I thought that Net Neutrality had already been struck down. There was a huge outrage about it and everything.
AOL Outspends Google on Net Neutrality Issues
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
they are fully part of European Union. They are not part of EURO zone. another country that is like that is Lithuania (where i live).hickwarrior said:
Newsworthy part of this is that AOL is actually for net neutrality, considering its past its a 180 turn.loa said:
The Christian Coalition? Sounds out of place but around $20 million for Pro-Net Neutrality makes me want to know more about them.
Does the author of the article realize that those are just numbers from Q1 and Q2 of 2013? The last year they have complete data for is 2012 in which Google was the second biggest spender for the year and AOL wasn't on the list. Additionally, why is it news that AOL is spending more money than Google? AOL has been strengthening quite a bit since 2012 when they sold patents and began making their business viable again. It is horribly ignorant to think that AOL is out of the game. They've more than doubled as a company since 2011.
Maybe journalists should wait until the numbers come in before taping up a Mission Accomplished banner and taking a photo op? Not even sure what the mission was here. Google isn't obligated to spend anything and yet, here they are. Are we somehow indicating that a company spending over 20 million on Net Neutrality is somehow dropping the ball?
Does the author of the article realize that those are just numbers from Q1 and Q2 of 2013? The last year they have complete data for is 2012 in which Google was the second biggest spender for the year and AOL wasn't on the list. Additionally, why is it news that AOL is spending more money than Google? AOL has been strengthening quite a bit since 2012 when they sold patents and began making their business viable again. It is horribly ignorant to think that AOL is out of the game. They've more than doubled as a company since 2011.
Maybe journalists should wait until the numbers come in before taping up a Mission Accomplished banner and taking a photo op? Not even sure what the mission was here. Google isn't obligated to spend anything and yet, here they are. Are we somehow indicating that a company spending over 20 million on Net Neutrality is somehow dropping the ball?
Glad I didn't have to be the one to point out that blatant "mistake" (I feel like being generous today) seeing as how, you know, the chart in the article doesn't even have "cash", "money", or "spending" on it anywhere.dyre said:Is it really that hard to read the whole dailydot article before rehashing it into your own article?Steven Bogos said:
The chart in your article merely measures the number of reports filed that have the word "net neutrality" somewhere in them, not the money spent. AOL filed slightly more reports than Google, so one could argue that it was slightly more "active" using that somewhat arbitrary metric. But it clearly did not spend more money...
...in terms of spending, here's the relevant chart. Google remains the only pro-net neutrality company that has lobbying expenditures comparable to the major telecoms.
Come on, guys, don't you have any pride as journalists? Even the weekly paper at the high school I attended exhibited consistently higher quality journalism than this site...
OT:
Think I'll just go ahead and leave this quote right here...
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over." - Barack Obama
Oh, hello Mr. Tom Wheeler. You say you used to lobby for big cable and telecommunications companies? Well you sound like the perfect presidential appointee to become the head of the federal institution that regulates cable and telecommunications companies.
And the world did laugh at us, as it has been for the past decade and a half.
Apple are just a bunch of spineless opportunists, too afraid to alienate their user base on the one hand, but salivating like a hungry Tex Avery cartoon wolf at the prospects of closed internet and what it will mean for their bottom line.Steven Bogos said:
"One possible explanation: The Journal reported in March that Apple and Comcast, who agreed to acquire Time Warner Cable for $45 billion in a deal that has raised concerns for net neutrality backers, are in talks for a streaming-television service that would use an Apple set-top box and get special treatment on Comcast's cables to ensure it bypasses congestion on the Web."
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/05/08/why-didnt-apple-join-opposition-to-fcc-net-neutrality-proposal/
It's times like these you see the true colors of those pulling the strings. Good on AOL! I will support them more. So far I'm disappointed in Google and hoping they will step up their game. As for Apple I will from here on out be boycotting their products and services. This whole Net Neutrality thing is making me draw lines in the sand.
Seriously, fuck those spineless scum bags.
I don't have much to say about the story (seeing how the author didn't really care too much about it either), but can I just say that I'm highly amused that the Christian Coalition has managed to put out more lobby reports on the issue than the freaking Consumer's Union of America?
