Anonymous : No More Government In Our Internet 💻 Net Neutrality 🆓 🔚
President Trump has placed at the head of the Federal Communications Commission, an opponent to the neutrality of the net for carry out its project to kill Net Neutrality. December 14 was one of last day of the free and open Internet. The commission was vote to move forward with its efforts to control and kill network neutrality.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission regulator of telecommunications and media, outlined a project that would remove the rules, put in place under the Obama administration, that constrain providers Internet access to be transparent so that consumers can choose the offers that are best for them. Mr. Pai, appointed by Donald Trump as head of the FCC, says he is confident that this deregulation will increase their investment in the networks. They say that this measure would allow them to commit billions of dollars of investment. This move will allow Internet service providers to prioritize the data we see when we do our searches. Companies, corporations and any other powerful group with enough funds will pay to control the information we see online.
Maybe net neutrality is just something you hear on the news and see in the headlines. Maybe it's something you do not want to bother to understand. It all boils down to this : Freedom
"The Internet is a threat to those who know and decide. Because it gives access to knowledge other than through the hierarchical cursus"
~Jacques Attali
Ajit Pai puts an end to the neutrality of the net, it is crucial to act quickly to defend the principles that create the internet as we know it. Net neutrality is a matter of freedom of the press and a question of the First Amendment, because equal access to information and diversified journalism is imperative for a functioning democracy. Journalism has been transformed by the Internet, offering unprecedented and rapidly available access to news from around the world. The Internet exists as a site of creativity, innovation and solid political debate precisely because ISPs have a mandate to treat content in a neutral way. In the digital age, where journalism and the Internet are increasingly interconnected, Internet users, not businesses selling Internet access, should control the news they read.
Reducing net neutrality has disturbing and dangerous implications specifically for press freedom in a world where journalism and the Internet are increasingly linked. ISPs, some of which themselves have news media, would have broad power to determine what stories people would see, and could slow down or block access to media coverage by competing media instead of choosing between various news coverage. . News agencies could undermine local and independent journalism by limiting access to coverage by news sites that are not ISP partners. Alternative sources of media with varying political perspectives may be much slower than partner news websites, may not appear in search results, or may be more expensive to view.
No More Federal Government Involved In Our Internet . Trump is literally forming the biggest dictatorial regime of all time and we will no have way of keep fighting. This proposal cancels nearly two decades of agreements between left and right, which protect Americans' ability to freely access the Internet. Protecting net neutrality is an important issue of freedom. WAKE UP and STOP defending a president who destroys your country and your rights and the rights of people in other countries too !! The Internet as we know it could very well change forever and not for the better !!!!
“This move will allow Internet service providers to prioritize the data we see when we do our searches.“
This...is...already...the...case...; your search engine and your service provider have both ALREADY been prioritizing “the data we see when we do our searches” ; this has been triply-true when your mobile service provider is included.
“Alternative sources of media with varying political perspectives may be much slower than partner news websites, may not appear in search results, or may be more expensive to view.”
Again, this was ALREADY the case under the supposedly ‘neutral’ internet. While this wasn’t being done under a non-partner designation the effect was the same, only designated by proprietary algorithms (for which there is/was zero transparency) rather than partnership statuses.
“ISPs, some of which themselves have news media, would have broad power to determine what stories people would see...”
What you’re describing is not some possible future, it is EXACTLY the ACTUAL present and past; net ‘neutrality’ did not prevent this condition, it AUTHORIZED and PROTECTED this condition.
Maybe you don’t live in the United States and that’s why you’re so confused about this. I’m not sure where you’re from but in the United States there are 6 supranational corporations which control 99% of all media and the access to media both; the Disney/Fox merger will reduce this to 5. Through either direct ownership, or subsidiary relationships, or licensing agreement these 5 corporations also control 99.9% of all access to media; 99.9% of all ISP’s in the US are ALREADY owned and controlled by these 6 corporations (soon to be 5). Each of these 6 corporations ALREADY owns and CONTROLS ALL of the major news organizations, and 99% of the minor news outlets as well.
For practically everyone in the United States you have approximately one “choice” for your ISP; you maybe have two “choices”, maybe. This is not the case because only one ISP believed it could make money in your particular market. It is the case because of archaic FCC regulations which ALLOW and PROTECT and SUBSIDIZE telecommunications MONOPOLIES. Your position is that allowing MORE ISP’s to enter customer markets is going to be a bad thing. It’s a position which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.