Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Isn't Real

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the well-color-me-fooled dept.

The Internet 89

wiredog writes "The Telcos' Secret Anti-Net Neutrality Strategy is actually a student project. The 'No Net Brutality' campaign idea was one of the four finalists created as an assignment for a two-and-a-half week 'think tank MBA' program. The other finalists were a project promoting free speech in Venezuela, one supporting education reform in Poland, and one dealing with sales tax rates in Washington, DC. ('No Net Brutality' came in third. The Polish reform idea won.)"

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nice cover story. (1, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186192)

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Nice cover story. (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186606)

So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

Wow mindblowing.

Re:Nice cover story. (4, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186720)

So this was a grassroots Astro-Astroturfing?

Wow mindblowing.

This was a "weather balloon". The *IAA posse is still behind this. If I was going to try something like this I would have students try it first.

BTW, netbrutatlity.com was registered by freedomworks.org [slashdot.org] , which sure doesn't look like a student project.

Re:Nice cover story. (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186798)

The *IAA posse is still behind this.

WTF was I thinking? I meant to say the Telco's posse is behind this. Sometimes I'm a bigger asshat than usual.

Re:Nice cover story. (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188966)

While you're at it - it's netbrutality.com, not netbrutatlity.com.

Also, what exactly is the point of this story? Assuming its facts are true, all it proves is that the campaign wasn't sponsored by the telcos, but by a right-wing pro-business "think tank" that's probably funded by the telcos.

Re:Nice cover story. (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189682)

So, telco funding by proxy, then?

Re:Nice cover story. (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189008)

Except all the traditional huge beasts behind communications, music, movies and tv all have the same interests, and eventually act together. When you have the same interests, and benefit from the same cultural trends, laws, etc. you don't need a conspiracy to act as a single entity.

Re:Nice cover story. (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186684)

Yes, this powerpoint wasn't really from us, therefore it is not possible that we independently going to carry out that beautifully crafted plan to achieve the goal of getting rid of net neutrality. In fact, that's not even our goal, never has been. And you know it was never our goal because we didn't make that powerpoint presentation.

Incidentally, can we borrow this fake powerpoint presentation for our next secret strategy meeting? You know, as an example of powerpoint presentations that DO NOT reflect our plans?

Re:Nice cover story. (3, Interesting)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187408)

Nothing to see here, move along.

Yeah... wait.. no? I totally didn't go to www.nonetbrutality.com and I totally didn't see that this was 'just a powerpoint project'.

I'm curious why a project like this would be so involved that the student would pay for a domain name and hosting, and then (yes, i'm telling you to go to the site right now) do everything as legitimately as possible without mention of it being a project.

I'm not saying it was/was-not done by the telecoms. But the site is real, and its intentions/purposes appear real as well.

Sounds feasible (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32188044)

Domains are practically free. A few dollars. Hosting is (if you at first assume it to be only a small project site that doesn't require above 99.9% reliability) practically free. Even a student can easily skip one night out and spend the same money for such a site. (Or - if he has friends studying CS who are willing to lend him some extra space on some server - they might get the hosting for free)

Now, assume you like to dabble with computers (which is a given for someone who would make a project around that concept), are getting closer to graduation and want to make a small portfolio. Project sites like that seem like a great investment, especially if you enjoy the time spent working with them.

I haven't RTFA (this is /., after all) and I haven't even followed the subject enough to know what this Telecom plan would have been all about. Even so, spending the handful of dollars and a few hours to build a site around some project about which you are proud seems like a completely normal thing to do for a modern student.

Re:Sounds feasible (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188144)

Domains are around $10/year.

Hosting, about $10/month.
------

Students don't like to spend money on anything but beer and video games.

Re:Sounds feasible (2, Funny)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188254)

To get into most MBA programs you have to have worked for at least 3 years after you got your undergrad degree, generally doing something that's not flipping burgers. Given the program is generally 2 years and these guys are graduating and that the average US college student graduates at the age of 22, that would put these guys at 27 or so. Not exactly your typical beer and video games before anything crowd.

Re:Sounds feasible (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188876)

I can agree with that. Thanks for bringing up the finer details that I had overlooked.

Re:Sounds feasible (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32193374)

It's hard to remember that you generally have to actually do something useful to get an MBA since everyone seems to forget how to do anything at all once they have one.

Re:Sounds feasible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32189552)

$5/mo or less

Heck. Some places, $5/mo and the domain name thrown in.

