×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the toll-road-ahead dept.

The Internet 531

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes American Commitment, a conservative group with strong ties to the Koch brothers has been bombarding inboxes with emails filled with disinformation and fearmongering in an attempt to start a "grassroots" campaign to kill net neutrality — at one point suggesting that "Marxists" think that preserving net neutrality is a good idea. American Commitment president Phil Kerpen suggests that reclassifying the internet as a public utility is the "first step in the fight to destroy American capitalism altogether" and says that the FCC is plotting a "federal Internet takeover," a move that "sounds more like a story coming out of China or Russia."

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

What's so American (5, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#47754875)

About paying for open, unfettered access, and having some bean counter with an agenda decide what you can ACTUALLY see?

And Marxism fails because it view labor as something nobody really wants to do, and ignores transportation, distribution and associated concerns as necessary evils.

Here, the last-mile providers are acting like Marxists. They see only this big customer base of theirs as having any intrinsic worth.

Never mind that if they don't provide unfettered access, and don't manage to stifle all competition, they won't continue to HAVE that kind of customer base.

Net neutrality is about being able to use the internet connection you pay for, for any purpose that suits you (with nods towards the concept of "legal activity" of course) without having your traffic interfered with.

Net neutrality is about preventing illegal censorship.

Net neutrality is about protecting you from unscrupulous business practices by major (and minor) providers of both the transport and last-mile variety.

So screw the Koch Brothers and their idiot shilling.

Re:What's so American (5, Insightful)

sillybilly (668960) | about 3 months ago | (#47754927)

Net neutrality is like being able to drive on back country roads and public without cock blocks, or booths at every corner. Without it you get toll roads everywhere, and you constantly have to pay by the mile, or bit the MB, per content, on top of having your basic ISP connection. Some Internet backbones would get overloaded from crowds because of cheap surfing pathways, but the rich would have their luxury Internet highways uncongested, but high cost. Should you wander unto one of these highways, it'd be like stumbling into a high class restaurant, and accidentally eating there, when all you wanted was a burger. Even on regular Internet surfing you could quickly drain your bank account balance to zero via toll road-like per mile fees. However there is something to be said about availability of high class restaurants, they are nice to have, as long as you're not forced to eat there, and without net neutrality, you might be forced to go through only the high cost toll roads, at least occasionally, to access simple things like check your email, or file a job application, to the point where you might completely abandon the Internet altogether, and vote for regular paper mail, instead via the US post office, instead of Email, and on your foot walk into a branch banking instead of on line banking. Maybe that's what they want, de-Internetize the world. Come on, we love Google, Ebay, Email, Youtube, mp3 downloads, ebooks, Amazon, and especially what the Internet was made for: pron.

Re:What's so American (-1, Troll)

Le Marteau (206396) | about 3 months ago | (#47754931)

> Net neutrality is about preventing illegal censorship.

Actually, it's about getting the FCC involved in regulating the internet. Start by getting them regulating something only a Koch brother would oppose, such as "Net Neutrality". Currently, we have the spectacle of people BEGGING the FCC to come in and DO something!!!! Because the FCC has done such a FABULOUS job regulating teh airwaves, we just HAVE to get them involved in the Internet!

Actually, it's about stifling future innovation. I can easily imagine new technology sometime in the near future which requires blazingly high pings. Perhaps a massively distributed neural net kind of thing, done over the internet. But the traffic for this innovation will be limited to the speeds the derps across the street use for their cat videos.... they will not be able to pay for such speed, even if they want to, no matter what the requirements of their innovation require, they will be limited to the speeds your grandmother gets for her gardening forum.

But by all means, beg the FCC to regulate the internet. Get them involved. What could go wrong?

Re:What's so American (5, Insightful)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 3 months ago | (#47754971)

Are you stupid, or just ignorant?

Net neutrality isn't about giving everyone the exact same internet connection speeds. Net neutrality is about securing that everyone gets equal access to services. Most importantly, it means that ISPs can't artificially create "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" for various services, depending on how lucrative of a deal they strike with content providers.

Re:What's so American (-1)

Le Marteau (206396) | about 3 months ago | (#47754985)

> Net neutrality is about securing that everyone gets equal access to services

Everyone does not need equal access.

Do you think everyone needs the same speed? Does your grandmother need the same speed as an MIT researcher?

Same priciple for package delivery. Do you think everyone needs their package overnight? Or are there different needs.

Same principle for travel. Do you think everyone needs a supersonic transport, or are some fine with taking a Greyhound.

Different tiers of service are part of a free market. Even if it is not Marxist, Insisting on one tier of service for data is certainly not free market and is opposed to the principles of a free society where free people are able to enter into contracts to provide and obtain the services they desire to suit their needs. Not a "one size fits all" scheme such as net neutrality.

Re:What's so American (5, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | about 3 months ago | (#47755045)

You are confusing things. Net neutrality isn't about what tier of service you have. It is about ensuring that you aren't getting purposefully manipulated speed for the tier you have. Let's use your examples since you seem to understand those...

Do you think everyone needs the same speed? Does your grandmother need the same speed as an MIT researcher?

Do you think the MIT researcher should pay for the higher tier and be slowed down to Grandma's speed for some sites?

Same priciple for package delivery. Do you think everyone needs their package overnight? Or are there different needs.

Do you think your overnight package should be 3 days to certain destinations for the same price of overnight delivery?

Same principle for travel. Do you think everyone needs a supersonic transport, or are some fine with taking a Greyhound.

Do you think those that pay for the supersonic speed should be shuttled to the Grayhound station for certain destinations because that destination didn't pay the airlines for it?

Re:What's so American (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755051)

It sounds like you misunderstand the entire concept of Net Neutrality. It's not about giving everyone and their dog identical connections, but rather the choice of whatever connection they want to get. Net Neutrality makes sure that there's healthy competition and that ISPs can't blackmail services into paying to *not* have their connections throttled, for example when services compete with cable TV, or to otherwise split the Internet up in "what we want our customers to access" and "everything else". The nightmare scenario without Net Neutrality would be a future where you only get the choice of one ISP, and they have free reign to block, censor or charge extra for sites they feel infringe on their market or viewpoint.

