For those who are familiar with Soros, Cass Sunstein, or the marxists over at 'Free Press', it will be obvious why this should've been tagged front page news a month ago. This is very, VERY bad.
Posted on 04/04/2011 9:12:04 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Concludes Cleland:
FTC advisor Tim Wu + President Obama’s pledge of no burdensome regulation = regulatory dissonance.
That’s a problem which may see little end. Wu joins an excusive and growing club of Soros-connected federal policymakers (current and former), including Mark Lloyd, Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC; Van Jones, (once) Special Advisor to the President for Green Jobs; Ben Scott, Advisor for Innovation Policy at the State Department; and Jen Howard, Senior Communications Advisor for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the last three all from Free Press board or staff).
For those who are familiar with Soros, Cass Sunstein, or the marxists over at 'Free Press', it will be obvious why this should've been tagged front page news a month ago. This is very, VERY bad.
Tim’s blueprint for “reforming” technology policy represents an audacious industrial policy for the Internet and America’s information sectors. In concrete regulatory terms…[His] Separations Principle would segregate information providers into three buckets: creators, distributors, and hardware makers. Presumably these would become three of the new “titles” (or regulatory sections) of a forthcoming Information Economy Separations Act.[This] proposed information apartheid would upend the American economy as we know it (for instance, by forcing the breakup of dozens of leading technology companies as well as countless media and entertainment providers).
------------------------
Information apartheid is a great way to describe the true goal of the pushers of the net neutrality doctrine.
This government is so loaded with Communists/Socialists that it may well be impossible to ever get them out. Bambi knows this and is proceeding full speed with his remaking of our Republic into a Zimbabwe clone. 1861 looms.
Whatever you do, don’t let them get you to think it’s hopeless. Having people give up and stop worrying about their freedoms is what they need.
Actually, with Sony we’re seeing the problems with one company being in multiple businesses. Long ago Sony was key to upholding the rights of the people in relation to copyright. Sony (with the help of others such as Mr. Rogers) helped the Supreme Court realize that the content providers don’t have absolute power, that the Constitution didn’t authorize it.
Now Sony is in the content producing business. Now Sony is on the exact opposite side, it is trying to abuse copyright, claim more rights than Constitutionally provided for, hurt the very people they helped protect decades ago, flat-out to the point of ripping them off, then suing them if they try to get the claimed value out of what they bought.
Breakups are of course pretty draconian, especially this early in the game. But I do believe if you are a company in such multiple camps, you should expect the people to protect their interests through the government if you are abusing your position.
-—————Actually, with Sony we’re seeing the problems with one company being in multiple businesses.-—————
Count me as convinced that totalitarianism is a worse problem, especially if we try looking at it as a cure.
-——————But I do believe if you are a company in such multiple camps, you should expect the people to protect their interests through the government if you are abusing your position.———————
Look at Sony’s history. Or even some of the worse corporate offenders.
Now look at the marxists lining up to silence the internet.
How are you missing this? How is it possible?
Did you miss the history of marxism?
Soros crashed 4(or was it 5?) economies.
How are you missing all of this? They aren’t even hiding any of it.
You have to explain how you miss it.
Because this exists aside from Soros. It's like saying the Tea Party is astroturf because some big backers came in later to finance some rallies.
Do you realize that one of the key moments in our American Revolution was in response to a corporate monopoly, one corporation having too much power over the people?
Now look at the marxists lining up to silence the internet.
Please tell me this isn't yet another pathetic effort to confuse the issues of net neutrality and the fairness doctrine. The existence of net neutrality means there can be no fairness doctrine.
——————Because this exists aside from Soros.-—————
Not anymore. That’s the key. You act as if what was still is. It’s not. It’s gone. All of it.
Arguably it never even existed. Wu has unmasked himself. That means that the net neutrality you were sold on never, ever was. It didn’t exist. He was marxist all along.
Look at Tim Wu. Look at him. Danger signs everywhere.
-————It’s like saying the Tea Party is astroturf because some big backers came in later to finance some rallies.—————
The tea party *would* be astroturf if only the big backers were left standing.
And that’s exactly where net neutrality is at. Only the big backers are left standing. Look at any department of our government involved in this. Which is what I don’t understand how you don’t see. FCC? Marxists. FTC? Marxists. OIRA? Marxists. The little guys are gone.
