That tax question that gobsmacked Colbert? I have been asking that for days.

If lower taxes are supposed to create jobs, then how does a net neutral tax cut do a dang thing?

I think you're mixing a few separate questions.

In particular, the idea that Videosift banning pornography is "self" regulation. If dag decides that he personally doesn't want to post pornography on the Internet, that's self-regulation. If dag wants to host a site that publishes user content, but wants to regulate what those users are allowed to publish, that's not him regulating "himself" that's him regulating others.

I'm also not taking an absolutist stance against private censorship -- I think it's perfectly kosher to say that private publishers are free to limit certain specifically enumerated types of speech (hate speech, incitement to violence, pornography, etc.), but that the general rule is that if it doesn't clearly fall inside one of those enumerated categories it's against the law for them to censor it.

As for the historical case, I'm not aware of any country where an attempt to ban censorship turned into a regime that chilled free speech. What I'm talking about here is really Net Neutrality stated as a general principle rather than as an Internet-specific legislation.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner So videosift is violating free speech by its terms and agreements by not allowing pornography? People can't self regulate without Congregational approval? You think that will create MORE free speech and not less? I don't think there is a history of that being the case.

>> ^marinara:

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.
And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)
really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.


FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.

And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)

really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not support me for president? Like Paul I'm anti war and pro weed. Unlike Paul, I'm also pro net neutrality, pro civil rights, pro education, pro environment, pro bank regulation, I think OWS is 100% right, I'm NOT a neo-confederate, NOT a wacky Austrian economist and I've NEVER published a racist newsletter. Why vote your fears instead of your hopes? Vote for me! Fuck the two party system, the status quo and career politicians like Ron Paul. If you are looking for a true outsider, 6th party candidate win no realistic chance at winning the presidency, let alone any kind of nomination process, look no further. I'm your guy.


I would have gone with you to the end...

but unfortunately you have a boat waiting and I have to kill some orcs.

Why not support me for president? Like Paul I'm anti war and pro weed. Unlike Paul, I'm also pro net neutrality, pro civil rights, pro education, pro environment, pro bank regulation, I think OWS is 100% right, I'm NOT a neo-confederate, NOT a wacky Austrian economist and I've NEVER published a racist newsletter. Why vote your fears instead of your hopes? Vote for me! Fuck the two party system, the status quo and career politicians like Ron Paul. If you are looking for a true outsider, 6th party candidate win no realistic chance at winning the presidency, let alone any kind of nomination process, look no further. I'm your guy.

Ron Paul is against EVERYTHING, and he is savvy enough to market politically profitable "anti" positions to the correct single issue constituents without letting them know that he is also against tons of things that those constituents support.

-He is against SOPA, but he is also against Net Neutrality.(1)
-He is against our current war, but he is also against all military intervention including fighting Hitler (2), the confederate south (3) and presumably any legitimate future Hitlarian tyrant that may pop up.
-He is against drug laws, but he is also against environmental protections. (4)
-He is against Federal laws against gay marriage, but he supports them at the state level and opposes the Supreme Court ruling on state issues even if they are deemed unconstitutional. (5)
-He is against civil rights protections for minorities, women and gays. He'd like to repeal those civil rights protections and allow states to legalize discrimination at their leisure. (5)
-He is against public education. (6)
-He is against the separation of church and state. (7)
-He wants to deregulate the banks. (8)
-He wants to give corporations a huge tax cuts at a time of record productivity, record unemployment and record corporate profits. (9)
-He would make massive cuts to science (10) and is a global warming denier. (11)

He is a terrible candidate. You aren't a rebel if you support him. You are just bucking one undesirable status quo for an even worse anarcho-capitalist flavored status quo. He is consistent, but foolishly so. Look a little deeper before giving your blind support to this guy.

I'm so sick of the internet's uninformed Ron Paul circle jerk.

He is not the political savior you are looking for.

