Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT ~ Free speech means a free internet — even if Democrats don't like it
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Jan Orme
Jul 6, 2018, 2:47:54 PM7/6/18
to
http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
Free speech means a free internet — even if Democrats don't like it
By Dan Backer, opinion contributor — 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media has ginned up a new “red scare,” the FEC’s proposals will do nothing to stop bad actors, but will undermine our First Amendment rights to online political speech.
The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different approaches — some more restrictive than others — to “improve” disclaimers for online political advertising. Yet FEC regulations already require political action committees (PACs) and other online spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to fully disclaimed pages if they can’t. PACs are also required to disclose all of their expenditures monthly or quarterly, and file special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
Existing regulations are clear and comprehensive. The law isn’t the so-called problem being addressed here, though; it’s all that persnickety speech outside the political establishment.
The FEC’s Democrats, most notably Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, condemn advertising “paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,” urging Congress to “regulate political spending on the internet.” But that’s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
Bad actors won’t comply with the law — because they’re bad actors. For the political elites, who can afford to hire campaign finance lawyers and well-paid vendors, the FEC’s proposals will at most be a nuisance as they continue delivering their messages online.
Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would seek to comply with the law, or simply stay silent. The left’s quick-trigger response is as aggressively anti-First Amendment as they are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful activity they dislike with rules that won’t stop unlawful activity.
If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they should be pursued and punished. But the left’s vision of a less free internet is little more than ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid.
The resonance of President Trump’s candidacy and eventual victory led Congress and federal agencies to take a heightened interest in Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016 election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned against political ads “that would drive interest toward stories or groups” to “sow chaos and drive division in our country.” In other words, ideas he doesn’t like.
Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest “fake news” on social media elected President Trump. As NPR reporter Danielle Kurtzleben put it, “Many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump win, and lo and behold, Trump won.” In other words, ideas they don’t approve of.
Of course, such assertions don’t hold up to empirical scrutiny. Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia, only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the billion-dollar Clinton machine — the epitome of political establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an out-of-touch liberal they didn’t like and couldn’t trust?
To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic Party’s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history — and they all lost.
President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially outspent in the general election.
The bottom line is this: It’s up to Americans to decide which ideas to support or oppose. Political advertising only brings them more ideas to consider — and broadens the parameters of our political debates.
This is especially true online, where debates are at their most robust. Stifling them with red tape is un-American.
Keep free speech on the internet free from Big Government.
Dan Backer is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Va. Backer is general counsel for the Great America PAC and other political committees; he has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Backer is also the president and founder of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan
Free speech means a free internet — even if Democrats don't like it
By Dan Backer, opinion contributor — 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media has ginned up a new “red scare,” the FEC’s proposals will do nothing to stop bad actors, but will undermine our First Amendment rights to online political speech.
The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different approaches — some more restrictive than others — to “improve” disclaimers for online political advertising. Yet FEC regulations already require political action committees (PACs) and other online spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to fully disclaimed pages if they can’t. PACs are also required to disclose all of their expenditures monthly or quarterly, and file special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
Existing regulations are clear and comprehensive. The law isn’t the so-called problem being addressed here, though; it’s all that persnickety speech outside the political establishment.
The FEC’s Democrats, most notably Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, condemn advertising “paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,” urging Congress to “regulate political spending on the internet.” But that’s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
Bad actors won’t comply with the law — because they’re bad actors. For the political elites, who can afford to hire campaign finance lawyers and well-paid vendors, the FEC’s proposals will at most be a nuisance as they continue delivering their messages online.
Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would seek to comply with the law, or simply stay silent. The left’s quick-trigger response is as aggressively anti-First Amendment as they are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful activity they dislike with rules that won’t stop unlawful activity.
If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they should be pursued and punished. But the left’s vision of a less free internet is little more than ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential bid.