Whois info .... draw your own conclussions (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188986)

Domain Name: nonetbrutality.com

      Registrant Contact:
            nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
            A Happy DreamHost Customer
            417 Associated Rd #324
            Brea, CA 92821
            US
            +1.2139471032

      Administrative Contact:
            nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
            A Happy DreamHost Customer
            417 Associated Rd #324
            Brea, CA 92821
            US
            +1.2139471032

      Technical Contact:
            nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
            A Happy DreamHost Customer
            417 Associated Rd #324
            Brea, CA 92821
            US
            +1.2139471032

      Billing Contact:
            nonetbrutality.com Private Registrant nonetbrutality.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
            A Happy DreamHost Customer
            417 Associated Rd #324
            Brea, CA 92821
            US
            +1.2139471032

Re:Whois info .... draw your own conclussions (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189942)

More importantly: netbrutality.com seems to be funded by freedomworks which is apparently a corporate lobby / astroturfing group.

Registrant:
FreedomWorks

601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NETBRUTALITY.COM
Created on: 11-May-06
Expires on: 11-May-11
Last Updated on: 12-May-10

Administrative Contact:
Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States
2029427615

Technical Contact:
Keeley, Tom tkeeley@[deleted by rtfa-troll to avoid spam]
FreedomWorks
601 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 700 North Bldg
Washington, DC 20004
United States
2029427615

Domain servers in listed order:
NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Sure it was.. (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186194)

Just a distraction from the truth.

This Just in! (-1, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186212)

Slashdot isn't real either. This entire site is just a student project set up by me and some of my classmates. Anyone who visits here has surely been had.

Re:This Just in! (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186460)

AW SNAP! I've been had. Hard. For like 8 years going now. WTFBBQSauce! For great justice! Natalie Portman and my grits are angry!

In Soviet Russia, I have you!

Wait, WTF was that?

Get off my lawn. And many many more memes.

Back to the subject at hand...if this was simply a PP think-tank style project from some college kid, then get that kid a job at the nearest monopolistic telecomm ASAP.

Re:This Just in! (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186886)

then get that kid a job at the nearest monopolistic telecomm

I'm guessing thats *exactly* what the kid had in mind when he wrote it.

Re:This Just in! (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189042)

No, we all know that all the comments in /. are written by the same person. Prove me wrong.

Um (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186230)

There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

Re:Um (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186248)

Well if you'd read the article you'd... erm... no, sorry, I've got nothing.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186370)

To piss people off so they'll bitch about the firehouse being better thereby piquing the interest of people who weren't aware of the firehouse. =)

It all makes sense. Trust me.

Re:Um (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187424)

To piss people off so they'll bitch about the firehouse being better thereby piquing the interest of people who weren't aware of the firehouse. =)

Firehouse? [youtube.com]

Re:Um (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186672)

Because people want a good conspiracy. They want to hear that all the problems in their lives is controlled by a small yet powerful group of people who have it in for them...

Re:Um (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187042)

What they really want is to find the actual conspiracy theory, and stop it.

But there are too many, so it's ideal camouflage.

Re:Um (0, Redundant)

Rary (566291) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187146)

There are a BUNCH of really interesting, truly nerdy stories in the firehouse...why does crap like this always find a way through?

Because kdawson works here.

Money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187742)

Behind every troll article you will find some sort of slashvertisement.

Re:Um (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187770)

I could tell that the original article the other day wasn't real in a glance, and I wonder why THAT found a way through. It clearly didn't have the spit and polish that a real presentation would have, nor the overall look and feel. Also being in marketing, I find it hard to believe a real marketing department would be stupid enough to come up with a campaign about "net brutality" and thinking that it would "play in Peoria".

Because it's a correction... (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32191694)

Read the first link.

Successful troll is successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186240)

Successful troll is successful

15 years ago, google was a student project (-1, Troll)

wsanders (114993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186276)

Point is - it's a free country, start your own internet of you don't like it.

Of course it wasn't real. (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186300)

It was a kdawson story. Duh.

Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

That it not to say that it could not have been real, but you should not have believed it without independent verification.

Re:Of course it wasn't real. (3, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186480)

Seriously though, if you thought that was real, your BS detector is broken.

Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

Stuff like this happens all the time, so to sit there and say "You're stupid for buying this" is either incredibly egotistical or incredibly hind-sighted, one or both.

IOW, well played, sir, well played.

It has been 1 minute since I last posted. I'll go play in traffic now since I can't make my post right now. Thanks, bye /., bye cruel, cruel /.

Is this the part of the show where I make a NOCARRIER joke?

No? Da...NOCARRIER

Re:Of course it wasn't real. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186632)

No? Dam*#^&*(!(*df@)~J!JH*3bv()~()NO CARRIER

FTFY

Gullible? (4, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187174)

Actually, the fact that I thought it was real just shows how sad and pathetic the state of affairs in our country has become.

