Regarding Net Neutrality, I have one message for the FCC: Please leave our First Amendment Rights alone! Chris (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly backwards. See Network neutrality. The message to the FCC should be: Please adopt the full 2005 proposal to require net neutrality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Net Neutrality is the Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine. This is part of the left's effort under Marx's The Communist Manifesto of 1848 which has one of its tenants in controlling all communications. Net Neutrality will do this. Do not forget that Google is very close to the Obama administration and FCC chair Genachowski. Chris (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've confused me. Are you arguing that this Google/Verizon agreement is communist? Given that an absence of net neutrality benefits those with the most money, I'm not sure how you can take such a position, but perhaps I have misunderstood you. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that he's unaware of Google's recent 180. Yoshi348 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I do know is that Google's founder Sergey Bren, who is Russian born, was recently invited to the most recent Bilderberg Conference. This cabal has been doing everything in their power to destroy the US and the very freedoms that we cherish. I don't wish to have this Internet used taken away by an overzealous government whether it be here or abroad. Chris (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet isn't broken. The Internet doesn't need fixing. The new FCC rules on net nuetrality have been in place for only two years. The Internet worked just fine without them before. The new FCC rules, while on the books, have actually been enforced for zero years. The Internet is working just fine without them being enforced. If they ever do get enforced (remember, the US just got a new president and a new FCC head...), we will have given more power over the Internet to the FCC. Here is an example from the past of what happens when you give more power to the FCC:[1] Also see:[2][3][4][5] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per: "the 'Best Zionist Editor' would be awarded with a free hot-air balloon ride." ............................... Never mind, too easy! But seriously folks, this is going to be a very big, very noisy, highly publicized mess over the next few months. This effort in organized manipulation of content has all the subtlety of a freight train at a street crossing... ArbCom is going to be busy... Carrite (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah... it does promise to be a good intentioned (?) train wreck. A bit of further colour behind it all, from a New York Times bit about "Wikipedia for Zionists": “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.” In my opinion the speaker doesn't quite understand the inherent contradiction between "balanced" and "Zionist in nature" (or "Palestinian in nature" for that matter) especially with regards to NPOV. Tabercil (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the mindset of the conspiracist: everyone else is against him, so his efforts to spread propaganda is in reality just an attempt to restore balance (see e.g. the Fox News slogan). Lampman (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a similar Arab initiative. What's next, a government-backed Wikipedia initiative to insure fair coverage of Rapture? These things make me sad. —Ynhockey(Talk) 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