Re:What's so American (5, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | about 3 months ago | (#47755057)

Should your google queries be put in a slow lane with 10k ms ping because they didn't fork over $100 mil for premium service?
Should netflix pay premium for every mb because they're a "high bandwidth user" or face throttling to speeds where compression drops to 120p?

Should ISPs be allowed to have an even more oppressive position than they already have?

Re:What's so American (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755059)

Net neutrality isn't about giving everyone the exact same internet connection speeds. Net neutrality is about securing that everyone gets equal access to services.

Everyone does not need equal access.

Do you think everyone needs the same speed?

Wha? They explicitly said Net Neutrality isn't about giving everyone the same speed. You then ask them, using three different examples, whether or not different people need the same speed. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

that he doesn't understand net neutrality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755201)

Based on his examples it may be that he doesn't get it?

Re:What's so American (4, Insightful)

LordVader717 (888547) | about 3 months ago | (#47755061)

>Do you think everyone needs the same speed?

That was emphatically negated in the previous comment.

Net neutrality isn't about preventing different tiers of service either. It's about preventing businesses from colluding to distort the market with bribes and kickbacks by slowing and blocking competing business.
When the primary arguments from the anti-neutrality camp are based on disinformation you know the case is pretty clear-cut.

Re:What's so American (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755063)

Are you a troll or something? Net neutrality is about getting the speed you paid for no matter what you're doing with it. It's not saying everyone will have the same speed. So for example if you pay for a 20 mbit download speed they can't make it 2 mbit because you're connecting to Netflix.

Re:What's so American (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#47755093)

different tiers perhaps.

but then they should advertise it as such.

"buy our extremely limited internet shitniz that allows you to use just our inhouse services for extra fees, because we don't actually even want to provide you with a connection to other movie providers even if you pay use". because of the size of the isp's it's bad business for them to provide you with access to competing content services EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO PAY EXTRA because it's off from their other service, that they could charge for you too. this is apparent with netflix, all but the biggest isp's want to put the servers on their own isp networks - the biggest isp's however want netflix to pay them for doing so(the biggest isp's/cable companies also have their own netflix competitors).

the way it used to be was that you got what you paid for, now you have to guess.. if you wanted fast internet you bought fast internet and thats what you got. now you're being sold "unlimited high speed internet" only to notice that it is pretty fscking limited internet and not even high speed at that.

how nice would it be if you bought a ticket on a learjet with coke and ho's and then at the airport they stuffed you into a greyhound bus? it's false advertising...

even with net neutrality the isp's are FREE to choose to sell you different tiers of service - they would be more probable to do that, in fact. because without net neutrality being enforced they will try to get as many subscribers as they can while selling them just bits from their own network and limiting the connection speeds of the users on a whim.. so they will gladly sell you a 100mbps connection that you then find out you can only use at 100mbps for 12 hours of the month if you're using other services than their streaming service which maxes out at 5mbps anyways...

what they are doing currently is selling you lies, not different tiers.

Re:What's so American (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 3 months ago | (#47755373)

> Do you think everyone needs the same speed? Does your grandmother need the same speed as an MIT researcher?

This is actually quite an interesting case: Without net neutrality, the grandmother would get the speed she paid for when she streams grandmothery movies from grandmaflix (who paid her ISP to not make it impossible for her to access their webpage at the speed she paid for). The MIT reseacher, who today probably pays for a much fatter connection, would not get to use all of his/her bandwidth to access the data stored on some computing center, because this computing center would not want to pay everyones ISP so that they can connect to them.

The solution today (i.e. with net neutrality) is fair: The grandmother pays for the bandwith she needs to send emails to her grandkids and watch grandmaflix in low resolution (because she can't see HD content anyway), while the researcher pays much more for the bandwith he/she needs to upload hundreds of gigabytes of data from NERSC and use the university's terminal services at low lag.

Re:What's so American (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755345)

Learn how to have a civil argument

Re:What's so American (4, Informative)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 3 months ago | (#47754995)

Actually, it's about stifling future innovation.

Net Neutrality is not about regulating the Internet. It's about preserving free speech on the Internet. This is what Aaron Swartz fought for, and you should too.

Where I live there are 2 broadband providers, COMCAST (cable) and VERIZON (fios). Every other place I have lived there was only one option.

Right now it would be perfectly legal for either of them to trash my traffic to comcastsucks.blogspot.com or other sites and there's very little I can do about it (well I often tunnel through a VPS provider and my download speeds for a lot of content goes up dramatically, but I have to pay extra for that, and luckily comcast is not yet throttling SSH or OpenVPN!). As far as innovation, the only thing they innovate is ways to annoy me with every changing rates, arrays of stupid unwanted services and marketing calls. Currently they (Comcast) wants to raise the rate for my broadband only (no tv) from 48 monthly to 65. However if I get a cable box and subscribe for TV services it will be 49/month for a year. I don't own a TV, but I have to get a cable box and have it sit in my closet for the cheaper rate. It's obscenely stupid, but that's comcast for you. I have no doubt that this change will double or triple the amount of junk mail they send me.

What would be wonderful is if there were other ISPs that could compete with Comcast and verizon using the same wires. What would also be wonderful would be if ISPs were required to respect 1st amendment, you know to promise not to quash freedom of speech. Less important to me, but probably pretty important would be to require ISPs to not abuse their position to try to lock users into or out of one video service (like Netflix) or another.

Re:What's so American (4, Insightful)

Imsdal (930595) | about 3 months ago | (#47755219)

Where I live there are 2 broadband providers, COMCAST (cable) and VERIZON (fios). Every other place I have lived there was only one option.

This is really all one needs to know. If anyone believes that anything good is going to come out of a situation with local monopolies, well, that person is simply wrong. And if there are no local monopolies, there is every reason to believe that the market is going to sort this out way, way better than some bureaucrat with an agenda.

Fight the local monopolies. That is the only truly important thing right now.