No, it shows how gullible you and other 20-somethings are to believe whatever you read on the Web. Critical thinking is no longer in vogue, the "truth" is whatever the Slashdot Group Think and Twitter / Digg / Whatever pipe to you. Blogs have to be more accurate than "real" news sources, right?

Re:Gullible? (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32196226)

LOL, you're wrong on every account. Every. Single. One. Not in my 20s. Don't do facebook, twitter, et al. Don't care what you think you know, or think you know about other people. You're the problem with slashdot, you know that? The fucking arrogance on this guy.

Re:Of course it wasn't real. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186788)

It was a kdawson story. Duh.

Then again, THIS story is a CmdrTaco story...

Maybe he is in on it!

Re:Of course it wasn't real. (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189424)

So how do we know whether it's this story or the previous one that's the fake?

Re:Of course it wasn't real. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188404)

This is in some fashion less believable than that "death panel" rumor that's been circulating? Of the two, this one is far more believable in my opinion.

The Polish reform idea won (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186330)

This was an ingenious plan to future proof the kids by teaching them the secret recipe for Polish ice.

ThinkProgress responds (4, Informative)

Sarcileptic (1141523) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186348)

Think Progress has updated their site, standing behind the news that "No Net Brutality" was influenced by industry/lobbyists.

Re:ThinkProgress responds (2, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186700)

Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

Re:ThinkProgress responds (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188924)

Not really surprising. It IS ThinkProgress after all.

I vote for them as "Most ironically named website of all time."

Are they trying to compete with InfoWars.com for some sort of "fringiest news site" award?

Re:ThinkProgress responds (5, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186712)

The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

Re:ThinkProgress responds (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186758)

The contest in question was *funded* by lobbyists.

You think that matters to someone whose signature indicates that he still believes the global warming deniers?
Nah, me neither. Inconvenient facts just get in the way of what they want to believe.

Re:ThinkProgress responds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32189092)

LOL. Good luck with your falsified "science".

Re:ThinkProgress responds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186844)

They can stand behind whatever they want. They're just making shit up. I'll continue to ignore them.

Good Slogan... (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186366)

Fake or not, it leads to a decent enough slogan which we really haven't had yet:

Support Net Neutrality - Not Net Brutality.

talon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186384)

Alex jones must be getting popular if people think this is true. ;-)

frist 4Sot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186402)

More spin (1)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186468)

I posted this there, I bet it doesn't make it up, who knows. "If the fact that the internet was begun by DARPA grants and colleges is not a hint at the original intent then please correct me. Net neutrality should mean one thing and one thing only. That the providers of internet services are not allowed to censure, block, or constrict the flow and any information which a customer is putting over their networks. That said, it could be argued that this would not apply to spammers and hackers. That would be a narrow scope in such a case. I have payed for generally substandard internet for the last 15+ years. Very seldom is the service equal to the bill of goods the provider tells you you are getting. Does the government need control of the internet at a granular level? I think not. Do they need the ability to keep companies like comcast, time warner, at&t, verizon, etc. from limiting certain types of traffic so that they can financially benefit with one of their inferior, competitive services? I think the answer is an absolute YES! Paint this turd what ever happy color you want but it will still be crap underneath. I commend you for the attempt at spinning this though." Make no mistake, internet neutrality will fall. The corporations have very deep pockets and will lobby any dirt bag sell out politician they need to to get total control of the internet. Then we are at the mercy of them. We are at the starting stages of the same kind of thing that happened with the gas companies. We have no choice and therefore no control. The only way to stem this inevitable outcome would be to have the municipalities own the Fiber/copper to the home and force all providers to one point. In this way they are forced to compete with each other for the customer and his dollar. The down side to this are many as well. The municipality then would have to charge to maintain the lines. If they are like the DWP here in southern California they would turn this in to a revenue generator and continue to up prices for their out of control spending. This would happen even if they were to roll out a completely passive fiber network that required little to maintain or upgrade beyond the initial outlay. It would also provide a single point of attack for the nut cases we have to deal with from time to time. It would for sure bring into focus the possibility of traffic monitoring, snooping and outright spying and make it far easier for the government or the smart nefarious character. At the end of the day I don't see much good on the horizon. Mike

a minor distraction (0, Troll)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186474)

nothing to be embarrassed about. actual corporate propaganda against net neutrality is even more divorced from reality.

Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186484)

Doesn't anyone remember when this first started? We had everyone from the ACLU to the Christian Coalition jumping up and down and saying that the plan by major ISPs and telcos to hijack big web pages unless they were paid not to was flat-out intolerable. We were united.