It's not that they're holding back, it's that Verison, ATT, and Comcast are going ALL in because they know they will make a SHIT load of money extorting internet based companies for unstrangled internet.Orks da best said:
Because America is no longer a democracy. We are an oligarchy. A government system where the rich and powerful set policies while everyone else has little to no say. We've all suspected this for decades until Princeton's study confirmed what we all knew. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/loa said:
The fact that our officials need our votes is a formality at best. Once they're in office money is what talks. They'll pretend to care about your opinions when the next election roles around. You might say "But how can this be!? They can't be bribed. That's illegal!" No, they can't be paid. Directly. But they can accept campaign contributions. Where do you think all the money comes from that allows them to dominate your television every election? And they can accept cushy, overpaid, jobs after their stint in government is over. An award for years of doing what that corporation wanted them to do. Just recently the senate wanted to overhaul the US tax code to eliminate the tax loop holes that have been lobbied into it since the last overhaul in the 1980s. In order to get any of the senators to even consider it they had to be offered 50 years of identity protection so that the corporations that enjoy those loop holes don't use their money to destroy those senators in the next election. You may not have heard about this because MSNBC spent all of 30 seconds talking about it one time. Fox News spent all of two minutes. Why? Because both stations are owned by uber rich men who don't want you to know that they own your country.
So, yes, it does matter. Because this battle, like every other one in our government, is decided by who is throwing the most money at it. You can kick, scream, and petition all you want. Tom Wheeler blatantly doesn't give a shit.
You know, even the Daily Mail doesn't often post articles with headlines claiming the exact opposite of what is shown in the article's images. They usually just settle for spinning the story.Steven Bogos said:
Almost every week we see articles on the Escapist that would violate the TOC if they were forum posts (misleading thread titles and so forth). Do article writers get warned for this sort of thing?
Man, those Internet companies sure are terrible. I'm gonna make my own, better internet service, with hookers and blackjack. You know what? Forget the internet service.
Way to put five on it for net neutrality Christian Coalition!lacktheknack said:
J-man wants dem nets to be free!
Not really, I'd say the spending is all directly proportionate to what each entity has to gain or lose on the currently proposed deal.Raziel said:
The lower spenders have the backing of a TON of Americans and companies. If they go through with it, it'd be interesting to see the public response.
It's really hard for outright corruption to succeed in so bright a spotlight.
But if the opinion polls are anything to go off, UKIP will probably have something to say about this when the muscle some seats in the European Parliament, because fuck equality, rationality and hate immigrants and all things progressive.Strazdas said:
OT: Seems odd Google aren't lobbying more for neutrality, then again they could be biding their time.
Edit: UKIP (the UK Independence Party) want to remove themselves from the EU due to "Britain not being about Britain," an argument which is utterly stupid considering Britain would be nothing if it did not have outsiders bringing their culture, because politicians in the EU enforce laws we don't control (like, you know, murder is bad and all that wacky liberal shit) and want to remove the open border policy that comes with the EU because them God Damn Immigrants terkin are jerbs (even though the leader of UKIP's wife is German, whoops.)
Buy our music on iTunes! Watch our videos on extensively ad-laden video channels! But we hate you because if you're on the internet you're a filthy pirate.MCerberus said:
I think that's their message, anyway.
We already knew they were the driving force, we already knew they outstripped the competition. What we didn't know is that Google isn't quite the "champion of the internet" people are making them out to be.Orks da best said:
Of course, that still doesn't pertain to funds, but lobbying reports, so take that as you will. I mean, Google has spent more money, but that "lobbying footprint" as the DD article puts it may still yield less impressive results.
Because politicians don't represent people. There's no fiscal incentive. And in a nation where you need to raise campaign funds annually to compete, you need a fiscal incentive.loa said:
Yeeeeeeah, that really came out of left field.lacktheknack said:
Especially since CC and Pat Robertson have both been in favour of other kinds of censorship.
If you have issues with the articles on the site, a much more effective way to complain would be to PM a member of Staff. (For example the Community Manager [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/DrStrangelove]).epicdwarf said:
Most members of Staff don't browse every single article or content thread that's posted, so if you truly want them to see the issue and make changes, your best bet is to actually inform them of the problem.
This is not directed solely at you, in fact this would be good advice for everyone who is unhappy with the articles at the moment.
It just miiiiight be that they want to be on the side of the terrible people with all the money for the purpose of staying in their good graces like some sort of lapdog reliant on their scraps, although I'm not quite sure what pushed them towards doing so instead of being able to remain neutral in the matter.MCerberus said: