The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality Explained in 2 Minutes

[Wilikon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oRoG8SqChE


---------------------------------------------
Bitcoin and every single people involved in its development will be regulated... For the good of bitcoin, among other things.

[username18333]

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

[Wilikon]

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

[username18333]

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

[Wilikon]

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

[AllTheBitz]

Its all bullshit either way. any form of internet monitoring by the government will go on, and will one day be used as a weapon.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Evolution at work my friend. They want to be culled.


The real plot is to maintain control with rationing when the $227 trillion global total debt comes crashing down. This is precisely what happened to Nazi Germany with their Universal Health Care system which they could no longer afford so they reduced costs and generated revenue put the population in work camps (financed by President Bush Sr's father Prescott Bush's Union Bank) and killed them when they got too skeleton-ized from not being fed (no need to spend money on food on this dispensable human resource).

Final Goal of the Surveillance State

...

What happens when all nations are blanketed from stem to stern with surveillance?

Public utilities, acting on government orders, will be able to allot electricity in amounts and at times it wishes to. This is leading to an overarching plan for energy distribution to the entire population.

Claiming shortages and limited options, governments will essentially be redistributing wealth, in the form of energy, under a collectivist model.

National health insurance plans (such as Obamacare) offer another clue. Such plans have no logistical chance of operating unless every citizen is assigned a medical ID package, which is a de facto identity card. In the medical arena, this means cradle-to-grave tracking.

Surveillance inevitably leads to: placing every individual under systems of control. It isn’t just “we’re watching you” or “we’re stamping out dissent.” It’s “we’re directing your participation in life.”

As a security analyst in the private sector once told me, “When you can see what every employee is doing, when you have it all at your fingertips, you naturally move on to thinking about how you can control those patterns and flows of movement and activity. It’s irresistible. You look at your employees as pieces on a board. The only question is, what game do you want to play with them?”

Every such apparatus is ruled, from the top, by Central Planners. When it’s an entire nation, upper-echelon technocrats revel in the idea of blueprinting, mapping, charting, and regulating the flows of all goods and services and people, “for the common good.”

Water, food, medicine, land use, transportation—they all become items of a networked system that chooses who gets what and when, and who can travel where, and under what conditions.

This is the wet dream of technocrats. They believe they are saving the world, while playing a fascinating game of multidimensional chess.

As new technologies are discovered and come on line, the planners decide how they will be utilized and for whose benefit.

In order to implement such a far-reaching objective, with minimal resistance from the global population, manufactured crises are unleashed which persuade the masses that the planet is under threat and needs “the wise ones” to rescue it and us.

We watch (and fight in) wars and more wars, each one exacerbated and even invented. We are presented with phony epidemics that are falsely promoted as scourges.

The only response, we are led to believe, is more humane control over the population.

On top of that, we are fed an unending stream of propaganda aimed at convincing us that “the great good for the greatest number” is the only humane and acceptable principle of existence. All prior systems of belief are outmoded. We know better now. We must be good and kind and generous to everyone at all times.

Under this quasi-religious banner, which has great emotional appeal, appears The Plan. Our leaders allocate and withhold on the basis of their greater knowledge. We comply. We willingly comply, because we are enlisted in a universal army of altruistic concern.

This is a classic bait and switch. We are taught to believe that service for the greater good is an unchallengeable goal and credo. And then, later, we find out it has been hijacked to institute more power over us, in every way.

The coordinated and networked surveillance of Earth and its people is fed into algorithms that spit out solutions. This much food will go here; that much water will go there; here there will be medical care; there medical care will be severely rationed. These people will be permitted to travel. Those people will be confined to their cities and towns.

Every essential of life—managed with on-off switches, and the consequences will play out.

An incredibly complex system of interlocking decisions will be hailed as messianic.

Surveillance; planning; control.

...

[Wilikon]

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

Anarchist communism?. I have never heard of this. What is it exactly?

[username18444]

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

Anarchist communism?. I have never heard of this. What is it exactly?

Allow me:

ANARCHIST COMMUNISM: ITS BASIS AND PRINCIPLES


I

     Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterize the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum, and the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying, by means of free groups and federations--freely constituted--all the infinitely varied needs of the human being.

     As regards socialism, most of the anarchists arrive at its ultimate conclusion, that is, at a complete negation of the wage-system and at communism. And with reference to political organization, by giving a further development to the above-mentioned part of the radical program, they arrive at the conclusion that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil--that is, to a society without government, to anarchy. The anarchists maintain, moreover, that such being the ideal of social and political organization, they must not remit it to future centuries. but that only those changes in our social organization which are in accordance with the above double ideal, and constitute an approach to it, will have a chance of life and be beneficial for the commonwealth.

. . .

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Yup, username18444 is Communist pig and following him will result in abject failure.

As well,

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.

Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.

. . .

Eric S Raymond worked hard to move to the term “open source” instead of Richard Stallman’s “free software”, because the latter is communism which is an abject failure.

The key difference between that Stallman and the FSF advocate the oxymoronic use of coercion (force) to maintain freedom (specifically the FSF GPL standard license forces some actions and limits other actions), thus it exhibits the loss of liberty that is the hallmark of Communism.

You can listen to Eric S. Raymond on this topic at the following video of a Java Users Group presentation where “viral contamination” means coercion in the GPL license:

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/

...Nobody can take those freedoms away from us anymore; we have the internet. We have the way to migrate our software development out of the reach of any particular jurisdiction that goes idiotic. We have the code; they can’t take the code away from us...

Jump to the 9:15 min point in the video.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Cross-posting from other thread...

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me.  

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

[majakn]

plutocracy= democracy for right wing politics

[brian_23452]

Cross-posting from other thread...