And they are honestly telling us what they plan to do. And they mean it. They aren’t playing. These aren’t friendly jabs. They aren’t just saying this stuff cause they think it’s funny.
How can you not see it? How can you not listen to them and take them at their word?
—————Do you realize that one of the key moments in our American Revolution was in response to a corporate monopoly, one corporation having too much power over the people?—————
My mindset on the marxists is blocking my memory at the moment.
But I’ll accept your premise for the sake of argument.
Our founders didn’t turn to totalitarianism to fix whatever corporate shenanigans.
They turned to freedom.
-—————Please tell me this isn’t yet another pathetic effort to confuse the issues of net neutrality and the fairness doctrine.-——————
Being as Tim Wu has unmasked himself as a marxist, there isn’t much of a case to be made that net neutrality ever even existed in the form that you refer to.
It’s NNINO, net neutrality in name only.
Being as this is who Tim Wu is, then what even I was thinking is wrong. Net neutrality is worse than a fairness doctrine. Net neutrality is marxism.
That’s what marxists produce. Marxists produce marxism. Care to argue otherwise?
Yep anymore. I'm only one example. A lot of us older net users want what we have had, a connection to the Internet, you don't get to decide what we do on that connection. This openness, this neutrality, was the KEY to the success of the Internet in the private sector.
How can you not see it?
How can you not see the danger to an open Internet?
-—————How can you not see the danger to an open Internet?-—————
Marxism *IS* the open danger. I do see the danger to an open internet. It’s marxism.
You can’t name many dangers bigger than marxism. It’s a bigger than any/all of these corporate powers combined.
History is clear on this.
Marxists don’t support open anything. They only say they do.
It’s OINO. Open in name only.
Boston Tea Party, the one Tea Partiers like. It was a protest against the Tea Act, which wasn't just any old government being greedy for itself, as in regular taxes. It was meant to strengthen the monopoly of the East India Company by exempting them from taxes, something the colonists did not appreciate.
there isn’t much of a case to be made that net neutrality ever even existed in the form that you refer to.
It has existed up until telcos decided they could either squeeze more profit or kill competition by interfering with Internet traffic. It is what made the Internet great.
For anyone who wants to retain net neutrality, that would be anyone not paid off or fooled by the telcos, the question is how to retain it. Types like Wu obviously have their agendas.
Antirepublicrat wrote:
——————It was a protest against the Tea Act, which wasn’t just any old government being greedy for itself, as in regular taxes. It was meant to strengthen the monopoly of the East India Company by exempting them from taxes, something the colonists did not appreciate.-——————
What do you think ABB? Knowing who Tim Wu is, now that he has taken his mask off, is it fair to say that Net Neutrality would make Comcast the modern East India Trading Company for the internet?
Just how far in bed with the government has comcast gotten?(between the things you’ve linked to in the past regarding “low income” internet connectivity”
And if not Comcast, who do you think would be the preferred monopolist of the new net neutrality behemoth?
If you are honest, your next reply will have only one word.
==========For anyone who wants to retain net neutrality, that would be anyone not paid off or fooled by the telcos, the question is how to retain it. Types like Wu obviously have their agendas.============
List Wu’s agenda. Yes, it can easily and honestly be done.
His agenda has a one word name. What is it? Can you even do that?
No doubt the federal government and government at all levels is staying awake nights trying to get hold of this monster (to them) that is the internet.
The effort by government to co-opt reporters and make sure they get only their side of the story out is much more widespread and subtle than using the ‘stick’ of government regulation.
Flattery, enticements (I won’t return your phone calls unless you write/broadcast good stuff about me), bribes - they all play a part.
I became a ‘working reporter’ nearly two years ago. I attend parish (county) commission meetings, school boards, city councils, etc. One of the best tactics local governments here in Louisiana use to influence their coverage is the antiquated practice of using “legal ads” in favored local newspapers to insure pliability from their reporters.
Many local weeklies would fold were it not for the money from these ads that consist of delinquent tax notices, minutes of meetings, etc. In this day and age of the internet, there is absolutely no reason that such notices could not be placed on a website and get much more widespread coverage than in a weekly newspaper.
But let a bill hit the Legislature to address this, and the newspaper types head to Baton Rouge to lobby.
With the Comcast/NBCU deal, I’m sure there were a lot more promises made to the FCC that we’ll never know about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.