Vote for Net Neutrality

[Drake1 Nightfire]

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Of course you have hatred, it seeps through your posts. You spew stereotypes like "99% of other sl residents" which simply isn't true. That's the problem with the forums -- they are run by 2% of the 5% of residents who bother with them, and it's full of bullies you can't fight back against because they AR you and the Lindens take their side. That's why I prefer to debate on my blog.

Criticism of socialism and even more, communism isn't about "reds under the bed," not when we're talking about a brutal system that committed mass crimes against humanity including against my in-laws and friends. I'm aware that there's often less awareness of the realities of the GULAG in Europe, closer to Russia, than the US, and there's reasons for that.

As for griefers, um, they aren't "teasing me" like I' just some "old bird," they are joining groups against their will, force-conferencing people, and spewing racist, anti-Muslim hatred, impersonating themselves as me. That's teasing?! It's far worse than that! And fortunately, the Lindens remove them although slowly. Perhaps because most of the people like you dealing with them think I'm the problem when they impersonate me, which is ridiculous, of course. This isn't "teasing." It's crime.

A critique of net neutrality is in order because it is about a government agency that arrogated to itself the power to "redistribute wealth" in socialist fashion and undemocratically. Google fans bombing a comments section isn't democracy, it's mob rule. This should be decided by Congress. But in fact, it's being undone by an elected president. Burn him as you will, but I think Americans have shown they stand up to the worst of Trump and his ilk (i.e. in Alabama just now).

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives but the bottom line now is the Labour Party is in a shambles, my God, look at Jeremy Corbyn. If I had to choose between Trump and Corbyn -- OMG what a choice -- I'd choose Trump simply because I think he can be curbed and overruled easier as self-interest rather than ideology drives him.

I'm glad Net Neutrality is being removed and Silicon Valley can't win for once. It's a joy to behold. 

Wait... Someone from the UK is against Net Neutrality in the US? But, you have Net Neutrality in the UK, hell all of Europe does.. Why are you so against the US keeping it?

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Good luck getting innovation with Gummint-run services and no competition.

Yeah, that too. 

Also, not my quote. 

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

39 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Wait... Someone from the UK is against Net Neutrality in the US? But, you have Net Neutrality in the UK, hell all of Europe does.. Why are you so against the US keeping it?

Nah, prok's in the USA, but she gets into quite the tizzy.  

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Of course you have hatred, it seeps through your posts. You spew stereotypes like "99% of other sl residents" which simply isn't true. That's the problem with the forums -- they are run by 2% of the 5% of residents who bother with them, and it's full of bullies you can't fight back against because they AR you and the Lindens take their side. That's why I prefer to debate on my blog.

Criticism of socialism and even more, communism isn't about "reds under the bed," not when we're talking about a brutal system that committed mass crimes against humanity including against my in-laws and friends. I'm aware that there's often less awareness of the realities of the GULAG in Europe, closer to Russia, than the US, and there's reasons for that.

As for griefers, um, they aren't "teasing me" like I' just some "old bird," they are joining groups against their will, force-conferencing people, and spewing racist, anti-Muslim hatred, impersonating themselves as me. That's teasing?! It's far worse than that! And fortunately, the Lindens remove them although slowly. Perhaps because most of the people like you dealing with them think I'm the problem when they impersonate me, which is ridiculous, of course. This isn't "teasing." It's crime.

A critique of net neutrality is in order because it is about a government agency that arrogated to itself the power to "redistribute wealth" in socialist fashion and undemocratically. Google fans bombing a comments section isn't democracy, it's mob rule. This should be decided by Congress. But in fact, it's being undone by an elected president. Burn him as you will, but I think Americans have shown they stand up to the worst of Trump and his ilk (i.e. in Alabama just now).

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives but the bottom line now is the Labour Party is in a shambles, my God, look at Jeremy Corbyn. If I had to choose between Trump and Corbyn -- OMG what a choice -- I'd choose Trump simply because I think he can be curbed and overruled easier as self-interest rather than ideology drives him.

I'm glad Net Neutrality is being removed and Silicon Valley can't win for once. It's a joy to behold. 

Crime? Oh dear, you have got your knickers in a twist.  Do you think I hate you?  Surely not.  You're not of any consequence to me to qualify for that.  You really are just a bit of a sad case, and it's a shame you get teased and wound up like you do, but you'll continue to bring it on yourself because you can't help it.  