I trust my government a million times more than I trust my ISP. That is the bottom line for me.  

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

And the point you are missing is that there is nothing "free market" about western style, free market economics at least in the United States.  For many people in the USA there is no choice at all.  The local cable provider is the de facto internet provider, take it or leave it.  In other parts of the country there is simply no high speed option at all (much like, prior to government intervention many parts of the USA did not have landline telephone service).  And typically, in western style free market economies, the typical response to competition isn't to improve service or reduce price, it is to use various forms of rent seeking to make it difficult or impossible for your competition to compete in your market (look how the local telecoms respond when google fiber tries to enter a market to see western style "free markets" in action).

But the point I would rather address is the anti government regulation rant that typically comes from western style capitalist.  And what is most interesting about it is that typically when a western capitalist talks about government regulation being bad, what they really mean is that one specific government regulation is bad because it may potentially cost them money.  You won't for example, here the congressman up there say anything about the numerous government regulations that allow these telecom companies to exist in the first place.  He doesn't mention the enormous tax grants and free money they are given (so much for survival of the fittest business huh).  Do they for example own all the land they run their lines on?  Of course not, I have some on my property as we speak.  Government regulations prohibit me from cutting the lines or charging them rent of course though.  So before we get too carried away with the evils of government regulation let's just remember that these companies wouldn't even exist without government regulation, shall we?

Incidentally, the argument "you must be a socialist, and stupid", isn't very persuasive. 

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

user18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

[username18444]

user[name]18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

It seems that most people have a difficult time in finding the basic, bottom-line ideas surrounding much of anything. The libertarian idea which is, bottom-line, the golden rule, is only the basis. It is the goal that should be looked at in all kinds of operations, personal or governmental. In complex situations, there will be complex governmental operations. The libertarian goal should remain the thing strived for.

For these, then, your “golden rule” is my “tyranny,” and your “libertarian” is my “despot.”

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

You entirely missed the point that knowledge can only be owned by the creator of the knowledge. It can't be transferred nor financed. I explained that the prior link I provided. Now please stop repeating you same nonsense illogic about the tyranny of property ownership, because it is entirely inapplicable as I have shown.

[Wilikon]

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism... ?

I can't understand how a bunch people who can tell and force everyone else how they should behave, sleep and drink be compatible with a bunch of people not wanting any master and live as they see fit while not wanting to arm anyone else? I am guessing I am not smart enough to understand this great concept and need to read tons and tons of books...


Right, so we have the internet and it is not perfect. Still that framework was good enough to create facebook, google, netflix, but also ANONYMOUS and Bitcoin and TOR, etc, etc.

How changing this framework back to laws thought and created in the 1930's make this amazing technology better for the 21th century and beyond? The internet will be a utility only in the USA, but not in South Korea or Guatemala or Canada?

[username18444]

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin.

I can't understand how a bunch people who can tell and force everyone else how they should behave, sleep and drink be compatible with a bunch of people not wanting any master and live as they see fit while not wanting to arm anyone else? I am guessing I am not smart enough to understand this great concept and need to read tons and tons of books...


Right, so we have the internet and it is not perfect. Still that framework was good enough to create facebook, google, netflix, but also ANONYMOUS and Bitcoin and TOR, etc, etc.

How changing this framework back to laws thought and created in the 1930's make this amazing technology better for the 21th century and beyond? The internet will be a utility only in the USA, but not in South Korea or Guatemala or Canada?

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice.

It's sort of amusing to me when people say Democracy when its really communism with one other party ^^
Essentially its either A or B so fundamentally it doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me just who you pay more money to in order to get the outcome you want.

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

. . .

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

[Wilikon]

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin.

I can't understand how a bunch people who can tell and force everyone else how they should behave, sleep and drink be compatible with a bunch of people not wanting any master and live as they see fit while not wanting to arm anyone else? I am guessing I am not smart enough to understand this great concept and need to read tons and tons of books...


Right, so we have the internet and it is not perfect. Still that framework was good enough to create facebook, google, netflix, but also ANONYMOUS and Bitcoin and TOR, etc, etc.

How changing this framework back to laws thought and created in the 1930's make this amazing technology better for the 21th century and beyond? The internet will be a utility only in the USA, but not in South Korea or Guatemala or Canada?

It shows how far we have sunk. Now people just react based on politics without a clue as to what they are talking about. "oh, he's for it? Them I'm against it!".

Oh god, you just perfectly summed up the two-party system. Why do you see so many negative attack ads? Because in a two-party system, it's easier to convince you not to vote for someone than it is to vote for someone. So you convince them to vote against your opponent, and you're the only other choice.

It's sort of amusing to me when people say Democracy when its really communism with one other party ^^
Essentially its either A or B so fundamentally it doesn't seem like much of a democracy to me just who you pay more money to in order to get the outcome you want.

democracy
1  b :  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

plutocracy
1  :  government by the wealthy

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

You write as if lobbyists paid very well for influencing politicians' votes do not exist...

Comcast loves 0bama's plan. Does that mean the people voted for Comcast?

More control from government will not make things easier for creatives minds now, especially the ones with ideas but no money. This has been proven over and over again.

. . .

You write as if plutocracy were republican democracy.

. . .

Readers should read the logic in the prior two threads on this "net neutrality" debate:

Obama says FCC should reclassify internet as a utility

Obama's Net Neutrality Statement: What it Really Means

Logic does not matter. Some here are willing to fight for their belief that a more powerful centralized power is good for humans, on a forum dedicated to an amazing fully working decentralized creation...

I will never get that.

Regarding this, it should be noted that I presently hold to anarchist communism and am merely pursuing your own logical consistency.

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

. . . ?