Fear Mongering

1,415

May 08, 2006 12:59 PM

Quote:Original post by senelebe
Wow, that's about the most flawed analogy I've ever seen. Our roadways weren't created by private companies. The internet isn't supported via tax-payer dollars (yet, in this plan it'd easily become a reality). Government regulations are NEVER a good thing. Look at what happened when the government finally deregulated the phone companies, long distance charges bottomed out, we had competition for the first time in years. Local service can now be provided by anyone. When you ask the government to step in and babysit you as a consumer they will more than willingly do so, and in the process they'll take your freedom of choice along with it.

If you examine the history of roadways in the USA, you'll find that many of them were indeed first created by private companies - that ultimately failed to adequately maintain them creating the need for governments to step in. [3] So too with dam building and water storage. The internet is indeed still supported by taxpayer dollars. NASA is a member of MAE East [1]. And only a fool would claim that government regulations are never a good thing. One example of successful deregulation doesn't mean that deregulation is a good thing across the board. Electricity regulation in California turned out to be a really bad move. The state is still suffering from the debts incurred by that experiment. In fact, in other states that have experimented with electricity deregulation, rates are rapidly rising [2]. And then there are safety regulations and automobiles. We don't want airbags decapitating children do we?

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

LessBread

1,415

May 08, 2006 01:01 PM

Quote:Original post by shmoove
Quote:Original post by LessBread
Are you really that naive to believe there is no political agenda behind this fear mongering?

It's more than likely that there is a political agenda, but I don't think it's that particular agenda (anti net neutrality). The connection is pretty hard to make. I'd say it's the more general "scared people are easier to control" agenda.

And dumber people are even easier to scare...

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

senelebe

100

May 08, 2006 01:06 PM

Quote:Original post by LessBread

My cherry picking skills are nothing like those of the people in the Whitehouse - but that's another issue. What you've written here is all well and good, but I don't see the thrust of all these stories being to tell parents to get hip to the ins and outs of the internet so that they can better protect their chidren from cybercreeps and the like. The underlying message is less about safety and more about fear. I've only see one of the "To Catch a Predator" segments and it didn't include any lessons for parents about how to protect their children. The focus was more on what sorry sacks of shit the pedophiles were. Maybe subsequent episodes (there have been 4 from what I can tell) included tips for parents, but that doesn't seem to be the selling point for the show.

I didn't realize this debate was concerning a show. It felt much more like people attacking a point of view that stated that parents should be informed of the dangers of the internet. This is the first time the show has been mentioned since the original post.

Quote:
I'm not at all amazed at your quiescence. You've likely been bred that way.

There's a difference between anger at the incompetence with which the government is operated and anger with the government operating for the benefit of the wealthiest minority and opposition to all government - a huge difference. Government regulation is stipulated right there in the Constitution along with taxes, and while both of those can be bad things, they aren't necessarily bad things and to say that they are is, in effect, to disparage the Constitution.

It's better for access to the net to stay as it is at present. If that's big government, then so be it. When you put it into the hands of the free market, your choices will fly out the window as those companies that then own it will seek to transform the net into what will amount to television - centralized programming that they control. The first amendment applies much more directly to the government than it would to a private business. If a private business controlled the internet, free speech would exist there only in as much as that private business allowed it - just as in a shopping mall and just as on television.

The case for government regulating wireless is even stronger given the long standing precedent that the airwaves belong to the public. The risk is that, just as with radio waves, the government will require broadcasters to get a license - with the FCC in the middle of it all. If you don't want MaBell riding herd on wireless, it's better to maintain network neutrality and let competition do the rest.

I'm surprised that as a parent you would bad mouth regulation. When you buy clothes for your kids do you first research the manufacturers to verify that the clothes your buying from them aren't flammable? Or do you just assume that they've already been checked out by the government? What about medicines? And as a parent, are you going to applaud the FCC for cracking down on web pornography and the like? On making it easier for parents to protect their children from the internet? It seems to me that you would - without a thought about the regulations. Are you really that naive to believe there is no political agenda behind this fear mongering?

Are you naive enough to believe that Internet Regulation is in the consumers best interest? Since '96 the Government has been trying to dip it's fingers into the fastest growing source of revenue in history. This is the first step in signing away any freedom we have concerning the net. Does 1996 Telcom act not ring a bell? This was the governments first attemt at regulating the net, it was a DISASTER. Only through litagation was that horrendous act overturned.