I'm just teasing you because you rise to it without fail.  It's the same reason you get griefed in world.  You're just too easy.

Also, anyone who would choose trump over Jeremy Corbyn, who I have met, and who is a man of utter decency and integrity, well, you're beyond parody, frankly.  You just openly supported a paedophile, a rapist, a traitor to your own country. Wow.  Amazing.  No hatred, prokky, but a fair measure of sickened disgust, which I wager is shared quite widely.  What a sad little woman you are.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Pixieplumb Flanagan

[Skell Dagger]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Meanwhile, British citizens voted the Labour Party out of office after years of its stranglehold on power because socialism wasn't working. And liberals came to power and got a bashing, then conservatives

I rarely weigh in on posts with a political bent, but - in the 1900s - the only Liberal governments were from 1905 to 1910 (PMs Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, and the wartime coalition of Lloyd George that went into 1918). The Labour Party didn't come to its first government until 1924, after a year of Conservative government. The only other time since then that the 'Liberal Party' has been in power in any format was the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition government (PM David Cameron and DPM Nick Clegg) from 2010 to 2015, and Cameron pretty much called the tune during that time. The Liberal Party itself was disbanded in 1988, at which point they merged with the SDP to become the Liberal Democrats.

I'm aware that, for some Americans, 'socialist' and 'socialism' are dirty words, but the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is a fine example of socialist principles at their best (and I say that not being anything approaching a socialist myself; if anything I'm mostly independent and may vote differently between government and local elections, depending on who I feel will best serve my local community at grassroots and/or governmental levels). A few years ago I ended up in hospital in the early hours of a Sunday morning, kept in for several nights, underwent multiple tests (including several x-rays and expensive scans) and the final bill for that was.... zero. Nothing at all. Just the taxes that I and other working Brits pay in our wages. The same treatment would be given to anyone else resident in the UK when suffering a medical emergency, be they some homeless guy sleeping rough or a migrant awaiting processing or an American tourist just visiting the country for a couple of weeks.

And I'm quite happy to pay for that.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Skell Dagger
Clarified one specific date

[LittleMe Jewell]

11 hours ago, ThorinII said:

That said, however: If *I* had a say in the States (or here in Germany, where I live), there would be no *private* ownership of ISP's at all anymore. Internet and telephone would all be nationalized and tax-paid - ergo available to everyone, and free of extra charge.

Though while at it, I would also  nationalize the entire healthcare system (so that neither healthcare insurance nor hospitals were owned by greedy for-profit companies anymore, and that everyone would automatically be covered, no questions asked). AND public transport. AND electricity.AND water supply. Plus a few other branches.

Unfortunately, our government (the good ole USofA ) can't manage to be in charge of things without adding tons of bloat and red tape - likely so the fat cat politicians and their buddies can all get rich.  They tend to cause more problems than they solve.  One of the biggest jokes of our country is "Hello, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

[Janet Voxel]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Unfortunately, our government (the good ole USofA ) can't manage to be in charge of things without adding tons of bloat and red tape - likely so the fat cat politicians and their buddies can all get rich.  They tend to cause more problems than they solve.  One of the biggest jokes of our country is "Hello, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

I think that’s what’s going to end up happening. They got everybody all riled up with this. Everybody is calling senators and congressmen who will pass a regulation that’s worse than removing net neutrality ever would’ve been.

These guys are playing chess here and this is stage one.

[Kaynara Ray]

Prokofy, there is an old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Valiant attempt though, I commend you

[EclecticJohn Niven]

Actually, Net Neutrality does not go nearly far enough.  No one should be able to buy a car faster than any other!  No one should be able to pay for faster delivery of a package.  USPS, FedEx, and UPS should be forced to have one delivery fee for the SAME delivery time.  As soon as we have that, we can move on to Life Neutrality!

[Parhelion Palou]

1 hour ago, EclecticJohn Niven said:

Actually, Net Neutrality does not go nearly far enough.  No one should be able to buy a car faster than any other!  No one should be able to pay for faster delivery of a package.  USPS, FedEx, and UPS should be forced to have one delivery fee for the SAME delivery time.  As soon as we have that, we can move on to Life Neutrality!