The resonance of President Trump’s candidacy and eventual victory led Congress and federal agencies to take a heightened interest in Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016 election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned against political ads “that would drive interest toward stories or groups” to “sow chaos and drive division in our country.” In other words, ideas he doesn’t like.
Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest “fake news” on social media elected President Trump. As NPR reporter Danielle Kurtzleben put it, “Many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump win, and lo and behold, Trump won.” In other words, ideas they don’t approve of.
Of course, such assertions don’t hold up to empirical scrutiny. Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia, only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the billion-dollar Clinton machine — the epitome of political establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an out-of-touch liberal they didn’t like and couldn’t trust?
To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic Party’s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history — and they all lost.
President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially outspent in the general election.
The bottom line is this: It’s up to Americans to decide which ideas to support or oppose. Political advertising only brings them more ideas to consider — and broadens the parameters of our political debates.
This is especially true online, where debates are at their most robust. Stifling them with red tape is un-American.
Keep free speech on the internet free from Big Government.
Dan Backer is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Va. Backer is general counsel for the Great America PAC and other political committees; he has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Backer is also the president and founder of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan
nothermark
Jul 7, 2018, 1:27:10 PM7/7/18
to
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:
Interesting line of BS. Net neutrality classed the Internet providers
as common carriers. They moved content with no concern for what was
in the package. Ending net neutrality removed the common carrier
status thus requiring the Internet providers to monitor and control
content. The whole issue is a lot bigger than simply monetizing some
channels over others. That was a Republican move. In essence they
are now arguing with the Democrats over what constitutes Porn. This
is only the tip of the iceberg.
wrote:
as common carriers. They moved content with no concern for what was
in the package. Ending net neutrality removed the common carrier
status thus requiring the Internet providers to monitor and control
content. The whole issue is a lot bigger than simply monetizing some
channels over others. That was a Republican move. In essence they
are now arguing with the Democrats over what constitutes Porn. This
is only the tip of the iceberg.
Jan Orme
Jul 8, 2018, 12:45:39 PM7/8/18
to
Name any debate on any subject and it will be the tip of any iceberg.
Jan
nothermark
Jul 9, 2018, 4:34:20 PM7/9/18
to
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
While I more or less agree with that the issue is ending net
neutrality. As long as the Internet was classed as a common carrier
it could not be interfered with. When the Republicans pushed ending
net neutrality they opened the door for all sorts of limitations. All
the folks that thought it was only about money missed the iceberg.
I'm not saying money is not involved as I am fairly sure AT&T will be
moving to increase their profits from owning a lot of the backbone.
That is small potatoes compared to the fights over controlling
content.
neutrality. As long as the Internet was classed as a common carrier
it could not be interfered with. When the Republicans pushed ending
net neutrality they opened the door for all sorts of limitations. All
the folks that thought it was only about money missed the iceberg.
I'm not saying money is not involved as I am fairly sure AT&T will be
moving to increase their profits from owning a lot of the backbone.
That is small potatoes compared to the fights over controlling
content.
George Anthony
Jul 9, 2018, 6:25:24 PM7/9/18
to
Bruce
Jul 9, 2018, 6:48:37 PM7/9/18
to
How stupid does a person have to be to believe that anyone has to offer
then an all you an use price? Do cable tv providers do it? No. Do
restaurants do it? No (with some buffet exceptions) Does your grocery
store do it? No.
Internet service is a commodity, just like hamburgers or cars -- people
should expect to be charged based on how much they use.
--
Bruce
"In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly
should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's
mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's mayhem is undeniably,
factually horrendous."~~ Robert Higgs.
nothermark
Jul 10, 2018, 9:20:03 AM7/10/18
to
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:48:31 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 7/9/2018 3:25 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free speech means a free internet ? even if Democrats don't like it
>>>>>> By Dan Backer, opinion contributor ? 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
>>>>>> so-called problem being addressed here, though; it?s all that
>>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad actors won?t comply with the law ? because they?re bad actors. For
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resonance of President Trump?s candidacy and eventual victory led
>>>>>> would drive interest toward stories or groups? to ?sow chaos and drive
>>>>>> division in our country.? In other words, ideas he doesn?t like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest ?fake news?