Re:What's so American (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 months ago | (#47755085)

Actually, it's about stifling future innovation. I can easily imagine new technology sometime in the near future which requires blazingly high pings. Perhaps a massively distributed neural net kind of thing, done over the internet. But the traffic for this innovation will be limited to the speeds the derps across the street use for their cat videos.... they will not be able to pay for such speed, even if they want to, no matter what the requirements of their innovation require, they will be limited to the speeds your grandmother gets for her gardening forum.

You realize that net neutrality is exactly what ensures your special traffic for your neural net doesn't get stifled, right? People are complaining because certain high bandwidth protocols are currently being slowed in favor of YouTube cat videos and your grandmother's gardening forum. In fact, some high bandwidth video protocols or sites are being slowed in favor of video protocols or sites for a service a parent or related company provides. Doesn't matter how much you're willing to pay. When the internet starts to become silos, it will all be for high bandwidth cat videos produced by the internet companies themselves, and your neural net traffic might be blocked completely. The cable companies are trying to turn the internet into cable or satellite, where you have to buy service with certain companies to get certain channels; ie not the internet anymore, but discreet intranets that each show different cat videos.

Re:What's so American (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755287)

In this thread, people arguing with an astroturfer

Currently, we have the spectacle of people BEGGING the FCC to come in and DO something!!!!

Some of you are too young to remember real America OnLine, Prodigy, or CompuServe. These were the pleasantly walled gardens that stood for ISPs before the Internet was a thing. They were wonderful. The companies had complete control over your browsing experience and could collect what amounted to commission from any punk who thought they might have interesting content to add. There were so few options in most places that they could charge their subscribers up to $15/hour for connect time (whether you actually moved any data or not).

This is the commercial utopia that the big ISPs remember. The unfettered revenue streams are just sitting there, begging to be monetized by anyone who can adequately leverage their existing infrastructure. The question you should ask yourself is: why does no ISP offer a discount service that includes only its own content? Maybe with a 'roaming' charge when you leave their network? The cable providers all "own" streaming video properties at least as broad as hulu and netflix...

The answer lies in the abject failure of AOL and CompuServe coincident with the "real" internet. Those walled gardens just could not produce the volume or quality of content that ordinary humans were willing to give away for free. Comcast doesn't offer an "our network only" service because NO ONE WANTS THAT. Charging content providers for access to Comcast subscribers is a way to use monopoly power to get around consumer choice. People have run to the FCC because the big ISPs have outgrown market pressure. If we could have a real, open, cable-provider or DSL-provider market, then we wouldn't need the FCC.

Re:What's so American (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 months ago | (#47755003)

Indeed, Marxism and all of its derivatives lack the essential value flag mechanisms that make any other economic system work, which is why they will fail even in the presence of abundance, so I agree with your assessment that the last mile providers are acting like Marxists.

Re:What's so American (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755021)

What is this Cold War obsession with misrepresenting Marxism in as many ways as possible just to make it seem ridiculous (or evil)? Stalin nodded in the direction of Marxism while behaving as a totalitarian despot, but he also nodded in the direction of atheism, while the USA is culturally based in deism and protestant work ethic, an entirely irrational, religious principle. The American capitalist revolution (against British late stage feudalism) and its development through late C20 has reflected Marx's view of how capitalism would unfold in a developed nation.

In particular, Marx does not "view labour as something nobody really wants to do" - wtf do you get that from? Marx viewed exploitation as something nobody should want to experience, but the Marxist progression of history is based on an increasing voluntary desire to do labour - from socialism through to communism - rather than to exploit others' labour. Prerequisite is firstly that people get to keep the fruits of their labour, and finally that people will realise the benefits of a sharing economy.

To be clear, I'm not Marxist, just like I'm not Christian, nor capitalist, nor Muslim, nor any -ist or -im nor -ian, really. But I don't try to mischaracterise any of these like an us vs. them. One of the biggest contradictions of human intelligence is its desire to over-simplify the world - to make up for our human sense of inadequacy: we are intelligent enough to recognise our cluelessness, but not wise enough to fix it, so we invent umbrella ideologies, insecurely eliminating all other possibilities.

All Koch is doing here is pandering to the Marx=evil knee-jerkers, like the Soviets pandered over and over to the capitalism=evil knee-jerkers. To think, we used to laugh at Russia for swallowing such simpleton propaganda!

Re:What's so American (1)

fractoid (1076465) | about 3 months ago | (#47755339)

They think "reds under the bed" worked for decades during the cold war, and it's been just long enough that it might work again.

Re:What's so American (0)

stjobe (78285) | about 3 months ago | (#47755365)

Without any mod points today the next best thing I can do is to say "Bravo AC, bravo!" and hope someone with mod points mods you up.

It always amazes me that the McCarthy-era Red Scare still lives and breathes in 21st Century America.

Re: What's so American (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | about 3 months ago | (#47755141)

Nothing about what the Koch brothers do is ethical. They whip up a fear storm to get people who are less intelligent or less willing to think for themselves to side with them. It's amazing how many people will parrot back what they hear and vote against their interests.

Re: What's so American (0, Flamebait)

Redpill82 (1366625) | about 3 months ago | (#47755313)

Yet you're probably ok when George Soros and Michael Bloomberg do the same thing...

Re:What's so American (0)

flyneye (84093) | about 3 months ago | (#47755261)

The Kochs shill for their holdings in power companies by spreading bullshit about wind and solar power.
The Kochs shill for Mike Pompeo so he will do their dirty work in Washington.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that they hold stock in some major ISPs.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that they have private nurses to give the enema bag that little extra squeeze.
I'm so tired of hearing how they claim to be Libertarian. I swear they registered just for the publicity.
BUT, it's o.k. they're old and will die soon.

Re: What's so American (1, Interesting)

Redpill82 (1366625) | about 3 months ago | (#47755349)

I think most people would agree net neutrality is a great idea in theory. You could say socialism is also good in theory. I don't mean to compare the two, but the problem with both is the practice and enforcement is done by people, who are fallible and often selfish. With any government enforcement, how do you ensure full accountability that net neutrality is actually being followed and fair in enforcement? And what's to stop the government from "leveling the playing field," giving additional network resources to failing energy companies, state education systems in favor of Common Core, public companies who need to better compete against private ones etc. ?