As far as your other examples go, no I don't agree with them. Anything that slows competition between markets is a bad thing. You're asking the government to control the market and in return you're giving away your freedom. We as consumers should be the deciding factor in business, not Uncle Sam.

senelebe

100

May 08, 2006 01:21 PM

Quote:Original post by LessBread
If you examine the history of roadways in the USA, you'll find that many of them were indeed first created by private companies - that ultimately failed to adequately maintain them creating the need for governments to step in. So too with dam building and water storage. The internet is indeed still supported by taxpayer dollars. NASA is a member of MAE East [1]. And only a fool would claim that government regulations are never a good thing. One example of successful deregulation doesn't mean that deregulation is a good thing across the board. Electricity regulation in California turned out to be a really bad move. The state is still suffering from the debts incurred by that experiment. In fact, in other states that have experimented with electricity deregulation, rates are rapidly rising [2]. And then there are safety regulations and automobiles. We don't want airbags decapitating children do we?

Are you insinuating that in todays market roadways could not be maintained by private companies? Not only could they, it could be done at the fraction of the cost that our Government does it at. Sorry, but government websites aren't exactly synonomous with tax-payer supported internet. Energy costs are rising across the board regardless of regulation or deregulation. I fail to see how this has anything to do with competition and much more to do with increased energy costs. Where do you come up with some of this stuff? Yay! We get a mandatory sticker on our sun visors and the Auto Industry gets to charge us 70 bucks for it. WTG big government! You do realize how ludicrous this entire argument is, In one hand you fight for personal freedom and responsibilty while in the other you beg for a cradle to the grave society.

LessBread

1,415

May 08, 2006 01:34 PM

Quote:Original post by senelebe
Quote:Original post by LessBread
My cherry picking skills are nothing like those of the people in the Whitehouse - but that's another issue. What you've written here is all well and good, but I don't see the thrust of all these stories being to tell parents to get hip to the ins and outs of the internet so that they can better protect their chidren from cybercreeps and the like. The underlying message is less about safety and more about fear. I've only see one of the "To Catch a Predator" segments and it didn't include any lessons for parents about how to protect their children. The focus was more on what sorry sacks of shit the pedophiles were. Maybe subsequent episodes (there have been 4 from what I can tell) included tips for parents, but that doesn't seem to be the selling point for the show.

I didn't realize this debate was concerning a show. It felt much more like people attacking a point of view that stated that parents should be informed of the dangers of the internet. This is the first time the show has been mentioned since the original post.

I agree that parents should be informed of the dangers of the internet, but I don't think that scaring them is informing them. This particular show tells a story that is only the latest in a long line of simliar scare stories. I've experienced simliar "freak outs" as the ones described in the OP - but a few years back. Like the OP though, I've noticed a rashed of scare stories about myspace.

Quote:Original post by senelebe
Quote:
I'm not at all amazed at your quiescence. You've likely been bred that way.

There's a difference between anger at the incompetence with which the government is operated and anger with the government operating for the benefit of the wealthiest minority and opposition to all government - a huge difference. Government regulation is stipulated right there in the Constitution along with taxes, and while both of those can be bad things, they aren't necessarily bad things and to say that they are is, in effect, to disparage the Constitution.

It's better for access to the net to stay as it is at present. If that's big government, then so be it. When you put it into the hands of the free market, your choices will fly out the window as those companies that then own it will seek to transform the net into what will amount to television - centralized programming that they control. The first amendment applies much more directly to the government than it would to a private business. If a private business controlled the internet, free speech would exist there only in as much as that private business allowed it - just as in a shopping mall and just as on television.

The case for government regulating wireless is even stronger given the long standing precedent that the airwaves belong to the public. The risk is that, just as with radio waves, the government will require broadcasters to get a license - with the FCC in the middle of it all. If you don't want MaBell riding herd on wireless, it's better to maintain network neutrality and let competition do the rest.

I'm surprised that as a parent you would bad mouth regulation. When you buy clothes for your kids do you first research the manufacturers to verify that the clothes your buying from them aren't flammable? Or do you just assume that they've already been checked out by the government? What about medicines? And as a parent, are you going to applaud the FCC for cracking down on web pornography and the like? On making it easier for parents to protect their children from the internet? It seems to me that you would - without a thought about the regulations. Are you really that naive to believe there is no political agenda behind this fear mongering?