>>>>>> win, and lo and behold, Trump won.? In other words, ideas they don?t approve of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, such assertions don?t hold up to empirical scrutiny.
Do you pay per phone call?
wrote:
>On 7/9/2018 3:25 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Dan Backer, opinion contributor ? 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>>> has ginned up a new ?red scare,? the FEC?s proposals will do nothing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>>> to stop bad actors, but will undermine our First Amendment rights to
>>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>>> approaches ? some more restrictive than others ? to ?improve?
>>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>>> disclaimers for online political advertising. Yet FEC regulations
>>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>>> fully disclaimed pages if they can?t. PACs are also required to
>>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>>> disclose all of their expenditures monthly or quarterly, and file
>>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Existing regulations are clear and comprehensive. The law isn?t the
>>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so-called problem being addressed here, though; it?s all that
>>>>>> persnickety speech outside the political establishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC?s Democrats, most notably Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad actors won?t comply with the law ? because they?re bad actors. For
>>>>>> the political elites, who can afford to hire campaign finance lawyers
>>>>>> and well-paid vendors, the FEC?s proposals will at most be a nuisance
>>>>>> as they continue delivering their messages online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>>> seek to comply with the law, or simply stay silent. The left?s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>>> quick-trigger response is as aggressively anti-First Amendment as they
>>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>>> activity they dislike with rules that won?t stop unlawful activity.
>>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>>> should be pursued and punished. But the left?s vision of a less free
>>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>>> internet is little more than ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton?s failed presidential bid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resonance of President Trump?s candidacy and eventual victory led
>>>>>> Congress and federal agencies to take a heightened interest in
>>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>>> election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned against political ads ?that
>>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>>> would drive interest toward stories or groups? to ?sow chaos and drive
>>>>>> division in our country.? In other words, ideas he doesn?t like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest ?fake news?
>>>>>> on social media elected President Trump. As NPR reporter Danielle
>>>>>> Kurtzleben put it, ?Many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump
>>>>>> win, and lo and behold, Trump won.? In other words, ideas they don?t approve of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, such assertions don?t hold up to empirical scrutiny.
>>>>>> Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth
>>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>>> billion-dollar Clinton machine ? the epitome of political
>>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>>> establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an
>>>>>> out-of-touch liberal they didn?t like and couldn?t trust?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>>> Party?s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech
>>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>>> Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are
>>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>>> were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history ? and they all lost.
>>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bottom line is this: It?s up to Americans to decide which ideas to
>>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> support or oppose. Political advertising only brings them more ideas
>>>>>> to consider ? and broadens the parameters of our political debates.
nothermark
Jul 10, 2018, 9:29:01 AM7/10/18
to
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 22:25:21 +0000 (UTC), George Anthony
<gant...@gmail.org> wrote:
>nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>
>>>>> Free speech means a free internet ? even if Democrats don't like it
<gant...@gmail.org> wrote:
>nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>
>>>>> By Dan Backer, opinion contributor ? 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>> has ginned up a new ?red scare,? the FEC?s proposals will do nothing
>>>>>
>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>> to stop bad actors, but will undermine our First Amendment rights to
>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>> approaches ? some more restrictive than others ? to ?improve?