Don't worry guys (1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#47754885)

I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."

Re:Don't worry guys (1)

mean pun (717227) | about 3 months ago | (#47754919)

I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, [...]."

Examples please?

Re:Don't worry guys (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755205)

Examples are irrelevant. You're dealing with a right wing shill or crackpot and thinking is foreign to either.

Every single time anybody calls out some of the multiple billionaires who spew right-wing garbage and fund propaganda machines to push it on an overworked public somebody has to trot out Soros because it's the only barely relevant pathetic example they have to try to support their "see, both sides do it" excuses for their piss poor behavior.

Re:Don't worry guys (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754925)

Except a lot of the Koch funded groups including the Heartland Group and others are taken quite seriously by the voting public.

Its a major issue.

Re:Don't worry guys (2)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47754933)

>I can find plenty of astroturfing groups that are soros backed and do the same thing, but that doesn't make it "front page news."

Maybe it's because, mostly when liberal organisations fund something, it's something the majority of voters wanted anyway ?

Re:Don't worry guys (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755359)

Red meat for liberals, red meat that matters... It would be an OK Slashdot story without the "Koch brothers" demon invocation attempting to gin up discussion.

Urgh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754887)

Have you Americans *still* not gotten over this whole Marxist/Communist/Socialist = EVIL thing yet? Your government really did a good job with the propaganda during the Cold War it seems.

Re:Urgh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754897)

Marxism is probably preferable to the feudal society these guys are promoting.

Re:Urgh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754943)

I can see why some people considers communism to be evil considering that the attempts at implementation doesn't have a good track record.
What really irks me is really those who go with socialist = EVIL. Not only does it disregard the Nordic socialist countries but it also speaks of an extreme ignorance of what a socialism is and that US fits that definition very well.

Re:Urgh (4, Insightful)

Imsdal (930595) | about 3 months ago | (#47755259)

The Nordic countries are not socialist at all. In may ways, they are more free market than the US. For instance, you don't need occupational licensing to clip someones nails or decorate their homes. I know it's a nice story if you like socialism to point to Sweden or Norway as a good example. Unforunately, it's quite incorrect.

Re:Urgh (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 3 months ago | (#47755375)

Hate to break it to you, but nothing about socialism has anything to do with "occupational licensing". Socialism is simply about people cooperating with one another to work for the public good, which might be via the government, but can equally be in voluntary groups - the cooperative movement, for example, is considered socialist by virtually everyone, be they rabid anti-socialist or red hippie alike, yet has nothing to do with government. And let's not get started on unions... Robert Owen, considered by most the "Father of Socialism", had no government role at all in what he was working on, he'd be admired by many libertarians if it wasn't for that damned dirty S word blinkering them.

Part of the problem with the US right now is the propaganda has gotten so ridiculous that the word "socialism" has been redefined here to the point of meaninglessness. Most Americans seem to use it to mean "Anything the government does (that I don't like)". That's a silly definition, and if we want a meaningful discussion of the way the world should work, we need to eliminate it. "Anything the government does" has a variety of words to describe it already. And nobody in their right mind worships prisons, oil subsidies, or indeed the military-industrial complex, as examples of cases where people come together to work for the public good.

Re:Urgh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755325)

Yeah, well capitalism doesn't have a good track record either. Neither under crisis nor under hyperinflation.

Personally, I think communism fails because it believes labor has innate value.

Therefore I desire syndicalism, where labor is not the goal, but human welfare is the goal. Produce not to produce, but produce to serve the collective.

Besides, only 10% needs to actively labour. It can either be divided, but preferably simply be taken by those who desire to labor, while does who does not, does not labor. As long as the collectives are benefiting from the labor being done, it doesn't matter that some comrade is not labouring.

That's why syndicalist collectivism works, and communist collectivism doesn't - the difference is in desiring to labor, or being required to labor.

Communists as well as capitalists, have sadly also a track record of murdering us syndicalists/anarchists :-/

Re:Urgh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755337)

Oh, and why do we need a state?

We do not require a state, a police, an army, a nation or borders.

How can we be free if we do not decide together in unity how we desire to live?
Not the whole world population - those of us, who live together, or work together, or commune together.
(Centralized solutions always exclude - decentralize, PnP the whole damned system down to its core)

Re:Urgh (0, Troll)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 months ago | (#47755265)

Possibly because marxism and its derivatives were responsible for the murders of over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. And don't give me any bullshit about capitalism being responsible for more, people have been killing other people to take their stuff long, long before there were any "isms" worth mentioning.

What makes marxism et al special is that you don't even need greed to go on a mass murdering spree, all you need are some airy justifications and a handwave towards some utopian future in order to create the othering effect that enables murderous behaviour. "We could live in paradise, comrades, if only these bourgeoise/jews/intellectuals/patriarchal men weren't standing in our way!"

And this is without even thinking about the structural and logical failings of marxism. Talk about starting with the answers and going looking for the questions.

Re:Urgh (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47755267)

Have you Americans *still* not gotten over this whole Marxist/Communist/Socialist = EVIL thing yet? Your government really did a good job with the propaganda during the Cold War it seems.

Because it does technically run counter to what our country was founded on. The basis of all of those beliefs seem to be the whole Vulcan thing "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" The USA was founded on a strong principle of individual freedom.

In truth, any system taken to an extreme is bad. Those three were taken way too far. Stalin really did murder somewhere around 30 million people after all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

 

Re:Urgh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755335)

Come on, your number is far too low. Everyone knows that Stalin personally shot one billion people.

Re:Urgh (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about 3 months ago | (#47755279)

Have you Americans *still* not gotten over this whole Marxist/Communist/Socialist = EVIL thing yet?