And what if Ford made a deal with a state government to be the only provider of cars for the state? You're talking about things where there's competition. In most places ISPs are effectively a monopoly, and they're about to be given permission to decide what parts of the internet they feel like letting their customers access. Competition would help to stop that, but the ISPs have already made sure there won't be competition.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, EclecticJohn Niven said:

Actually, Net Neutrality does not go nearly far enough.  No one should be able to buy a car faster than any other!  No one should be able to pay for faster delivery of a package.  USPS, FedEx, and UPS should be forced to have one delivery fee for the SAME delivery time.  As soon as we have that, we can move on to Life Neutrality!

And  I think no one should be able to have two cars until everyone has one, that goes for houses too.

If everyone can't have something, no one should.

Its only fair right?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

4 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

And  I think no one should be able to have two cars until everyone has one, that goes for houses too.

If everyone can't have something, no one should.

Its only fair right?

Can i have a house by the ocean with a small bit of land to grow some crops on? 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Can i have a house by the ocean with a small bit of land to grow some crops on? 

Actually, a house by the ocean is not a need, its a want. 

No house for you, a bed in a workers dormitory is all you need. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a few words

[BilliJo Aldrin]

The communist revolution is well under way and progressing nicely in the west.

Question 1: Are you a Communist?

Answer: Yes.

Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?

Answer: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.

Question 3: How do you wish to achieve this aim?

Answer: By the elimination of private property and its replacement by community of property.

Question 4: On what do you base your community of property?

Answer: Firstly, on the mass of productive forces and means of subsistence resulting from the development of industry, agriculture, trade and colonisation, and on the possibility inherent in machinery, chemical and other resources of their infinite extension.

Secondly, on the fact that in the consciousness or feeling of every individual there exist certain irrefutable basic principles which, being the result of the whole of historical development, require no proof.

Question 5: What are such principles?

Answer: For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.

Question 6: How do you wish to prepare the way for your community of property?

Answer: By enlightening and uniting the proletariat.

Question 7: What is the proletariat?

Answer: The proletariat is that class of society which lives exclusively by its labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital; that class whose weal and woe, whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business;. in a word, on the fluctuations of competition.

Question 8: Then there have not always been proletarians?

Answer: No. There have always been poor and working classes; and those who worked were almost always the poor. But there have not always been proletarians, just as competition has not always been free.

Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:

I. The, class of the big capitalists, who in all advanced countries are in almost exclusive possession of the means of subsistence and those means (machines, factories, workshops, etc.) by which these means of subsistence are produced. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.

II. The class of the completely propertyless, who are compelled to sell their labour^[70] to the first class, the bourgeois, simply to obtain from them in return their means of subsistence. Since the parties to this trading in labour are not equal, but the bourgeois have the advantage, the propertyless must submit to the bad conditions laid down by the bourgeois. This class, dependent on the bourgeois, is called the class of the proletarians or the proletariat.

Question 10: In what way does the proletarian differ from the slave?

Answer: The slave is sold once and for all, the proletarian has to sell himself by the day and by the hour. The slave is the property of one master and for that very reason has a guaranteed subsistence, however wretched it may be. The proletarian is, so to speak, the slave of the entire bourgeois class, not of one master, and therefore has no guaranteed subsistence, since nobody buys his labour if he does not need it. The slave is accounted a thing and not a member of civil society. The proletarian is recognised as a person, as a member of civil society. The slave may, therefore, have a better subsistence than the proletarian but the latter stands at a higher stage of development. The slave frees himself by becoming a proletarian, abolishing from the totality of property relationships only the relationship of slavery. The proletarian can free himself only by abolishing property in general.

Question 11: In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?

Answer: The serf has the use of a piece of land, that is, of an instrument of production, in return for handing over a greater or lesser portion of the yield. The proletarian works with instruments of production which belong to someone else who, in return for his labour, hands over to him a portion, determined by competition, of the products. In the case of the serf, the share of the labourer is determined by his own labour, that is, by himself. In the case of the proletarian it is determined by competition, therefore in the first place by the bourgeois. The serf has guaranteed subsistence, the proletarian has not. The serf frees himself by driving out his feudal lord and becoming a property owner himself, thus entering into competition and joining for the time being the possessing class, the privileged class. The proletarian frees himself by doing away with property, competition, and all class differences.

Question 12: In what way does the proletarian differ from the handicraftsman?