Are you naive enough to believe that Internet Regulation is in the consumers best interest? Since '96 the Government has been trying to dip it's fingers into the fastest growing source of revenue in history. This is the first step in signing away any freedom we have concerning the net. Does 1996 Telcom act not ring a bell? This was the governments first attemt at regulating the net, it was a DISASTER. Only through litagation was that horrendous act overturned.

As far as your other examples go, no I don't agree with them. Anything that slows competition between markets is a bad thing. You're asking the government to control the market and in return you're giving away your freedom. We as consumers should be the deciding factor in business, not Uncle Sam.

I don't think you know what the facts of the matter are. I think you saw my "left heavy" remarks and that scared you from actually reading and learning about the situation for yourself. It seems that you think there is a consumer group calling for new legislation to regulate the internet or something. The reality is that big businesses are spending millions lobbying Congress to give them a monopoly and a coalition of various consumer groups are fighting that legislation. Not giving away a monopoly is in the interest of the conumser. Net neutrality is in the interest of the consumer. Not having to pay for sending email is in the interest of the consumer.

You are right that this is the first step in signing away any freedom concerning the net - it's about signing away those freedoms to big business - psychopathic entities that by definition are not concerned with anyone elses freedom but theirs.

Are you really willing to sacrifice your children on the alter of market competition? What about other people's children? Are you really that bloodthirsty?

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

LessBread

1,415

May 08, 2006 01:54 PM

Quote:Original post by senelebe
Quote:Original post by LessBread
If you examine the history of roadways in the USA, you'll find that many of them were indeed first created by private companies - that ultimately failed to adequately maintain them creating the need for governments to step in. So too with dam building and water storage. The internet is indeed still supported by taxpayer dollars. NASA is a member of MAE East [1]. And only a fool would claim that government regulations are never a good thing. One example of successful deregulation doesn't mean that deregulation is a good thing across the board. Electricity regulation in California turned out to be a really bad move. The state is still suffering from the debts incurred by that experiment. In fact, in other states that have experimented with electricity deregulation, rates are rapidly rising [2]. And then there are safety regulations and automobiles. We don't want airbags decapitating children do we?

Are you insinuating that in todays market roadways could not be maintained by private companies? Not only could they, it could be done at the fraction of the cost that our Government does it at. Sorry, but government websites aren't exactly synonomous with tax-payer supported internet. Energy costs are rising across the board regardless of regulation or deregulation. I fail to see how this has anything to do with competition and much more to do with increased energy costs. Where do you come up with some of this stuff? Yay! We get a mandatory sticker on our sun visors and the Auto Industry gets to charge us 70 bucks for it. WTG big government! You do realize how ludicrous this entire argument is, In one hand you fight for personal freedom and responsibilty while in the other you beg for a cradle to the grave society.

I'm just correcting your mistaken historical understanding. You said that government created the roadways. I said that they didn't create them all and later provided a reference. Today private companies do maintain many roadways - as government contractors. Perhaps some of them do save the government money, I'll bet a large number of them seriously overcharge the government - ala Halliburton and Bechtel.

You claimed that the government doesn't fund the internet. It certainly funded the research and development of it - ever heard of DARPA? National Science Foundation? I also provided a link to MAE East - which if you don't know what that is, it's the group that operates the Internet Exchange Point for the East coast of the USA. It's an internet backbone. One of it's members is NASA - which is part of the government. So clearly, tax dollars do go to support the internet - just not in it's entirety. I hope that's not too nuanced for you.

And while energy costs are rising across the board, the evidence is that they are rising faster in areas that have been deregulated. Read the damn article and respond to it rather than relying on faith based presumptions about the world.

Where do I come up with this stuff? Why do you point to one instance of successful deregulation and conclude that all others will be equally successful? It worked once in one case so it should work always in every case? Faith in miracles indeed! Personal freedom and responsiblity are perfectly compatible with cradle to the grave safety net. Expand your horizons! Oh yeah, and society is always and will always be cradle to the grave. Doh!

