Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want to end net neutrality so they can charge extra fees to control what we see & do online. On July 12, we take the first step to stop them. This is a battle for the Internet’s future. Before you do anything else, send a letter to the FCC & Congress now!
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online. In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—”fast lanes” for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.
We are Team Internet. We support net neutrality, freedom of speech.
Nearly everyone who understands and depends on the Internet supports net neutrality, whether they’re startup founders, activists, gamers, politicians, investors, comedians, YouTube stars, or typical Internet users who just want their Internet to work as advertised—regardless of their political party. But don’t take our word for it. Ask around, or watch some of these videos.<!–more–>
(Natural News) Google is not exactly going out on limb with an announcement that it will block terrorist content on YouTube, but its new initiative certainly appears commendable from a national and international security perspective.
In a Google in Europe blog post authored by its general counsel, the search engine behemoth explained that it is adopting four new guidelines for tackling the issue of online extremism that will combine ramped-up technology with the human element.
In addition to boosting its screening software technology to better identify videos that need to be taken down, YouTube will get an assist from its so-called Trusted Flagger cohort of Google-funded independent experts who will help police the platform.
Google is already working with various government agencies to address violent extremism…. read more
Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a “free and open internet,” want to ban the Drudge Report.
Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undo the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.
Protesters covering their faces held signs that read “Ban Drudge,” with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars…. read more
by LHWM: On the Drudge Report all his news are headlines. So why are they not protesting against the one’s he post on his site. Why are they not banning these sites. What happened to free and open, Net Neutrality? I’m sorry is anyone else confused by this statement from a company called Net Neutrality?
Neutrality means – The state or quality of being neutral; the condition of being unengaged in contests between others; state of taking no part on either side; indifference.
Did you know Obama turned our internet over to Net Neutrality this is stated underneath “President Obama’s Plan for a Free and Open Internet”. Just exactly what is their definition of FREE and OPEN?
Broadband providers won’t have to get your permission before sharing your web browsing history and other personal data with marketers thanks to a vote Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
Republicans in the US House of Representatives approved a resolution that prevents privacy rules passed by the FCC last year from taking effect. The vote was 215 in favor and 205 opposing the measure.
The Senate voted on Thursday to adopt the resolution to nullify the rules. All that’s left now is for President Donald Trump to sign the order. Earlier Tuesday, the White House said he plans to sign it…. read more
Google couldn’t get Hillary Clinton elected president but now they’re going deep into the world of communication as self-appointed scrubbers of “hate speech” online.
Hate speech to you could be Madonna saying at last month’s Washington March that she thinks of “blowing up the White House”. Hate speech to Google could be posting that you think “Donald Trump makes a better president than Hillary Clinton ever would”.
Silencing those with whom you disagree under the blanket of “hate speech” is a very sneaky business, but when the sneak just happens to be the world’s foremost search engine, sneak turns to snark and there’s no way around it.
For bloggers, commenters and news sites Google’s “hate speech” fence will be much harder to scale than any wall at the U.S. southern border…. [read more]
lhwm opinion: Exactly, who’s definition are these companies going by?
First it was the US, then Germany blamed much of what is wrong in society on “fake news”, and not, say, a series of terrible decisions made by politicians. Now it is Italy’s turn to call for an end to “fake news”, which in itself would not be troubling, however, the way Giovanni Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body, demands the European Union “cracks down” on what it would dub “fake news” is nothing short of a total crackdown on all free speech, and would give local governments free reign to silence any outlet that did not comply with the establishment propaganda.
In an interview with the FT, Pitruzzella said the regulation of false information on the internet was best done by the state rather than by social media companies such as Facebook, an approach taken previously by Germany, which has demanded that Facebook end “hate speech” and has threatened to find the social network as much as €500K per “fake” post.
Pitruzzella, head of the Italian competition body since 2011, said “EU countries should set up independent bodies — co-ordinated by Brussels and modeled on the system of antitrust agencies — which could quickly label fake news, remove it from circulation and impose fines if necessary.”
In other words, a series of unelected bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone, would sit down and between themselves decide what is and what isn’t “fake news”, and then, drumroll, “remove it from circulation.” On the other hand, coming one week after Obama give Europe the green light to engage in any form of censorship and halt of free speech that it desires, when the outgoing US president voted into law the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act”, it should come as no surprise that a suddenly emboldened Europe is resorting to such chilling measures…. [read more]