Cites:
(1) http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm
(2) http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-aide-ron-paul-claimed-saving-the-jews-was-absolutely-none-of-our-business/
(3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0
(4)http://lewrockwell.com/block/block189.html
(5)http://steviemcfly.tumblr.com/post/15660334642/ron-pauls-strange-relationship-with-privacy
(6)http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
(7)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Religion
(8)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-deregulate-wall-street/2011/08/25/gIQAeJmNuL_blog.html
(9)http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
(10)http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/ron-paul-would-erase-billions-in.html
(11)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with the idea of net neutrality turning into something crazy insidious. It was only a matter of time before "managed internet fairness for all" was...well "manged internet unfairness for all", I just didn't expect it to happen so rapidly, then again, I didn't think Obama would be murdering US citizens either. Things seem to be accelerating out of control; faster than you can name the rights your loosing. This is what Net Neutrality looks like over time, it looks like radio and TV...highly monitored and censored for your own good. Want to broadcast your own radio station, too bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Want to open your own website, to bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Want to host content that you didn't make yourself, to bad, you need clearance from the FCC. Government has ALREADY had this role in radio and TV for decades, it would be foolish to think they won't eventually do the same here. Being that we just singed the NDAA, pretty sure SOPA or something like it will pass during this administration. Rant over! Thanks for the links @kceaton1, here's hoping this doesn't pass during some other holiday we are all drunk for..like the NDAA did.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^marbles:
https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

>> ^marbles:

https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.


bah. How about this from the EFF:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today to close loopholes in its proposed regulations for network neutrality -- loopholes that could let the entertainment industry and law enforcement hinder free speech and innovation.

if net neutrality isn't free speech, what about media consolidation?
Should rupert murdoch be able to buy up every cable station on your cable tv?

Net neutrality is so simple that analogies just aren't needed.

Let's say I subscribe to AT&T's U-verse video on demand service. I can watch HD movies all day on it, but for some reason, HD movies on netflix just isn't working right. Because AT&T has a private network that it's own video on demand service is running on.

Thanks reason.tv, for taking AT&T cash (and making stupid analogies) so I can't possibly get HD movies from netflix.

net neutrality means that whomever wants to get on the internet, can, for the same price. Exactly what networks like verizon hate, when they block your IPhone from getting on netflix. A better example is comcast throttling the bandwidth of bittorrent users.

so censorship on the internet is a different issue.
Reason.tv actually opposes censorship like:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/france-attempts-to-civilize-the-internet-internet-fights-back.ars
so I'll give reason.tv a kudos for that.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Net Neutrality will kill internet free speech. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

If you don't want certain companies making decisions about the content of your internet, then your argument should be for a free market rather than accepting a government sanctioned one.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Cause regulation is what you need for free speech...just like radio and tv and movies aren't censored! Your opinion isn't shared by everyone, so it is hard to label them hypocrites You can't regulate free speech into existence, you can only regulate it away. It is like saying since I can't post things in someone else's news paper my free speech has been violated. The REAL culprit in the whole net nutrality debate is the lack of consumer choice in your broadband. A lot of that has to do with state and city regulations on who can lay cable, and you can bet it is a hotbed of mixed interests. If and when wireless is the mainstay of bandwidth, the entire net neutrality issue is moot. If you could choose between one of 300 networks, you would have more choice to choose against companies that don't play nice. Others, that don't care, won't make that choice. I prefer not to let government get its foot in the door for this last safe haven of free speech, the government has a much worse history than most things I can think of.

Not to mention that argument is completely flawed I might as well say you are a hypocrite because of your views on Net Neutrality and then use that to disregard your very sound opinion on abortion. ERROR ERROR does not compute! I will still allow you to touch me, though! (time for another drink!)

i found a video here about Reason's stance at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU (Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?). I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water yet...>> ^waynef100:

this is intriguing can you provide an example? thanks!>> ^marinara:
reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.