Why would they? From what I've seen there are a great number of them that don't even understand their own nation's founding principles; I can't count the number of times I've heard/read people complain about private entities not abiding by the first amendment. Getting over a smear campaign against the red/yellow terror from decades ago is likely one of the least of their worries.

Re:Urgh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755377)

"first step in the fight to destroy American capitalism altogether" LOL ROFL
These right wing nut jobs will use anything on the gullible American public. Unfortunately there's millions that believe these types of lies and disinformation.
" Obama will come and take your children away " " Obama will take away your pensions " ..
Bunch of idiots , liars and crooks that's the far right. " Trust us " .. yeah right

No (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754903)

Net Neutrality Is 'Marxist,' According To a Koch-Backed Astroturf Group

No, net neutrality is not Marxist. Net neutrality is very much a capitalist policy, as distinct from being a corporatist policy.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 months ago | (#47755023)

Yep, it puts the "free" in "free market". The alternative is to allow telco's to hold content providers to ransom. OTOH why does it matter that these arseholes keep spewing ther comical propaganda, who's buying their bullshit these days, anyone?

Not Net Neutrality (0, Troll)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47754915)

Wow, it sounds like someone woke up a little butthurt this morning. "Koch-backed astroturf group." So?

Let's examine this:

(1) Marxists do think Net Neutrality is a good idea. (This, of course, doesn't mean Net Neutrality is right or wrong by itself, it is a statement of fact. Marxists tend to agree with civil libertarians on quite a lot, if the intention is to portray the policy badly by negative association.)
(3) Net Neutrality means: Dropping packets (thereby manipulating congestion control and bandwidth negotiation) based on the source or destination of the packet. If you dropped a Wikipedia packet instead of a Facebook packet due to a policy configuration and nothing else (randomly due to too much load), that's a violation of Net Neutrality.
(2) The issue is not over Net Neutrality, but over classifying the Internet as a "public utility". I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish - by any standard, it's a common service that gets hooked up to houses, residences, similarly to electricity. But if the intention is to legislate how people are supposed to connect their computers to each other - I have a problem with that.

I'm all for fair routing and engineering solutions to problems, but do we really want the FCC being the packet police? This is the same entity that gave us the Broadcast Flag. Their only job is supposed to be to regulate and assign airwave space, not meddle in the affairs of private, voluntary connections between nodes in a computer network, Internet or otherwise.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47754945)

Wow, in your entire post, literally the ONLY thing that isn't a complete falsehood is "This is the same entity that gave us the Broadcast Flag".

You have no idea what net neutrality is about, you have no idea what it means, and you clearly haven't got the foggiest IDEA what Marxism means.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (-1, Flamebait)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47754959)

[Citation Needed]

Re:Not Net Neutrality (4, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47754983)

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

You know nothing about Marxism. First learn what it ACTUALLY says, THEN you can try to critique it.

Net Neutrality bears no RESEMBLENCE to what you are describing in your post: it is simply an injunction that customers should get what they are PAYING for - which is unfettered access to the ENTIRE internet. Painting it as anything else is a lie.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47754989)

Oh -and the idea that you are obligated to sell a customer that which he actually paid for and keep the promises you made is the very foundation of Capitalism, attempts to do otherwise is known as fraud.

Even the most libertarian systems of thought still hold that one of the government's LEGITIMATE jobs is the prevention of fraudulent trade.

The entire concept has literally nothing to do with Marxism, which is NOT by the way the opposite of Capitalism, both are just two theories out of a gigantic spectrum of economic philosophies that exist, some of which have been tried over the years with varying degrees of success.
Ultimately the current success of capitalism is much more a political victory than a statement about it's success - it's no more successful than many of the abandoned ones and in some ways, much worse. It certainly is NOT any better than Marxism was - it fails equally spectacularly and in almost identical ways.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 months ago | (#47755299)

It certainly is NOT any better than Marxism was

Except for that whole western civilisation thing, yanno...

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47755343)

A myth- Western civilization embraced and was built on literally dozens of different economic systems, capitalism didn't take over until the industrial revolution.

Try reading up on it a bit. Hell anarcho-socialism was still a major political force as late as the 1920s in Europe and the 1960s in the USA !
The May Day New York riots of 1895 was effectively the oppression of anarcho-communists who, at that stage, were the majority of New Yorkers !
Capitalism had nothing to do with the growth of Western civilization, which in any event, is no more civilized or advanced than Eastern civilization or Balcan civilization.
Remember - those commie Russians got to space BEFORE the USA did, and it was only by adopting THEIR tactics that the USA beat them to the moon.
Not with capitalism but with 10 years of the most massively communist project in United States history.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (0)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755013)

I'm not critiquing Marxism. You're just begging for an argument, aren't you?

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47755097)

I came here for abuse.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47755103)

You declared that Marxist would love net neutrality which proves a complete lack of understanding of both.
A Marxist would have no opinion on net neutrality at all. A Leninist would - and the Leninist would OPPOSE net neutrality on the basis that it still has private ISPs, to the Leninist the entire internet infrastructure would be run by the state only.
To an anarcho-socialist it would be ideally run by a consensus system with specialists appointed to manage things who are instantly recallable and can be replaced at any second if they no longer have the support of the vast majority of the people relying on it.
To a Stalinist the internet would be something to destroy as it's too hard to control what would be said.

And Marxism - the way a Marxist internet would work would entirely preclude the very idea of net neutrality. The internet would be a public commons (which is VERY different from a utility) managed more like a public park or a public library than an infrastructure in which private enterprise sells access, with no ISPs there would be no neutrality or lack thereoff to debate.

Now you can argue whether running the internet that way would work well, what sort of quality and innovation could or could not happen and there are valid debates to be had - but that changes nothing about the fact that Marxists CANNOT as you claim "love" net neutrality since to them - the idea is EQUALLY as anathema as it's absence.
They would oppose BOTH sides of the argument.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755121)

Net Neutrality is a rule that can apply to any node that routes packets; meaning pretty much all of them.

I appreciate the energy you're putting into Marxism vs. other labels, but that's really not the important point I'm making.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47755277)

Net neutrality is a bad name let's call it what it is: fraudulent or honest trading.

