www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
The internet is fucked (again)
By Thom Holwerda on 2017-07-12 13:37:27

FCC chairman Ajit Pai is fond of saying that "the internet was not broken in 2015" when he argues for repeal of our nation's net neutrality rules. This is particularly funny to me, because in 2014 I literally wrote an article called "The internet is fucked".

Why was it fucked? Because the free and open internet was in danger of becoming tightly controlled by giant telecom corporations that were already doing things like blocking apps and services from phones and excusing their own services from data caps. Because the lack of competition in the internet access market let these companies act like predatory monopolies. And because our government lacked the will or clarity to just say what everyone already knows: internet access is a utility.

Most of these things are still true, even after the Obama-era FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler reclassified internet access as a Title II telecommunications service and imposed strict net neutrality rules on wired and wireless internet providers. And most of these things will get even worse when Pai pushes through his plan to rescind Title II and those rules, despite widespread public outcry.

Hey look, another case of corporations actively working to undermine society by bribing politicians with huge amounts of money that individuals would never (or only rarely) have access to. As long as politicians' power is derived not from the people, but from money, shit like this will continue to happen. Trying to stop Pai's obviously horrible and destructive anti-consumer plans is a noble goal, but these plans are only a symptom, not a cause. We're playing whack-a-mole, while they are playing Jenga.

These corporate criminals and their political lapdogs will keep throwing money at the wall until it breaks - and they have more money than we have bricks and mortar.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-45
.
The Internet is not...
By dionicio on 2017-07-12 14:41:05
But the WWW is at great danger of over exploit and fiscalization. Creating the greatest incentives among good will people to live inside the cracks, or to go digitally anemic.

Anonymity FROM ALL ACTORS [including State itself], has a place at every living democracy.

Maybe it's just a MYTH that it will ever happen at the digital realm. Not my expectation to see it happen at my lifetime.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
Comment by Lazarus
By Lazarus on 2017-07-12 15:07:27
"We're playing whack-a-mole, while they are playing Jenga."

I like this way of describing the situation...
Permalink - Score: 4
.
To quote Mr. Garrison...
By leech on 2017-07-12 15:34:18
"Fuck 'em 'til they're dead!"

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on the money-grubbing whores we call politicians.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
Comment by kurkosdr
By kurkosdr on 2017-07-12 18:10:30
> As long as politicians' power is derived not from the people, but from money, shit like this will continue to happen.
The politicians' power is derived from the people, not from money, and in a true democracy the politicians are a representation of what each nation wants and deserves.

Most Americans choose to vote based on some manufactured "identity" or based on various bogus issues instead of voting based on the real issues, and their current crop of politicians is exactly what they deserve. For example, most US citizens apparently don't think issues like Net Neutrality are important until after the land grab has been done, and even after that all they like to do is whine about it. This is how the game was played with cable companies (people didn't care until after the land grab was done) which is the primary reason Net Neutrality is such a big issue in the US anyway. Other western nations are probably similar.

Generally, in free elections, each nation gets what they deserve.

Which of course means the 50.1% of idiots can rule over the rest 49.9%. So... cut the benefits of poor uneducated people so they can't reproduce, I guess? Make having children expensive so only wealthy educated people can afford having children?

Edited 2017-07-12 18:20 UTC
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE: Comment by kurkosdr
By leech on 2017-07-12 20:10:41
People always tell me "well, if you don't vote, then you don't have a say in the matter." I don't vote because I'm an anarchist, and because they never offer any choice that I'd ever vote for anyhow. But voting on laws is something we don't get to do on that level, instead we get pompous asses that are bribed from every direction voting for us...
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE: Comment by kurkosdr
By Alfman on 2017-07-12 20:14:26
kurkosdr,

> Most Americans choose to vote based on some manufactured "identity" or based on various bogus issues instead of voting based on the real issues, and their current crop of politicians is exactly what they deserve. For example, most US citizens apparently don't think issues like Net Neutrality are important until after the land grab has been done, and even after that all they like to do is whine about it. This is how the game was played with cable companies (people didn't care until after the land grab was done) which is the primary reason Net Neutrality is such a big issue in the US anyway. Other western nations are probably similar.


Generally, in free elections, each nation gets what they deserve.