>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>> disclaimers for online political advertising. Yet FEC regulations
>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>> fully disclaimed pages if they can?t. PACs are also required to
>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>> disclose all of their expenditures monthly or quarterly, and file
>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Existing regulations are clear and comprehensive. The law isn?t the
>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>
>>>>> so-called problem being addressed here, though; it?s all that
>>>>> persnickety speech outside the political establishment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The FEC?s Democrats, most notably Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub,
>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad actors won?t comply with the law ? because they?re bad actors. For
>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the political elites, who can afford to hire campaign finance lawyers
>>>>> and well-paid vendors, the FEC?s proposals will at most be a nuisance
>>>>> as they continue delivering their messages online.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>> seek to comply with the law, or simply stay silent. The left?s
>>>>>
>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>> quick-trigger response is as aggressively anti-First Amendment as they
>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>> activity they dislike with rules that won?t stop unlawful activity.
>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>>
>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>> should be pursued and punished. But the left?s vision of a less free
>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>> internet is little more than ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to
>>>>> Hillary Clinton?s failed presidential bid.
>>>>>
>>>>> The resonance of President Trump?s candidacy and eventual victory led
>>>>> Congress and federal agencies to take a heightened interest in
>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>> election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned against political ads ?that
>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>> would drive interest toward stories or groups? to ?sow chaos and drive
>>>>> division in our country.? In other words, ideas he doesn?t like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest ?fake news?
>>>>> on social media elected President Trump. As NPR reporter Danielle
>>>>> Kurtzleben put it, ?Many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump
>>>>> win, and lo and behold, Trump won.? In other words, ideas they don?t approve of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, such assertions don?t hold up to empirical scrutiny.
>>>>> Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth
>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>> billion-dollar Clinton machine ? the epitome of political
>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>> establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an
>>>>> out-of-touch liberal they didn?t like and couldn?t trust?
>>>>>
>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>> Party?s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech
>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>> Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are
>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>> were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history ? and they all lost.
>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>>
>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bottom line is this: It?s up to Americans to decide which ideas to
>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>
>>>>> support or oppose. Political advertising only brings them more ideas
>>>>> to consider ? and broadens the parameters of our political debates.
On a neutral Internet the provider is classed as a common carrier so
is responsible for getting the goods from here to there. They are not
responsible for the content of the package or packet. With the
removal of net neutrality the common carrier status was lost so the
carrier now becomes responsible for the content of the package. That
opened them to being required to search for things like hate speech or
porn. That, in turn, gets into definition fights over what cannot be
passed around. The lawyers are going to love it. In essence I expect
it sets up to limit the World Wide Web the way the Cuomo deal
practically killed Usenet over purported child porn.
RMcBane
Jul 10, 2018, 11:40:19 AM7/10/18
to
internet was born with all content being equal,
and moved from provider to user with only the
bandwidth of their connections and hardware
limiting how fast information moved. The official
policy we now call net neutrality was an attempt
to maintain the status quo. Without net
neutrality it is possible for internet provider to
give preference to content from provider that they
own or those that pay them to provide a faster
conduit for their content. That could mean that
the user only gets content from the IPs preferred
provider list as content from all non affiliated
sources is too slow to bother downloading.
--
Richard McBane
Bruce
Jul 10, 2018, 11:43:32 AM7/10/18
to
used.
Since it's been 15 years since I had a landline phone, I don't know how
they charge anymore, but I clearly remember being charged per minute for
long distance calls in the past.
Major Oz
Jul 10, 2018, 12:20:49 PM7/10/18
to
Mom remembers not having a phone.
For you, me, and mom......that was then.
This is now.
Jan Orme
Jul 10, 2018, 12:35:52 PM7/10/18
to
Too many of you are, IMHO, going off on a tangent of what Dan Backer said and pointed out in what he wrote that is ever so important.
He wrote these lines:
<< Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the billion-dollar Clinton machine — the epitome of political establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an out-of-touch liberal they didn’t like and couldn’t trust?
To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic Party’s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history — and they all lost.
President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially outspent in the general election.>>
Now.... a large portion of our country is still stunned and standing around with dumb looks on their mutts.
Meanwhile President Trump is going about exactly what he sad he wanted to do and
"Make America Great Again!"
...and doing it without giving plane loads of ca$h away.