Then came the lobbyists.

They started with the question, "What are you going to do about it?" And then we got split into market-based solutions (boycotts) and regulation, with neither side seeing eye-to-eye. Next, they tried to redefine "Net Neutrality." When we made it, what we meant by it was, "Don't hijack our web pages!" But they said "Neutrality? They want some kind of Communist equality! We can't use QoS any more or make our networks better!" And now, most people think in terms of their version of "Net Neutrality." They assume it's like the Fairness Doctrine and that it means the government would regulate the content of web pages or some other crap.

Doesn't anyone else remember when this started? Before the lobbyists split this into a conservative/liberal issue? Back when we all agreed that having ISPs hijack popular websites unless bribed not to was a terrible thing?

Because I do. And I feel like the only one.

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186616)

wtf, dude? No link? Come on!

Oh, wait, was it on one of those big web pages?

It *was* on Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32188346)

Well, it was on Slashdot, but I don't remember the original story and I don't have a lot of time at work to search for it. But someone with some Google-fu ought to be able to dig it up. And Save The Internet [savetheinternet.com] started up right away. I believe they coined "Net Neutrality."

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186696)

Mod this up!

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187196)

You are not alone. I can say it was before 2006, when I wrote my Myths about Network Neutrality [mobydisk.com] article because already the idea was getting screwed-up.

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (2, Interesting)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187244)

This post is better than the article. Slashdot should just directly link to this post. Net Neutrality is something all Slashdot should just agree on.

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (2, Insightful)

Manchot (847225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188450)

It was something all Slashdot agreed on until the Obama administration started pushing for it.

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (3, Interesting)

dgreer (1206) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187544)

I completely remember this debate. And my feelings haven't changed from that day to this: If you let the Government get involved in this issue, in ANY way, you will live to regret it.

What TWC and Verizon (the instigators of that roe as I recall) wanted to do was to charge large content providers (Google, Time, CNN, etc.) to have "priority" throughput on their networks. If they didn't pay, they'd be given a lower QoS and therefore, because of the number of requests to their servers, they would effectively be throttled.

What I pointed out all those years ago (with many years experience RUNNING an ISP) was that if you get the government involved, it will give them an avenue to moderate the Internet for political reasons. Further more, all the "kiddies" at that time were bitching about how Torrent, etc. was being throttled by Joe's Wireless company or some such, and they just couldn't understand the difference between what TWC/Verizon were doing and what Joe was doing trying to maintain a basic QoS on his limited bandwidth network.

In the end, it appears that two things have happened: The kiddies have drowned out the voices of people who actually have a clue, and the politicians have heard their cries and have come running.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help." -shiver-

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (2, Funny)

syrinx (106469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189124)

I completely remember this debate. And my feelings haven't changed from that day to this: If you let the Government get involved in this issue, in ANY way, you will live to regret it.

What TWC and Verizon (the instigators of that roe as I recall) wanted to do was to charge large content providers (Google, Time, CNN, etc.) to have "priority" throughput on their networks. If they didn't pay, they'd be given a lower QoS and therefore, because of the number of requests to their servers, they would effectively be throttled.

What I pointed out all those years ago (with many years experience RUNNING an ISP) was that if you get the government involved, it will give them an avenue to moderate the Internet for political reasons. Further more, all the "kiddies" at that time were bitching about how Torrent, etc. was being throttled by Joe's Wireless company or some such, and they just couldn't understand the difference between what TWC/Verizon were doing and what Joe was doing trying to maintain a basic QoS on his limited bandwidth network.

In the end, it appears that two things have happened: The kiddies have drowned out the voices of people who actually have a clue, and the politicians have heard their cries and have come running.

"We're from the government, and we're here to help." -shiver-

Yes, *this*.

(Quoting your entire post since someone seems to have modded you down for contradicting the groupthink.)

Re:Doesn't anyone remember when this started? (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187940)

Don't worry, we know.  But constant education of the masses is required.

It does take time, but after only a decade even ordinary people are starting to comprehend the undesireability of DRM.

Why didn't these "students" get ridiculed... (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186498)

Why didn't these "students" get ridiculed and beat up by their classmates?

It seems to me that these sort of people are analogues of the fuckers that remind the teacher to assign homework over the weekend. How the fuck do these people even make it TO college believing these types of ideas are acceptable, let alone graduate and go on to lead political CAREERS???

These "students" are exactly the types that should have their pants pulled down every single day, kick-me signs taped to their backs every class, books slapped out of their hands, and tripped in the cafeteria.