Emphasis mine. The problem with this argument is that it violates causality. We are only voting indirectly on issues and with lots of unknowns. It doesn't make sense to claim we got exactly what we deserved when we don't know what the politicians will do and there's no obligation for them to do what we want. We don't have a say in what the politicians do once they're elected, even when their actions are historically unpopular with voters. To make matters worse, it takes so much money to win (US) elections that only those backed by corporate money have a real shot at winning.

So you cannot just blame the voters themselves, you also have to blame the politicians and the institutions that enable them to overlook voter interests.
Permalink - Score: 4
.
RE[2]: Comment by kurkosdr
By bryanv on 2017-07-12 20:50:20
> I don't vote because I'm an anarchist, and because they never offer any choice that I'd ever vote for anyhow.

Then the proper thing to do, is to cast an empty ballot.
SHOW UP. Abstaining on a vote actually is _counted_. They see those numbers. Represent your refusal to vote for shitty options by showing up, and refusing to vote for shitty options.

Not showing up is interpreted completely differently than showing up and refusing to pick a bad option.

You have been deceived into thinking that 'not voting' is somehow sticking it to the parties. No, sir.. They _count_ on people like you not showing up.

If it got to the point where voters who abstain were > the margin of victory, you would start to see a different type of candidate next cycle.
Permalink - Score: 5
.
RE: Comment by kurkosdr
By Dr.Cyber on 2017-07-12 22:02:23
>
The politicians' power is derived from the people, not from money, and in a true democracy the politicians are a representation of what each nation wants and deserves.

Their power is derived from the belief of the people. They use propaganda, fear mongering, and other such tactics to create an illusion where the people falsely believe that the people are in control, the law is always just, and fiat currency is a fair or necessary system.

Yes, we are being screwed because most people are ignorant and indoctrinated. But this is not what they deserve. Just like a child does not deserve to be ran over by a car for not looking both ways before crossing we do not deserve the predators that is our governments indoctrinating and scamming us.

> .

Which of course means the 50.1% of idiots can rule over the rest 49.9%. So... cut the benefits of poor uneducated people so they can't reproduce, I guess? Make having children expensive so only wealthy educated people can afford having children?


If only this were the case it would probably be much better than what we truly have (but still not good enough though). Unfortunately the system we have is like being able to choose between McDonalds fries or McDonalds hamburgers to live on. It's a choice, but you are going to get sick and McDonalds will profit from it regardless of what you choose. Now add the possibility for McDonalds to override your choice at will and we have a good analogy of "democracy" as it is implemented in the US.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: Comment by kurkosdr
By Dr.Cyber on 2017-07-12 22:13:04
>

You have been deceived into thinking that 'not voting' is somehow sticking it to the parties. No, sir.. They _count_ on people like you not showing up.

Not voting means you do not want to be part of it and should be left alone, as is your human rights. No one has the right to force people to either vote or submit. Voting with an empty ballot signals to them that you are a moron who actually thinks they care about your opinion.
>
If it got to the point where voters who abstain were > the margin of victory, you would start to see a different type of candidate next cycle.

You would not. You would just see a puppet controlled by a banker like you always see winning.

Voting is just there to give the illusion of choice in order to keep people docile. It's better for the elite that the people turn in empty ballots then that the people overtrhow the system and take their freedom back.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
.
By Darkmage on 2017-07-12 22:18:11
Ah Anarchy. Anarchy is politics for children. I don't want to play so I'll just pretend that this doesn't exist. Good luck with that. I know some anarchists. They squatted in other people's houses, had run ins with the police, didn't bother to vote in elections, and when conservatives got elected and cut their dole money. They were outraged and upset and couldn't do anything about it. Protip: Choosing to not engage in the political process is choosing to allow Might-Makes-Right to become the government, pick a side and stop being an ass, either you stand for the 99% or you stand for the 1%. If you stand for nothing you'll get trampled by one side or the other. Usually the 1%.
Anarchy is the ultimate system of failure, it can't exist anywhere as a form of government because it immediately gets co-opted by fascists. All you do is convince a small group of people that by taking over by force they can have some people do their work for them. They crush the anarchists under their boots because the anarchists don't want to organise or be in a cause. A few weeks later you're the new dictatorship government, bigger and more awful than the last one.

Edited 2017-07-12 22:20 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-45

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?