"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man

senelebe

100

May 08, 2006 01:57 PM

Quote:

I don't think you know what the facts of the matter are. I think you saw my "left heavy" remarks and that scared you from actually reading and learning about the situation for yourself. It seems that you think there is a consumer group calling for new legislation to regulate the internet or something. The reality is that big businesses are spending millions lobbying Congress to give them a monopoly and a coalition of various consumer groups are fighting that legislation. Not giving away a monopoly is in the interest of the conumser. Net neutrality is in the interest of the consumer. Not having to pay for sending email is in the interest of the consumer.

You are right that this is the first step in signing away any freedom concerning the net - it's about signing away those freedoms to big business - psychopathic entities that by definition are not concerned with anyone elses freedom but theirs.

Are you really willing to sacrifice your children on the alter of market competition? What about other people's children? Are you really that bloodthirsty?

What I see is a problem the FTC should be dealing with not the FCC. Telecom looked great on paper just like this does. In reality all it did was force new business ventures to go south do to fear of the new regulations. There's one reason we have SBC/ATT/AOL/Verizon/Sprint/Bell mergers today, Telecom Act. You're correct Left Wing agendas scare the hell out of me. I don't want to sell our country out to big business and big government. You see this as a corporations fighting to make an extra buck, the reality is they're just trying to keep their investments intact. If your carrier wants to sell you a premium service, and you would like that premium service shouldn't you have that right? Not under this bill. The politcal agenda uses scare tactics like violation of freedom of speech and carriers acting like portal guards to prevent users from accessing certain sites, yet this has NEVER happened (in America anyways). What makes you think a corporation is going to risk you as a customer by telling you what you can and cannot do with their product? That's our governments job!

Why is everything that the left promotes good sense while anything else is propaganda. I'll let you in on a little secret, when people start using violation of rights that have never been violated as a scare tactic, it's a pretty good bet they're selling spin! Don't fix what isn't broken...

Mithrandir

607

Author

May 08, 2006 02:12 PM

Quote:Original post by senelebe
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir

Anyone who can't figure out that the internet, which is full of people, some of whom are pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), is a place where your child may potentially meet pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), probably shouldn't be having kids.

I mean seriously; how does it go? "OH MY GOD! THERE ARE PEDOPHILES ON THE INTERNET?!!!!!".

Here's how it should go: "There are people on the internet. Therefore, there are pedophiles on the internet. Dur.".

Anyone who can't figure that one out is seriously tripping in lala land.

Aren't you the same person that claimed they wouldn't want a warning that clearly marked the minefield?

Nope.

Quote:
Quote:
The internet, as a common carrier, should be regulated.

Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if the government suddenly deregulated the roadways of the USA? All of a sudden the entire road system would become a worthless cesspool of tar.

Think about the internet in the same way. Sometimes, regulation is GOOD. Not everything should be run as a greed-obsessed corporation.

Wow, that's about the most flawed analogy I've ever seen. Our roadways weren't created by private companies. The internet isn't supported via tax-payer dollars (yet, in this plan it'd easily become a reality). Government regulations are NEVER a good thing. Look at what happened when the government finally deregulated the phone companies, long distance charges bottomed out, we had competition for the first time in years. Local service can now be provided by anyone. When you ask the government to step in and babysit you as a consumer they will more than willingly do so, and in the process they'll take your freedom of choice along with it.

You're so wrong it's ridiculous.

First off: The internet was over 90% created by taxpayer dollars. ALL of the cable companies and phone companies get their lines subsidised by the US Government. To claim that they should be able to do what they want with them because "it's their lines" is fucking ridiculous.

Secondly: Government regulations are never a good thing? What planet are you from? How do you like the fact that you can go to the grocery store and buy food that doesn't have dead rats and feces in it?

Thirdish: Deregulating the phone companies was good for maybe a year or two. Then they all merged into each other and there's no competition anymore. What good does it do us that Local service can be provided by anyone when there's only one company anyways! My phone bill is higher now than it ever was when they were regulated! There are 70% less phone companies now than there were when they were regulated. Prices are higher, service is shittier, there's no competition... how the FUCK did deregulation actually help anything?

This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My signature is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My signature, without me, is useless. Without my signature, I am useless.

senelebe

100

May 08, 2006 02:23 PM

Quote:Original post by LessBread

I'm just correcting your mistaken historical understanding. You said that government created the roadways. I said that they didn't create them all and later provided a reference. Today private companies do maintain many roadways - as government contractors. Perhaps some of them do save the government money, I'll bet a large number of them seriously overcharge the government - ala Halliburton and Bechtel.