Answer: As opposed to the proletarian, the so-called handicraftsman, who still existed nearly everywhere during the last century and still exists here and there, is at most a temporary proletarian. His aim is to acquire capital himself and so to exploit other workers. He can often achieve this aim where the craft guilds still exist or where freedom to follow a trade has not yet led to the organisation of handwork on a factory basis and to intense competition. But as soon as the factory system is introduced into handwork and competition is in full swing, this prospect is eliminated and the handicraftsman becomes more and more a proletarian. The handicraftsman therefore frees himself either by becoming a bourgeois or in general passing over into the middle class, or, by becoming a proletarian as a result of competition (as now happens in most cases) and joining the movement of the proletariat — i. e., the more or less conscious communist movement.

Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?

Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.

Question 14: Let m go back to the sixth question. As you wish to prepare for community of property by the enlightening and uniting of the proletariat, then you reject revolution?

Answer: We are convinced not only of the uselessness but even of the harmfulness of all conspiracies. We are also aware that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily but that everywhere and at all times they are the necessary consequence of circumstances which are not in any way whatever dependent either on the will or on the leadership of individual parties or of whole classes. But we also see that the development of the proletariat in almost all countries of the world is forcibly repressed by the possessing classes and that thus a revolution is being forcibly worked for by the opponents of communism. If, in the end, the oppressed proletariat is thus driven into a revolution, then we will defend the cause of the proletariat just as well by our deeds as now by our words.

Question 15: Do you intend to replace the existing social order by community of Property at one stroke?

Answer: We have no such intention. The development of the masses cannot he ordered by decree. It is determined by the development of the conditions in which these masses live, and therefore proceeds gradually.

Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.

Question 17: What will be your first measure once you have established democracy?

Answer: Guaranteeing the subsistence of the proletariat.

Question 18: How will you do this?

Answer. I. By limiting private property in such a way that it gradually prepares the way for its transformation into social property, e. g., by progressive taxation, limitation of the right of inheritance in favour of the state, etc., etc.

II. By employing workers in national workshops and factories and on national estates.

III. By educating all children at the expense of the state.

Question 19: How will you arrange this kind of education during the period of transition?

Answer: All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.

Question 20: Will not the introduction of community of property be accompanied by the proclamation of the community of women?

Answer: By no means. We will only interfere in the personal relationship between men and women or with the family in general to the extent that the maintenance of the existing institution would disturb the new social order. Besides, we are well aware that the family relationship has been modified in the course of history by the property relationships and by periods of development, and that consequently the ending of private property will also have a most important influence on it.

Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.

Question 22. Do Communists reject existing religions?

Answer: All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is that stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and supersedes them.

In the name and on the mandate of the Congress.

Secretary: Heide [Alias of Wilhelm Wolff in the League of the Just]

President: Karl Schill [Alias of Karl Schapper in the League of the Just]

London, June 9, 1847

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

Firstly that doesn't actually scare many Europeans, given that it was written a long time ago and doesn't sound too bad in any event, and secondly, if you think that's how successful socialist countries in Europe actually function then I guess you're about as well travelled and educated as most Americans.

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Parhelion Palou said:

And what if Ford made a deal with a state government to be the only provider of cars for the state? You're talking about things where there's competition. In most places ISPs are effectively a monopoly, and they're about to be given permission to decide what parts of the internet they feel like letting their customers access. Competition would help to stop that, but the ISPs have already made sure there won't be competition.

I will give you a real-world example - me.

My E-mail address (AOL) and the search engine I use most (Yahoo) are currently owned by an ISP (Verizon.) This was not a choice I made - Verizon bought those entities long after I established a relationship with them.

So, if Verizon gave AOL and Yahoo preferential rates I'd benefit - if I could use Verizon for my home internet service.

But I can't. My choices are ATT (a tooth and nail competitor of Verizon) and Xfinity/Comcast (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon). Therefore I use ATT. Verizon will never offer me wired internet service because the necessary lines are owned by ATT, and ATT and Verizon are both mushrooms off the rotting corpse of the old Bell Telephone System.

Now what happens if ATT (a competitor of Verizon) and Alphabet/Google (a competitor of Yahoo and AOL) decide to get together and treat Google traffic preferentially and slow down competitive services? I'm placed at a disadvantage all because of factors I had no choice in and have no control over.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Actually, a house by the ocean is not a need, its a want. 

No house for you, a bed in a workers dormitory is all you need. 

But you just said i could have a house!!!! 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

21 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I will give you a real-world example - me.