There is nothing Marxist, about honest trading - indeed it's anticapitalist to support fraudulent trading. Net Neutrality is simply an attempt to legally enforce honest trading- which is the single most important purpose of government in a capitalist state.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755311)

Again, Net Neutrality is a routing rule. Your router is either neutral or it isn't (and when it isn't, maybe in various degrees). It has nothing to do with the law per se. If I build my own router in my intranet that routes to i.e. give priority to my computer, then all other nodes, my router is no longer neutral; but that does not mean that it is "fraudulent" (I own the thing! It's obviously impossible to defraud myself).

Now when I sign up with my ISP, I expect that, absent other agreements, they won't care about where my packets are address to or from, just if I'm exceeding their bandwidth limit I agreed to - the only terms they mention that would result in packet loss.

If they end up dropping packets on some other mean, I'd call that fraud. But fraud is not for the FCC to enforce, and it has little to do with one ideology vs. another.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47755351)

With 25-odd years of public internet as precedent on what "Internet Service" means -if your router is NOT neutral then you are NOT selling what the public thinks you're selling, which makes you guilty of outright fraud.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755175)

Meh, don't think Marx would have problem with charging for services rendered. But the means of providing the service would have to be collectively owned by those providing it.

Basically Marx was against one fat cat owning the factory (means of production) and grabbing the profits from its operation while the workers were given subsistence scraps. To him it was those that did the productive work that should own the means and reap the majority profit.

Where this blew up in Russia, and thus derailed the Soviet revolution from truly going "Marxist", was with farming. The farmers, being a cautious lot, held onto more food than they really needed in case there was a bad harvest. This lead to a lack of food in the cities, and so the Bolsheviks employed force. And from there it snowballed.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 months ago | (#47755149)

(3) Net Neutrality means: Dropping packets (thereby manipulating congestion control and bandwidth negotiation) based on the source or destination of the packet. If you dropped a Wikipedia packet instead of a Facebook packet due to a policy configuration and nothing else (randomly due to too much load), that's a violation of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality bears no RESEMBLENCE to what you are describing in your post: it is simply an injunction that customers should get what they are PAYING for - which is unfettered access to the ENTIRE internet. Painting it as anything else is a lie.

The GP phrased it oddly (note that by his description it's clear he missed a "not" before "dropping" in the first sentence), and placed the numbers out of order, but that's exactly what he said: packets should not be dropped due to source or destination. Sometimes packets have to be dropped, but that should be done randomly to allow access to the entire internet for all (truly unfettered being impossible without infinite bandwidth).

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 3 months ago | (#47755289)

I didn't insert the "not" like you did - have you considered that perhaps he really DOES have it completely backwards ?

That having to insert a "not" to make his description resemble reality could mean that he is just ignorant, as I read it.
I guess you're more charitable than I - but in our conversation thus far the GP has not at any time suggested that his original wording contained a typo - or given any reason to presume he didn't mean the backwards statement he wrote.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 3 months ago | (#47754987)

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

That's what Net Neutrality is, as opposed to whatever it is you're describing in your post.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755005)

That's what I said; I gave the technical definition. Go and look up how TCP negotiates connection speeds: By dropping packets.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#47755101)

It's not just dropping packages. ISPs can come up with all sorts of ways to distort traffic to extract more revenue, which can be far more subtle (and evil) than selectively dropping packages. For example, when customers try to go to Google, the ISP could send them to Bing (for a kickback), or rewrite Amazon affiliate tags so all Amazon purchases pay a percentage of the ISP. These aren't hypothetical - look at what wireless cell phone companies do to their customers and to content providers - it's a nightmare - and ask yourself why they haven't done the same thing to the internet? And if there aren't any rules enforcing good behavior, ask yourself how long those companies good behavior will last in the face of the opportunity for increased profits?

And do those arguing that they don't want the FCC "regulating" the internet, ask yourself what happens to the internet if there aren't any rules, but all participants start breaking everything possible in order to extract fees?

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755169)

Forged RST packets, captive portals, and injecting into webpages are wrong, they are fraud (i.e. slap them with a class-action lawsuit), but it's not a violation of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality involves routing rules, period. (Use the respective terms: Forged packets and captive portals.)

The FCC might be proposing regulations around Net Neutrality; but the point of the article doesn't concern that, it's that FCC shouldn't be the packet police.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 3 months ago | (#47755133)

As long as you're not (willfully or otherwise) specifically dropping 50% more Wikipedia packets than Facebook packets, you're not violating net neutrality.

The whole point is to treat all data equally, no matter which device, OS, application, source or destination is involved. It is the ONLY way to ensure an open and innovative Internet.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755203)

I'm not sure what you're getting at; I think you mean to qualify "considering only Wikipedia/Facebook traffic, each being used equally, each should account for about 50% of packet drops", but that's not necessarily correct either, Facebook has much more streaming media than Wikipedia and would likely show considerably more packet loss.

I'm also not sure we want to go all-out on the "treat all data equally" idea militantly; what does that mean? If I pay for a dedicated pipe at a data center, I'm paying per Mbps, i.e. the rate above which they'll start dropping packets. What if I also want to pay for low latency because my company does low-latency telecommunications (i.e. please don't ever drop my packets, so long as I don't send too many of them), and I don't want to lay down the capital necessary to dig my own fiber darknet? Obviously this is okay, but your literal rule suggests otherwise.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (1)

swb (14022) | about 3 months ago | (#47755189)

I'm not sure how Marxism as an economic theory would have much of an opinion of net neutrality considering Marxism's primary economic calculus is based around the labor theory of value. Passing packets is, for all intents and purposes, totally automated and involves no labor and no surplus value.

Really the debate seems to be more around monopoly capitalism. Most broadband providers are monopolists and want use their monopoly power to enhance profits. They want to constrain data consumption to limit their capital outlay on network infrastructure. This creates scarcity that allows them to charge higher prices.

The FCC's regulation on this has been ham-handed and seems to head in the wrong direction as it wants to "fine tune" Internet access through minutia.

