM  
Tired of slow results from that other company's search engines? Don't have the time to monitor your e-mail quotas? Want to watch rich media without worrying about paying hundreds of dollars a month on your bill?

GET COMCASTIC!

With Comcast WebBLASTr, you get access to any search engine you want when using AOLPortal technology! Speeds up to 30x faster than average search results!

And with our patented TVExpress Plus package, watch unlimited streaming video from our TVCast service! Now with YouTube access! Get HBO, Cinemax, and ESPN for only 14.99 extra per month!

ONLY $79.99! (+ carrier charges & US connection handling fee) SO GET COMCASTIC, and surf the internet with the freedom you remember!

COMCAST
 
2008-02-05 01:13:53 PM  
mofomisfit: Net neutrality would ensure that everyone's packets are treated the same - the way it is now. If the corporations have their way, packets will not be treated equally. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Net neutrality sounds awfully nice, doesn't it? How would you feel if they just called it "Government Regulation of the Internet Act 2008?"

They could name a damned bill the "Put Children First Act" and everyone would be clamoring to support it, while inside the damned thing, it says that all kids should be served on a dinner table before appetizers.

This is government regulation of the Internet. Period. That's all this is. Once you put the Internet providers under the regulatory control FCC (or FTC), you're going to lose all objectivity, you're going to pay taxes on your bandwidth, and you're going to stifle small business Internet providers.

I'll say again what I've said so many times: The Internet is not broken. Stop trying to fix it.
 
2008-02-05 01:15:57 PM  
Net Neutrality = REGULATION.
Next.
 
2008-02-05 01:17:03 PM  
Shostie: Duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...

duck...


GREY DUCK!
/yeah, in minnesota we play these games differently
//can't get myself to say goose
 
2008-02-05 01:20:44 PM  
sarcastrophe: I'll say again what I've said so many times: The Internet is not broken. Stop trying to fix it.

What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously. You and corporations that stand to profit massively are the only ones that are against net neutrality.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report