I am beginning to think that the pussification of America is leading to the Police State. Odd...

Re:Why didn't these "students" get ridiculed... (1)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186652)

beginning to?

UFOs are not real either. (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186610)

Just a way for the government to cover-up aircraft experiments.

"Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one," Albert Einstein.

Yeah right... (2, Informative)

Faw (33935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186626)

that's exactly what THEY(1) want us to believe.

(1) Replace with favorite conspiracy group (Illuminati, aliens, The Man,...)

Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (4, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186682)

The "Think Tank MBA" contest is not affiliated with any school or MBA program, but is run by a right-wing advocacy organization. The contestant in question is not even a student, but is an employee of another right-wing advocacy organization.

To think, I used to read that moron's old blog. I guess I've grown up since then.

Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (2, Insightful)

ScrumHalf (911476) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187582)

Really wishing I had mod points right now. Seriously, this is the truth of the matter, and it is missing in the story post. Then again, I hope this story of this hoax is a hoax of a hoax doesn't run tomorrow and generate them even more traffic.

Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187740)

Is "reactionary" one of those words that leftists use to mean "someone I don't agree with"? I saw someone else use it recently, also to describe libertarians. Of course, the other person also confused libertarianism, Objectivism, classical liberalism, and modern social conservatism, and later called Rush Limbaugh of all people an "anarcho-capitalist nihilist", so I mostly assume he was just a moron, and I put "reactionary" in the pile of words morons use.

Though really, it looks like you're not the sharpest spoon in the drawer either, so maybe I can continue with that assumption.

Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187864)

Oh, dear, an anonymous coward compared me to a straw man!

Go on, I've got over ten years of posting history. Surely you can come up with an actual example of my feeble intellect.

Re:Oh, Declan, you reactionary libertarian whore (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187976)

I've got over ten years of posting history. Surely you can come up with an actual example of my feeble intellect.

What a deliciously ironic statement! (emphasis mine)

I suggest a renaming (2, Insightful)

simonbp (412489) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186698)

To "The Center for American Progress in Never Admitting That We Made a Silly Mistake Because Everything Bad Is The Fault of Lobbyists Who Are Not Us".

I'd make one heck of business card...

Re:I suggest a renaming (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187604)

I'd make one heck of business card...

I don't think you'd fit in most business card holders, sorry...

Cost? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186738)

the PowerPoint document was prepared as a class project for a competition in Florida last month. It cost the six students a grand total of $173.95, including $18 for clip art...the contestants spent all of $173.95 on the idea, including printing and $20 to register the .com and .org domain names.

Wait... what? I made several power point presentations for classes. My budget for the presentation was always the same: zero dollars. I didn't even pay for the powerpoint I was using. How do you spend $18 on clipart?

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32186770)

Stock photography/graphics combined with honest students.

Re:Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187008)

"Stock photography/graphics combined with dumb students."

Fixed.

Re:Cost? (1)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187034)

I'm still wondering whether stock photo girl [wordpress.com] got the election result she wanted.

Re:Cost? (1)

Klinky (636952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187270)

It's rather complicated it looks like, DUP may have lost seats & UCUNF didn't get any more seats? I am in the USA, so know very little on the politics in Northern Ireland.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987776,00.html [time.com]

Re:Cost? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32187236)

Stock photography/graphics combined with honest students.

I was and still am honest: I'm honestly not going to pay to fairly use an image I grabbed off google image to put it into a power point for a class.

Whew... (3, Interesting)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32186942)

As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.

Nope, just another tired old right-wing idealogue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32190408)

As I said yesterday the content was laughably stupid. I actually was thinking that Think Progress had created it.

Nope, it was Declan, a notirious, right wing Libertarian whore who single-handedly sicced the MPAA's lawyers on the earliest project for getting DVD playback working on Linux (google Declan and Livid), in an effort to create a fictitious hoax where there was none. Typical right-wing tactics...create their own hoax, then blame it on the left to discredit the left and push through their toxic agenda.

In this case, to undermine the neutrality of the Internet infrastructure we take for granted, all with the blessing of knee-jerk idiots subscribing to the dogma that government can do no right (a laughable premis that can only be taken seriously by one who pointedly ignores decades of success in various lands around the world, including the US, and exaggerating those inevitable failures that will occur to any organization that operates for any non-trivial length of time).

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32187254)

Think Progress posts some bullshit. Now there's a big surprise. I think I'm going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise.

i for one (1)

Shadukar (102027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32188684)

am glad they did not foret about poland.

Small error in title (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32189168)

Should read "Telecom Plan To Take Over the Internet Wasn't Real"

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?