Is the government using net neutrality and censorship to destroy the internet?

I believe that they are letting us have our Constitutional rights, keeping track of them, while they watch us destroy ourselves, Then on day we will ask for help, they will help in exchange of information of crimes we may have done or of crimes others did. They will say that the internet is uncontrollable, and start by issuing what can or can not be said. It's a rip though, because we'll just go underground and never give true stats about ourselves.

Yes,,,,and they will protect their power at any cost. End game you are a powerless, voiceless tax slave.

Acta is rejected by the european parlament but this is not the ens look for the indect bill this bill is created in 2009 by the european parlament and will be activated in begin or mid 2013 this bill will censor the internet it also should censor the poeple on the streets

There is not doubt about it. The Obama administration has demanded that certain speeches that he has given in the past that show his plans for the nation and proof of his socialistic ways have been removed from youtube and other sites.

Actually more like authoritarian crony capitalism/fascism and not true socialism. Any true socialist would be disgusted by Obama's practices and any true free market capitalist would be equally as disgusted.

At least not intentionally, at most: they wish to take over the entire worlds internet, claim it was an accident and control all the other countries unnamed devices and brain wash their citizens into thinking otherwise.

They will try. But failure is what government does best.

Actually when it comes to taking away our rights, the government does a pretty good job.

Oh yes most def and it's been known for 3 yrs now.

Communications control protects the government more than it does the individual. Control the free exchange of ideas is a key ingredient of any propaganda ministry.as

It must be stopped.

Any suggestions? I did put up a proposal for a special version of a linux distro to help prevent censorship and eavesdropping.

http://politicoid.blogspot.co...

I write my representatives using downsizedc.org a lot. They have a campaign specifically for SOPA and PIPA. I haven't thought about it too much from a technological standpoint, but that is a good idea.

Don't forget ACTA. It's a good tactic; make it look like we won with SOPA/PIPA so that ACTA isn't attacked as quickly.

Without a doubt. The government is trying to take over every aspect of our lives and half the time they use the excuse that it's for our own good/safety.

Net Neutrality is a sweet sound for a bitter poison. The supposed antipiracy bills are a thin disguise to sneak in controls. Free access to communications is something that Progressive / liberals detest even more than private ownership of guns.

Thinking outside of the Regulated , restricted , controlled , and mandated is something Progressive / socialist wish to stop completely.

It is those who oppose the concept of net neutrality and equal access that seek to censor the American population.

bet the ranch on it.

Net neutrality isn't the enemy. Anti-piracy laws like SOPA, ACTA and CISPA are.

Except net neutrality still gives government control over private companies and ensures that companies can not protect their own services. When you tell someone that if they provide a service they can't determine how the services are used, then they'll stop providing those services.

When you tie that into SOPA, etc it becomes even worse. Read the post if you have any questions as to why.

All net neutrality does is make it so companies can't charge more for certain services

No. That is not what net neutrality does. Net neutrality prevents companies from limiting bandwidth meaning that companies can not keep up with the demand on their networks forcing them to either increase costs by building a large infrastructure or go out of business.

Net neutrality also allows the government to prevent companies from telling customers what content is allowed to go through their servers.

It doesn't prevent companies from limiting bandwith. It prevents companies from limiting bandwith in a discriminatory manner. For instance (hypothetically of course!) a provider could give all the bandwidth necessary to FoxNation and the Drudge Report so their pages load in seconds, while cutting MediaMatters' access to a trickle so that any page on their site takes half an hour to load.

Does a car dealer have any control over what you use the car for? Providing internet access does not mean that you have any control over internet content. Government "control" is analogous to a municipality setting a speed limit on the roads. It doesn't give them the right to tell you where you're going to drive.

Does a car dealer? No. Because you've sold the car. However if you rented the car then the rental company would indeed have a say in how you use their car.

If you purchased your own server and had your own network you could use it as you please since you own it. When you use the internet you are basically renting the use of someone else's equipment.

No they don't. You're telling me that if I rent a car here the rental company can tell me not to take the Long Island Expressway? Or not to get off at exit 53?

If I had a server and my own network I could indeed do as I please with it. But when I offer others the opportunity to use my network I can no more discriminate as to bandwidth as I can as to the race of the person making the request. I can't ban black people from using the network. I can't say "liberals only". If I do not act fairly and neutrally then I would HOPE that the government would do something about it. That's part of what the government is there for - not to control the internet, but to protect everyone else who uses the internet from being discriminated against. Internet access is a limited resource, like broadcast television, which the FCC properly (most of the time) regulates in the interests of fairness. 99% of internet users don't have the option of building their own network, just as I don't have the option of building my own broadcast television station.

A rental company could have in its contract that you can not take it on certain roads, must stay within state lines, etc.

They could have it in there, bet it wouldn't hold under any legal scrutiny at all.

Actually it's not uncommon for a rental company to have such requirements.

Look around, you'll see a bunch with requirements such as staying within the state where the rental company is located.

Why not? Only because people would use a different isp and you wouldn't make as much money as you could, if you didn't just go bankrupt. If you let people vote with their wallets then discrimination of all kinds would have ended a long time ago. Discrimination is still around today BECAUSE of government interference in the form of Jim Crow laws. It STILL persists because certain laws purported to end discrimination actually perpetuate it. That is what net neutrality will do. It will make the "problem" worse, not better, and will be used to silence opposition.

Here's a question for you: if people cannot be trusted to govern themselves how the hell can they possibly govern others?