The end of the "Free" internet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teki187

Teki187

Teki187

Permabanned
Joined
15 Sep 2006
Posts
4,642
Location
Somewhere in York
Under the proposed new rules, broadband providers will be legally able to limit the number of websites you can look
at, and to tell you whether or not you are allowed to use particular services. It will be dressed up as ‘new consumer options' which people can choose from. People will be offered TV-like packages - with a limited number of options for you to access.

It means that the Internet will be packaged up and your ability to access and to put up content could be severely restricted. It will create boxes of Internet accessibility, which don't fit with the way we use it today. This is because internet is now permitting exchanges between persons which cannot be controlled or "facilitated" by any middlemen (the state or a corporation) and this possibility improves the citizen's life but force the industry to lose power and control. that's why they are pushing governments to act those changes.
Click to expand...
Source - http://www.blackouteurope.eu/


Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who declared in March that we would all be better off if the internet was never invented. Rockefeller meant the government would be better off if the internet was never invented.

If the internet was never invented, the corporate media would dominate news and information and alternative media restricted to print would have a far more difficult time counter balancing government propaganda.




Rockefeller’s bills introduced in the Senate — known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 — would create yet another government bureaucracy, the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. It would report directly to Obama. Rockefeller’s legislation would grant “the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access”


Cybersecurity Act of 2009: http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf

So there we go, it looks the the big global corporations and elite are starting to take the internet over. Restricting websites to a category and then forcing us to pay to browse that, its insane.
 
It will never happen.

Think of the amount of money this would take. Big business wouldn't even allow it.


Its more likely they will just start to monitor all traffic like the UK.
 
TinFoilHatArea.jpg
 
It's not going to happen, if it came to it people would just create their own lans accross their neighbourhood and in time you would have a new internet.
 
Teki187 said:
Well i should link BBC, because there impartial right? Maybe even Fox news..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think the Daily Fail has more impartiality than that website ... :rolleyes:. Did you not notice that it seems to have a particular view that it's quite keen on putting across? Hell, even the name of the site is sensationalist!

// EDIT // LOL can't believe I got rolleyed for that :p. This is the perfect time for the huge animated gif, if someone wants to oblige me ... :D
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Any form of reptuable news sites, as opposed to random conspiracy sites, would do.
Click to expand...

But all reputable sites are obviously corrupt propaganda sites which is why places like here are the only source of valid news!!

Infowars is hilarious though; every single piece of major world news is a conspiracy; absolutely NOTHING is true.

Utterly fantastic.

The prison planet forum "how to spot a troll" is even better.
2) There are those who ask for sources all the time. Oh where did you read that? Do you have the link for the original piece? I would like to read more on this issue, can you direct me to your sources? Kind of person. Most people will want to know some people/s sources for certain things but not everything - and there are some people who just ask for sources and hardly comment on anything else. Be careful because the other side is working hard to squash the information flow on the internet. By directing them to the places we get our information you are actually endangering our information flow unless you can be sure. Otherwise share your sources with the blog posters - they are looking to stop information of a certain kind now. It is a fine line because you want people to have the information you have but you don't want to dime them out either. Like I find the pesky links weekly diary to be invaluable and I hope that it continues to post. I think that is an excellent service and don't mean not to provide sources for your information. Just use your best judgement and watch out for those always asking for sources is all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Teki187 said:
Thanks for the links, but i bring a bit more to the table of discussion then the above.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that one out? Half the OP is just a rehash of one of your [thread=17990522]old threads[/thread]. Video look familiar? Yes, it's the exact same one.

Sorry, but this is just alarmist tripe. No law is required for this - in fact, quite the opposite. There is no law that says ISPs must give you access - they are perfectly within their rights to deny you access to whatever they choose - and many do (see cleanfeed, the IWF and IWF's blacklisting of Wikipedia).

/thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom