One of Glenn Beck's latest conspiracies involves a "gang of communists" who want to turn the Internet into a "Marxist utopia." That dangerous gang of communists he's warning Fox News viewers against? They're net neutrality supporters.
Glenn Beck has it all wrong: Net neutrality protects — not threatens — free speech online. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.
The FCC is accepting public comments until Thursday on a proposed regulation that would protect net neutrality. Will you say that you won't be fooled by scare tactics and that you support an open Internet?
We've made it easy to submit a public comment in support of net neutrality. Just click here for a sample comment and talking points. When the FCC initially took comments in January, pro-net neutrality submissions vastly outweighed comments from opponents of Internet freedom. As a result, big telecom companies are running scared. They're worried that the FCC might agree with us and prohibit them from inspecting and filtering the Internet content you access, blocking Web sites and applications they don't like, and overcharging you for using the Web. Out of the 120,000 comments submitted, 98,000 of them — a whopping 74 percent — were from CREDO Action members like you.
The FCC has opened a second round in the comment period. So we need to repeat that performance and beat back the media monopolists once again.
. . . The big telecom companies have deployed hundreds of lobbyists and pushed outrageous lies. Their goal? Overcome our voices by duping the public into believing their net neutrality myths.
We have only two days to debunk these lies and protect the free-flowing Web, as the FCC is only accepting the second round of comments until April 8. We've made it easy for you to submit your comment on our site — but we'll need it by 10 a.m. Pacific time on April 8 in order to get it into the docket by the deadline.
Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications; AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert; and Verizon Wireless, which interfered with NARAL Pro-Choice America's ability to send text messages to its members.
Without net neutrality, the Internet would cease to be a public platform for free speech, political organizing, and equal opportunity.
Speak out against the corporate lies. Submit your public comment today. Thanks for speaking out for a free and open Internet.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
done.hard to believe the gullibility of the morons listening to Beck.
ReplyDeleteDoes he seriously not understand the concept of net neutrality? It's been around since DARPA. You'd think that he was toeing the corporate line and...oh...I get it.
ReplyDeletePoor old Becky is just doing what Rupert tells him.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this. But I couldn't find a working link to the source? Can you make it a little more conspicuous? Thx!
ReplyDeleteDone for me. Done for my wife and Done for my 21 year old daughter.
ReplyDeleteI was gonna add my German Shepherd and Mini-Schnauzer, but the Feds have already shut them down for pole dancing in Las Vegas without a license, but not before they saw Glen at their show. He couldn't keep his eyes off of my male Schnauzer. Chewey, my Schnauzer made quite a haul that night, all off of one customer :-)
Vigi: Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm following you. I got this in an email from CREDO. The link is at the top of the fourth graph in my post. It seems to work okay. Does this help?
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck has it all wrong: Net neutrality protects — not threatens — free speech online.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it protects a medium which competes with his, and in particular it protects a medium which makes it easy to debunk the nonsense he spouts. There's his problem, I think.
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control.
Little guy vs. giant centralized entities -- there's his other problem, I think.
Thx, tnlib!
ReplyDeleteDone~! Good post. Ta for the link.
ReplyDeleteI added my two cents worth to the form letter. I hope it helps. Thans for posting the link.
ReplyDeleteI am so lost I never even heard of none of this .... so thanx. Nor do I know much to be honest about anything on the internet, I'm about as dumb as a doorknob when it come's to any computer stuff. I dont believe in censorship at all though. I personally use my own discretion's as far as what I will post, simply because it is available to the masses ( I dont want anyone to say I influenced them to do anything basically), but I never needed law's to tell me much of anything I reckon. As far as I know ... I have access on my internet service to just about whatever I reckon. All that regulatory crap is what sound's like commi stuff .... or that crap that I hear they do in China.
ReplyDeleteThank You Ms.Tnlib ........
I wish I knew how to make this into a link, but if you copy and paste it into your browser you will read how a 3 man court of appeals has thrown a monkey wrench it internet neutrality. Arrrgh!
ReplyDeletehttp://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/68-media/1435-court-throws-a-wrench-into-fcc-on-ne
I'm all for net neutrality. As long as Congress keeps any bills clean. That is, no pork slipped into it. And no nasty provisions like trying to censor political speech on the Net in the name of "campaign finance reform".
ReplyDelete"Glenn Beck gets it all wrong."
ReplyDeleteIt's like hearing that the sun is hot.
Shaw - what is that funny looking thing in your picture and why, when you are so pretty, would you put this up instead? No offense mind you.
ReplyDeletedmarks wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'm all for net neutrality. As long as Congress keeps any bills clean. That is, no pork slipped into it."
That's like saying you don't want a bill. Suppose passage of net neutrality bill depended on John Barbasso getting the University of Wyoming a million dollar grant to study the impact of porcine parasites on hog farms. You'd pass on net neutrality over that? You'd pass on net neutrality if every senator from every state wanted something like that? That's like saying no to an AIDS vaccine because it causes a rash.
Yes, I would. Because it becomes a waste spending bill, and is not longer a Net Neutrality bill.
ReplyDeleteA Net Neutrality bill like that is like an AIDS vaccine that causes ebola.
And no, it is not saying I don't want a bill. It is the opposite. It is saying I want a bill, rather than another legislative abomination that has the "Net Nentrality" label attached onto it.
ReplyDeleteHaven’t read your 18 comments yet. I am reminded of the ACLU’s “defense” of NAMBLA’s Web site. Of course, Bill O’Reilly had a field day with his ignorant followers and the NAMBLA case. Further proof, he said, that the ACLU “is the most dangerous organization in America.” What he did not explain to his viewers was that the ACLU does NOT support NAMBLA – in my opinion a despicable group. The ACLU said of the group’s Web cntent: an IDEA cannot be charged with murder.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck is scared of any IDEA which does not reflect his own.
dmarks:
ReplyDeleteEarmarks and so-called pork (one man's pork is often another's nutritional meal) comprise an infinitesimal portion of the federal budget. I don't like them any more than anyone else, but we have much bigger fish to fry than asking legislators to agree not to do something politically beneficial. Like it or not, they are a cost of representative democracy.
The DoD budget is by far the largest discretionary portion of the overall budget. It is a sacred cow, therefore it's a reasonable inference to make that the DoD budget is laden with earmarks and pork. Do you want to table the defense budget while it's scoured of these elements? Do you think that a proposal to do that would pass the laugh test?
Signed it!
ReplyDeleteBeck is a reckless moron and in a way I want to man to continue to rant the craziest shit he can think of because at some point he will hang himself.
K: All of the budget is discretionary, and there are even bigger sacred cows.
ReplyDelete"Do you want to table the defense budget while it's scoured of these elements?"
Why not? If you laugh at the idea that Congress should behave in a responsible fashion, you are far more cynical than I am. You've given up.
BK: The ACLU the most dangerous? Well, not THAT bad. But they aren't a very good civil liberties defense group, as they fight for explicit racial discrimination, and there are cases where they fight for censorship alongside the ones where they fight against it.
dmarks: You say you're idealistic and I'm cynical, I'm you're naive and I'm realistic.
ReplyDeleteThere are any number of issues more needful of national attention than pork and earmarks, net neutrality not the least among them. Opposing p & e is waste of time and energy, political posturing that, considering the problems facing the country, makes the attempted cure worse than the minor illness. It would be like applying chemotherapy to a cold.
BTW, both Social Security and Medicare are nondiscretionary.