I salute him and his gallant hard work at doing this. And....AMERICA should also thank him for his vigorous and valiant efforts.
Heck! You don't even have to like him in this process! If you think he gives a rat's ass if you like him or not you are dumber than that box of rocks!
Just sayin'....
Jan
nothermark
Jul 10, 2018, 5:58:56 PM7/10/18
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:40:13 -0400, RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 7/9/2018 6:25 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free speech means a free internet ? even if Democrats don't like it
>On 7/9/2018 6:25 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>> nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 10:27:10 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 11:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/395595-free-speech-means-a-free-internet-even-if-democrats-dont-like-it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Dan Backer, opinion contributor ? 07/06/18 06:30 AM EDT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>>> has ginned up a new ?red scare,? the FEC?s proposals will do nothing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal Election Commission (FEC) recently held two days of
>>>>>> hearings on proposed internet regulations. While the hysterical media
>>>>>> to stop bad actors, but will undermine our First Amendment rights to
>>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>>> approaches ? some more restrictive than others ? to ?improve?
>>>>>> online political speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC used the hearings, at which I testified, to consider different
>>>>>> disclaimers for online political advertising. Yet FEC regulations
>>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>>> fully disclaimed pages if they can?t. PACs are also required to
>>>>>> already require political action committees (PACs) and other online
>>>>>> spenders to use disclaimers where they can, or to click through to
>>>>>> disclose all of their expenditures monthly or quarterly, and file
>>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Existing regulations are clear and comprehensive. The law isn?t the
>>>>>> special reports whenever spending more than modestly to support or oppose candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so-called problem being addressed here, though; it?s all that
>>>>>> persnickety speech outside the political establishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FEC?s Democrats, most notably Vice Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub,
>>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bad actors won?t comply with the law ? because they?re bad actors. For
>>>>>> condemn advertising ?paid for by Russia or other foreign countries,?
>>>>>> urging Congress to ?regulate political spending on the internet.? But
>>>>>> that?s silly: The law already forbade those bad actors in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the political elites, who can afford to hire campaign finance lawyers
>>>>>> and well-paid vendors, the FEC?s proposals will at most be a nuisance
>>>>>> as they continue delivering their messages online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>>> seek to comply with the law, or simply stay silent. The left?s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regulating the internet will only overburden everyone else who would
>>>>>> quick-trigger response is as aggressively anti-First Amendment as they
>>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>>> activity they dislike with rules that won?t stop unlawful activity.
>>>>>> are to the Second Amendment, and every bit as pointless. Echoing
>>>>>> anti-gun activists, anti-speech liberals attempt to punish lawful
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>>> should be pursued and punished. But the left?s vision of a less free
>>>>>> If political advertisers violate the regulations on the books, they
>>>>>> internet is little more than ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton?s failed presidential bid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resonance of President Trump?s candidacy and eventual victory led
>>>>>> Congress and federal agencies to take a heightened interest in
>>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>>> election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) warned against political ads ?that
>>>>>> Facebook advertising and other forms of truly open, online speech
>>>>>> through which the Trump message flourished. Following the 2016
>>>>>> would drive interest toward stories or groups? to ?sow chaos and drive
>>>>>> division in our country.? In other words, ideas he doesn?t like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Left-leaning journalists, meanwhile, continue to suggest ?fake news?
>>>>>> on social media elected President Trump. As NPR reporter Danielle
>>>>>> Kurtzleben put it, ?Many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump
>>>>>> win, and lo and behold, Trump won.? In other words, ideas they don?t approve of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, such assertions don?t hold up to empirical scrutiny.