My E-mail address (AOL) and the search engine I use most (Yahoo) are currently owned by an ISP (Verizon.) This was not a choice I made - Verizon bought those entities long after I established a relationship with them.

So, if Verizon gave AOL and Yahoo preferential rates I'd benefit - if I could use Verizon for my home internet service.

But I can't. My choices are ATT (a tooth and nail competitor of Verizon) and Xfinity/Comcast (a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon). Therefore I use ATT. Verizon will never offer me wired internet service because the necessary lines are owned by ATT, and ATT and Verizon are both mushrooms off the rotting corpse of the old Bell Telephone System.

Now what happens if ATT (a competitor of Verizon) and Alphabet/Google (a competitor of Yahoo and AOL) decide to get together and treat Google traffic preferentially and slow down competitive services? I'm placed at a disadvantage all because of factors I had no choice in and have no control over.

I don't even have those choices. If i want internet, it's Xfinity or nothing. They are the only land based provider in my area and my landlord doesn't allow satellite dishes. 

[Khashmal]

   This FCC regulation as it exists (Obama 2015) is a double edged sword that we must think about carefully.  It is true, that the IP companies may be able to make changes at their own discretion - and yeah it may effect pricing etc. in our internet experience. 

   HOWEVER; with FCC controlling our internet in the United States, it also opens the door for more GOVERNMENT control if the internet.  You can be assured that other things like the internet monitoring of U.S. citizens, via Homeland Security will be expanded from more than it already is.  I am of the opinion that the intent of our national freedoms involve choice, privacy and free market self-regulation.  FCC control of our internet in essence is just another step into the Orwellian '1984' concept of government - MORE control of U.S. citizens and their private activities - initiated and enacted by Obama and a Democratic congress of that time.  In America, business is business and used to be what made America great until socialism began changing our Federal laws.

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Khashmal said:

   This FCC regulation as it exists (Obama 2015) is a double edged sword that we must think about carefully.  It is true, that the IP companies may be able to make changes at their own discretion - and yeah it may effect pricing etc. in our internet experience. 

   HOWEVER; with FCC controlling our internet in the United States, it also opens the door for more GOVERNMENT control if the internet.  You can be assured that other things like the internet monitoring of U.S. citizens, via Homeland Security will be expanded from more than it already is.  I am of the opinion that the intent of our national freedoms involve choice, privacy and free market self-regulation.  FCC control of our internet in essence is just another step into the Orwellian '1984' concept of government - MORE control of U.S. citizens and their private activities - initiated and enacted by Obama and a Democratic congress of that time.  In America, business is business and used to be what made America great until socialism began changing our Federal laws.

You may be conflating two unrelated issues...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-surveillance/u-s-lawmakers-want-to-restrict-internet-surveillance-on-americans-idUSKBN1C92T5

[Solar Legion]

13 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

You may be conflating two unrelated issues...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-surveillance/u-s-lawmakers-want-to-restrict-internet-surveillance-on-americans-idUSKBN1C92T5

May?

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

May?

...abhors certainty.

;-).

[Parhelion Palou]

4 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

TL;DR

 

So you're saying you prefer being controlled by corporations. Be happy -- that's more likely than us being controlled by the clowns in D.C. Eventually the Great AI will take over, but that's not for another couple decades.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Khashmal said:

This FCC regulation as it exists (Obama 2015) is a double edged sword that we must think about carefully.  It is true, that the IP companies may be able to make changes at their own discretion - and yeah it may effect pricing etc. in our internet experience. 

   HOWEVER; with FCC controlling our internet in the United States, it also opens the door for more GOVERNMENT control if the internet.  You can be assured that other things like the internet monitoring of U.S. citizens, via Homeland Security will be expanded from more than it already is.  I am of the opinion that the intent of our national freedoms involve choice, privacy and free market self-regulation.  FCC control of our internet in essence is just another step into the Orwellian '1984' concept of government - MORE control of U.S. citizens and their private activities - initiated and enacted by Obama and a Democratic congress of that time.  In America, business is business and used to be what made America great until socialism began changing our Federal laws.

Why do you think big corporations are so moral? They sell everything out for some $, controlling the government basically.

What business that made America great...do you mean the colonization of other countries and claiming their resources?

[Rhonda Huntress]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

.do you mean the colonization of other countries and claiming their resources?

Hey!  What do you expect from a British colony, anyway?