I think classifying the Internet is a public utility isn't really what's been advocated -- it's more along the lines of a municipal fiber network that generally eliminates the local monopoly enjoyed by most broadband providers and the artificial scarcity it creates.

The purpose of the municipal network is more akin to roads; the local network isn't designed to provide anything other than layer 2 connectivity, The city may provide roads but they don't provide actual transportation, and the better municipal broadband concepts seem to be built around open access to the network by providers who then provide services like Internet access.

The Kochs would probably argue that these systems would ultimately end up providing basic Internet access as part of the connection fee, in effect putting the government in competition with private industry. This in itself isn't an unreasonable argument but it's easily dealt with by simply prohibiting a municipal network from providing services beyond local connectivity. Koch capitalists don't have an easy solution to the monopoly problem of existing broadband delivery.

Re:Not Net Neutrality (2)

diamondmagic (877411) | about 3 months ago | (#47755281)

I really wasn't trying to get into Marxism, but as an armchair university professor, I would guess that a computer network is necessarily built of capital (i.e. nodes of routers and computers), and the alternative to prevent suppression of the working class would be collective ownership of the routers; with some arbitrary "equitable" and/or "fair" routing scheme, which I guess would look like Net Neutrality (and it is, so far as I can tell, a good routing principle).

Aside, Adam Smith also casually used Labor Theory of Value (lacking a better alternative to explain the relationship of costs to prices), the settlement on Marginal Theory of Value didn't come about until Carl Menger.

There's examples of rent-seeking and legal barriers to entry too numerous to list, but municipal networks would be an example of the latter. If I wanted to install a high-capacity line to houses, I'd have to compete with the taxpayer-funded installed lines - an artificial increase in costs (cost being the value of the next-best alternative).

I guess roads are too (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754917)

Unless they're tollways. And apparently the Koch brothers would prefer if all roads were tollways.

Re:I guess roads are too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755109)

Unless they're tollways. And apparently the Koch brothers would prefer if all roads were tollways.

Only as long as they are privately-run tollways so their companies skim off the profits. Government- run tollways would be Socialism!

American capitalism (1, Informative)

geogob (569250) | about 3 months ago | (#47754923)

What would be so bad about changing American capitalism? As if moderating part of it would automatically send the American society deep into communism.

But staying on topic, net neutrality IS a good idea, and I do hope that so-called Marxist as well as anyone else believes so. Saying it would be bad because group X or Y think so, is the stupidest thing ever. These sort of argumentation can get so fast out of control...

Re:American capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755327)

What would be so bad about changing American capitalism?

Probably nothing. But the problem of your idea is not whether it would be bad (for the general public) to change American capitalism. The problem is that some people are benefiting a lot from the current system and they are not willing to let go without a fight.

SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about 3 months ago | (#47754935)

Implying marxism is a bad thing.

For Guys Who Are About 40th in Political Contribut (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47754937)

In the USA the Koch brothers sure do get criticized a lot. What, the 39 groups above them support Democrats and expanding government? Well we can't have anybody using their money to attack Democrats and expanding government. These demons must be made an example of in case others decide to speak out.

Re:For Guys Who Are About 40th in Political Contri (2, Interesting)

laird (2705) | about 3 months ago | (#47755167)

The Koch brothers get criticized a lot because they're secretive billionaires with a political agenda, who pump their fortune into the US political system through sneaky means on a massive scale, funneling their money through hundreds of "anonymous" groups so that it's difficult to trace, writing legislation to promote their agenda and businesses, and trying to get it passed when nobody is looking, and generally doing their best to subvert the democratic process. Oddly enough, the vast majority of Americans don't approve of their methods, and don't agree with their agenda, so their behavior generates criticism when it's discovered.

And don't think for a minute that Republicans don't expand government - when they're in charge, they expand the government, and run up spending and debt, faster than Democrats. They just like spending money on different things than Democrats - wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, for example, rather than education and infrastructure. That and they like to regulate people's private lives a lot more than Democrats, while Democrats prefer personal liberties and regulating businesses.

Dumbest argument ever (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#47754951)

Marxists think net neutrality is good, therefore net neutrality is bad.
You know what... Marxists think breathing is good, therefore breathing is bad also?
Such arguments are never valid.

Re:Dumbest argument ever (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47755295)

Such arguments are never valid.

They don't need to be valid.

See, the people he's making this argument to will already go "yarg, Maxists". They're already going to think uncritically about what he says, because in their mind Capitalism is perfect and achieves the desired outcomes -- corporate profits.

Increasingly, even economists are saying "Hey, you know that Capitalism thing? It's got some serious systemic issues which lead to bad outcomes."

The claimed outcomes and results of Capitalism are a myth, and don't work nearly as well as planned.

But the 1% who gain the most from it are the ones telling everyone else that it's some kind of moral imperative that corporations and the wealthy get more money and the rest of us can eat cake.

It's a flawed economic model, full of assumptions which are provably not true, and which creates results which have been increasingly skewing more and more wealth into the hands of a few.

But, since they're on top of the pyramid, and it's working for them, they're going to continue to act like it's working and a good thing. The reality is anything but.

In its current incarnation, Capitalism is systemically broken, and largely beyond repair -- because any time someone tries to address any problems, idiots like this start screaming "ZOMG, it's teh socialism". And these are the people who are most in favor of corporate serfdom, government granted monopolies, and the general bad behavior we see from corporations.

Because these people have a romantic view that at one point there was no government regulations, and life was good for everybody.

Combine this unwavering zeal for a screwed up economic system which only benefits a small amount of people, and the increasing surveillance state where police can access all of this secretly gathered information and then lie about where they got the information ... and you now have Big Brother who is beholden to the corporations.

The outcome is increasingly looking like the worst possible combination of the panopticon an an oligarchy.

Orwell missed out ... (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 3 months ago | (#47754963)

... he should have invented "the Goldstein brothers", not just Emmanuel Goldstein.

There's just something more sinister sounding about brothers, isn't there?

(This comment has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of "net neutrality", BTW.)

