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?
….Google and Facebook have built huge businesses powered by reams of data they collect about consumers’ online actions, both on their own properties and across the web. That trove of information largely explains their dominance — combined, they have a roughly 47% share of the global digital ad market, according to eMarketer.
But online advertising executives say telecom providers potentially have access to more powerful data than the two tech powerhouses. Their networks — both wired and wireless — could give them a window into nearly everything a user is doing on the web.
“ISPs like Verizon can now start building and selling profiles about consumers that include their friends, the news articles they read, where they shop, where they bank, along with their physical location,” said Jason Kint, chief executive of digital media trade body Digital Content Next and a vocal proponent of the rules that Congress voted to repeal…. [read more]
lhwm notes: This is why we provide these companies as an alternative. Hope you like them as much as we do.
These search engines protect your privacy when searching,
Duck Duck Go
These browsers protect your privacy and are similar to internet explorer, chrome etc.
WARNING:The Internet world’s top tech companies have thrown in with the progressive left in trying to drag the President Donald Trump administration into the life-sucking quicksand of their cesspool.
While Hollywood and entertainment celebrities hold public attention with their daily rants and screams of outrage, the battle to rid the world of Trump and turn it back to the absolute control of the progressive left has opened the way for a new battle frontier.
This one’s a guerrilla war with the ability to send millions of Internet surfers into the raging battle as its most numerous foot soldiers.
Tech reaction to Trump’s immigration plan is as comprehensive as it was swift…. [read more]
John 3:19 (GW) 19 This is why people are condemned: The light came into the world. Yet, people LOVED THE DARK rather than the light because their actions were evil.
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]
As Washington prepares to unleash new sanctions on Russia, it appears Putin won’t take this laying down. If U.S. adopts new sanctions against Russia, govt in Moscow will resort to counter-measures, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warns in a website statement.
As we detailed previously, the delay in sanctions against Russia have come from Obama’s inability to take unilateral actions under current laws. While Obama previously signed an executive order that would allow him to freeze the assets in the United States of people overseas who have engaged in cyber acts, it only applies to actions that have threatened U.S. national security or financial stability. Further, per a “senior administration official,” use of the existing law would require (1) actual election infrastructure to be designated as ‘critical infrastructure’ and (2) the administration to prove that such infrastructure was actually “harmed,” conditions which the National Security Council say have not been met.
lhwm notes: Wow look at this picture. This picture has many words going!