>>>>>> Zuckerberg first came under congressional pressure over $10,000 worth
>>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>>> billion-dollar Clinton machine ? the epitome of political
>>>>>> of Russian-bought Facebook ads. Not all of them were even explicitly
>>>>>> political: Of the roughly 3,500 Facebook ads traced back to Russia,
>>>>>> only about 100 mentioned support for President Trump or opposition to Clinton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we really supposed to believe that $10,000 and 100 ads felled the
>>>>>> establishment? Or, could it be Americans simply rejected an
>>>>>> out-of-touch liberal they didn?t like and couldn?t trust?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>>> Party?s sour grapes is the definition of foolishness. Anti-speech
>>>>>> To enact broader internet regulations because of the Democratic
>>>>>> Democrats and their establishment enablers assume Americans are
>>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>>> were the candidates with the largest super PACs in U.S. history ? and they all lost.
>>>>>> mindless simpletons, bought off by the wealthiest candidates and most expensive ad buys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have we so quickly forgotten the debacle of Jeb Bush? Or Sen. Marco
>>>>>> Rubio (R-Fla.)? Or even Clinton herself? Along with Mitt Romney, these
>>>>>>
>>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bottom line is this: It?s up to Americans to decide which ideas to
>>>>>> President Trump cruised to primary victory after victory running
>>>>>> almost no ads. He won the White House after being substantially
>>>>>> outspent in the general election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> support or oppose. Political advertising only brings them more ideas
>>>>>> to consider ? and broadens the parameters of our political debates.
neutral until the FCC removed neutrality.
I think it was many of the same players that had the neutral status
adjudicated in the past over folks trying to hold them responsible for
things like porn. That does pose a question about why the reversal. I
really doubt it is because the ISP's want to become net nanny's.
nothermark
Jul 10, 2018, 6:10:10 PM7/10/18
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:43:29 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
You are making my point. You buy a chunk of capacity on your phone or
Internet provider. Very little of either one is sold on a by minute
basis. There are tables and probably math behind the tables that
predict how much use x number of customers will use. They build out
capacity at less than 100% usage using those tables. They also derive
the monthly fee by dividing the cost+profit by the number of users.
You are not going to change your bill by changing the amount you use.
What is screwing things up is the way many web sites keep increasing
the graphics content of their sites. Bigger files to keep moving
around.
Internet provider. Very little of either one is sold on a by minute
basis. There are tables and probably math behind the tables that
predict how much use x number of customers will use. They build out
capacity at less than 100% usage using those tables. They also derive
the monthly fee by dividing the cost+profit by the number of users.
You are not going to change your bill by changing the amount you use.
What is screwing things up is the way many web sites keep increasing
the graphics content of their sites. Bigger files to keep moving
around.
nothermark
Jul 10, 2018, 8:19:24 PM7/10/18
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:35:49 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:
No, you are ignoring the fact that 6 months ago the FEC could debate
all the laws they wanted to. They could not get any law passed the
did anything on the Internet because of net neutrality. Now they can
try to regulate it.
wrote:
all the laws they wanted to. They could not get any law passed the
did anything on the Internet because of net neutrality. Now they can
try to regulate it.
RMcBane
Jul 10, 2018, 11:18:39 PM7/10/18
to
up.
Here is a Wikipedia article that goes into lots of
detail on Net Neutrality which pretty much fits my
simplified explanation.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality>
The article also addresses issues like porn. But
basically it states the the concept of Net
Neutrality is that any packet of data should be
treated the same, regardless of content, source or
destination.
> I think it was many of the same players that had the neutral status
> adjudicated in the past over folks trying to hold them responsible for
> things like porn. That does pose a question about why the reversal. I
> really doubt it is because the ISP's want to become net nanny's.
Richard McBane
gregz
Jul 11, 2018, 3:02:58 AM7/11/18
to
across the board rate increase. They get their money one way or another.
Greg
Jan Orme
Jul 13, 2018, 12:34:42 AM7/13/18
to
(yawn.....zzzzzzzzzz)
nothermark
Jul 13, 2018, 9:03:09 AM7/13/18
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:34:40 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
You think that is a yawn you ought to see what the new SCOTUS nominee
wants to do.
wants to do.
0 new messages