Kochs will ruin capitalism by short sighted greed (3, Informative)

cedarhillbilly (940464) | about 3 months ago | (#47754975)

Kochs aren't worried about capitalism which is a system of exchange. They are worried about not being able to their own profits in the short term. As extractive industries they want to buy protection from other advocates with environmental views by starving them out of the discussion! Here's the problem. Capitalism (market economies) only works if there is a fair balance of power among the buyers and the sellers. That other thing that the Kochs are protecting is oligarchy--rule by the wealthy.

Re:Kochs will ruin capitalism by short sighted gre (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755011)

Kochs aren't worried about capitalism which is a system of exchange.

No it isn't. As so many do, you are confusing Capitalism with Free Market Economies. They occasionally run side by side but are quite independent. What you describe is a free market economy where goods and services can be traded without unnecessary interference. Capitalism is all about ownership of the rewards, and that is what the Kochs worry about. You can and often do find Capitalism allied with very restricted markets, because it is easier to assert ownership and make sure you take all the profit, not the workers, not the customers nor any competitors.

Bad thing (1)

huduan (3798389) | about 3 months ago | (#47754979)

It is a bad thing i think

23rd USENIX Security Symposium - 8/2014 - Full Pro (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755007)

23rd USENIX Security Symposium - 8/2014 - Full Proceedings

#####

- Main Page:
https://www.usenix.org/confere... [usenix.org]

- PDF Download:
https://www.usenix.org/sites/d... [usenix.org]

- More format options than PDF including iPad/eReaders/Mobile Devices:
https://www.usenix.org/confere... [usenix.org]

-- View on-line, each page as separate image files rather than PDF:
http://view.samurajdata.se/ [samurajdata.se]

And net censorship is communist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755015)

So what's their point?

Which Marx? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755017)

Karl or Groucho? If they mean the latter, I might even believe them.

Will

Who are all the tea-tards infesting Slashdot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755033)

I used to come to Slashdot under the assumption that it was a place for fairly intelligent, if not eccentric, technology-aware people to flame the shit out of each other.

Instead, I now come to Slashdot and see libertarian and teahadist fuckweasels mouthing off their bullshit, rabid pro-Kapitalista talking points as if they're Ayn Rand itself.

Capitalism is great, but unfettered capitalism enabled through criminal public neglect is for neckbeard kooks. There is a reason we have a government and a constitution and it's not to allow you fucking morons to run roughshod over civilization for the sake of lining your own pockets.

Re:Who are all the tea-tards infesting Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755283)

"I used to come to Slashdot under the assumption that it was a place for fairly intelligent, if not eccentric, technology-aware people to flame the shit out of each other."

That was a long long time ago, before CmdrTaco decided to vacate the forum.

Re:Who are all the tea-tards infesting Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755333)

You know what ./ers are like when it comes to politics, yet you still willingly click on an article with "Marxist" in the title? You have to be among the worlds dullest masochists.

Try some hot wax, much more satisfying and you'll retain more of your sanity.

Who am I kidding, it's not as if you really believe any of that crap. You're just another lazy troll without an original thought or the commitment to put any effort in, and I'm just someone with too much time on their hands.

Call it what you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755067)

Call it what you want, but if net neutrality and ultimately uninterfered Internet access is Marxism then I like it!

Net Neutrality Itself is Astroturfing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755075)

Do you think that Netflix, Google, Yahoo and the rest are paying for "net neutrality" lobbyists out of the goodness of their heart? Nope. They don't want to share squat with the folks who build the wires.

Decreasing living standard (2)

DUdsen (545226) | about 3 months ago | (#47755095)

With about 2 decades worth of decreasing living standards in America and a ongoing recession, and a sense that the political system is broken, does the American Capitalism argument even work outside the mind of a narrow minority anymore.

All of the neo-mercantilist economist promoting what Koch labels "american capitalism" have been disproven empirically, sure they can push the logic utopians always do but nobody who have tried to practice it have ended up with anything but disaster. And America ceased being a small goverment country around the same time slavery were outlawed, since the it remained a regulated society. The real question is not if regulation should be introduced as regulation is already a big part of the decision process by market actors but what path the regulations should push market actors into.

Net neutrality is pushing the infrastructure owners away from creating walled gardens and cartels with the content providers and onto to a more pure competitive model where they focus mostly on running the infrastructure as cheap an effective as they can. Where as the content discrimination models pushes the infrastrucure owners to seek synergy(the politically correct term for the cartel effect) with content producers, and neglecting the actual infrastructure.

What they dont tell you in political inductrination 101 is that Smith and Marx aren't opposite poles on a spectrum, as Marx were borrowing most of his economics from Smith(they are seperated in time by about a century) but applied it in a different context.

Big Government (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 3 months ago | (#47755151)

Acting as if they invented the Internet; they've been trying to take it over since the 70's.

Wrong argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47755291)

This isn't about acess to services. This is about access to speech. Fast lanes are like saying speech is free, but you have to pony up to turn up the volume on your sound system at a protest rally.

Stupid namecalling (3, Insightful)

johanw (1001493) | about 3 months ago | (#47755293)

Calling something "Marxist" seems like an attempt to make further discussion unnecessary, comparable when in more civilised countries something is called "fascist". And calling someone who pleads for unbrideled capitalism as |leading to American situations" is also supposed to cut off further discussion, as no sane person wants that to happen.

Marx became an insult (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 3 months ago | (#47755305)

It is amazing that Marx became an insult. Marx just told us that the wealthier want to get even more rich, which in the end makes labor unable to purchase the goods produced, and hence capitalism destroys itself.

I guess they confuse Marx and Stalin.

What do you want? (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 3 months ago | (#47755347)

Server Guy: I only want to give my information to the people who lead to ad revenue or sales, everyone else is a waste of my server.
User: I want access to all of Internet, not just some of it.

We're going to have a problem here....

*@^$#&* Koch brothers (3, Informative)

jjbenz (581536) | about 3 months ago | (#47755361)

The Koch brothers, what a couple of douche bags.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?