Mistaken Historical Understanding? LOL Let me paraphrase since we're going to nitpick the government created 99.98pct of every paved road in this country and to this day still maintains them through tax payer dollars even if that is via private companies that take bid free contracts. Is that Historically Correct enough for you? Fast words and misdirection, sleight of hand. I get so sick of arguing with liberals.

Quote:
You claimed that the government doesn't fund the internet. It certainly funded the research and development of it - ever heard of DARPA? National Science Foundation? I also provided a link to MAE East - which if you don't know what that is, it's the group that operates the Internet Exchange Point for the East coast of the USA. It's an internet backbone. One of it's members is NASA - which is part of the government. So clearly, tax dollars do go to support the internet - just not in it's entirety. I hope that's not too nuanced for you.

You make it out to sound that NISN is providing public infrastructure! This is used soley for nasas wan. They aren't providing funding for the public internet. DARPA didn't create the internet, they invested money into technology that the sole intention was government use in times of communication breakdowns. Take a look at CERTA sometime if you'd really like to nitpick on the origins of the net. Why do you twist facts to fit your own arguments and agendas? The only nuances that are too much for me are your liberal spins!

Quote:
Where do I come up with this stuff? Why do you point to one instance of successful deregulation and conclude that all others will be equally successful? It worked once in one case so it should work always in every case? Faith in miracles indeed! Personal freedom and responsiblity are perfectly compatible with cradle to the grave safety net. Expand your horizons! Oh yeah, and society is always and will always be cradle to the grave. Doh!

Yes, expand them to socialism that's the idea? Thanks but I'd much prefer the concepts of our fore fathers. Take your welfare, take your 40pct tax rates, take your over bearing government, take your reforms and political corruption. I'll take a country of freedom and liberty.

senelebe

100

May 08, 2006 02:31 PM

Quote:Original post by Mithrandir
Quote:Original post by senelebe
Quote:Original post by Mithrandir

Anyone who can't figure out that the internet, which is full of people, some of whom are pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), is a place where your child may potentially meet pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), probably shouldn't be having kids.

I mean seriously; how does it go? "OH MY GOD! THERE ARE PEDOPHILES ON THE INTERNET?!!!!!".

Here's how it should go: "There are people on the internet. Therefore, there are pedophiles on the internet. Dur.".

Anyone who can't figure that one out is seriously tripping in lala land.

Aren't you the same person that claimed they wouldn't want a warning that clearly marked the minefield?

Nope.

Quote:
Quote:
The internet, as a common carrier, should be regulated.

Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if the government suddenly deregulated the roadways of the USA? All of a sudden the entire road system would become a worthless cesspool of tar.

Think about the internet in the same way. Sometimes, regulation is GOOD. Not everything should be run as a greed-obsessed corporation.

Wow, that's about the most flawed analogy I've ever seen. Our roadways weren't created by private companies. The internet isn't supported via tax-payer dollars (yet, in this plan it'd easily become a reality). Government regulations are NEVER a good thing. Look at what happened when the government finally deregulated the phone companies, long distance charges bottomed out, we had competition for the first time in years. Local service can now be provided by anyone. When you ask the government to step in and babysit you as a consumer they will more than willingly do so, and in the process they'll take your freedom of choice along with it.

Quote:
You're so wrong it's ridiculous.

First off: The internet was over 90% created by taxpayer dollars. ALL of the cable companies and phone companies get their lines subsidised by the US Government. To claim that they should be able to do what they want with them because "it's their lines" is fucking ridiculous.

Secondly: Government regulations are never a good thing? What planet are you from? How do you like the fact that you can go to the grocery store and buy food that doesn't have dead rats and feces in it?

Thirdish: Deregulating the phone companies was good for maybe a year or two. Then they all merged into each other and there's no competition anymore. What good does it do us that Local service can be provided by anyone when there's only one company anyways! My phone bill is higher now than it ever was when they were regulated! There are 70% less phone companies now than there were when they were regulated. Prices are higher, service is shittier, there's no competition... how the FUCK did deregulation actually help anything?

I'll assume you were ranting away while I was explaining that regulation was the direct result of why we have megla mergers in the telecommunications industry. Don't confuse the two. You set here and beg for regulation once again and yet all it's going to do is have the same exact effect. You're arguing against yourself here.

Fear Mongering

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Fear Mongering

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines