Why 0bama needs net neutrality

[5.56NATO]

It's the neutered part of neutrality, specifically...


It's to stop web content such as these examples;

An individual empowering individuals by being an individual in a coming age that no longer values such mentality on a massive scale....aka The Redsilverj
https://www.facebook.com/Redsilverj

Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative who said Obama doesn't love U.S.
http://www.examiner.com/article/face...esn-t-love-u-s

This is why net neutrality was passed, so web content can be quickly and easily censored and suppressed in the name of national security and hate crimes, or as sublime as "tos" violations.

Oh but the regime will be able to post its pablum no worries, due to a hoard of online trolls/sock puppets.

[LAGC]

I think you're kind of confusing government censorship with private "community standards" that various private companies employ on their own hosted content.

The government, for example, can't ban registered sex offenders from exercising their First Amendment rights and socializing on the internet. However, Facebook, a private enterprise, can and does ban registered sex offenders from participating on their service as a matter of policy and for the purported safety of its other users. All you have to do is report a suspected sex offender to Facebook, they will investigate, and if they find a matching name/photo on the sex offender registry anywhere, that user is permanently banned from their service with no avenue for appeals.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. That is simply one of the rights we allow private content providers to exercise to "police their own" networks and moderate them as they see fit. Unlike free speech in the public domain, speech and posting privileges on the private domain belongs to the content providers and can be regulated as such.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Speaking of the socialist Satan......

[studmuffin]

I think you're kind of confusing government censorship with private "community standards" that various private companies employ on their own hosted content.

The government, for example, can't ban registered sex offenders from exercising their First Amendment rights and socializing on the internet. However, Facebook, a private enterprise, can and does ban registered sex offenders from participating on their service as a matter of policy and for the purported safety of its other users. All you have to do is report a suspected sex offender to Facebook, they will investigate, and if they find a matching name/photo on the sex offender registry anywhere, that user is permanently banned from their service with no avenue for appeals.

That has nothing to do with net neutrality. That is simply one of the rights we allow private content providers to exercise to "police their own" networks and moderate them as they see fit. Unlike free speech in the public domain, speech and posting privileges on the private domain belongs to the content providers and can be regulated as such.

Keep toeing the line and reciting the government koolaid claptrap fool

[O.S.O.K.]

The only idiots that are for this are the useful idiots.

[alismith]

The only idiots that are for this are the useful idiots.

I'm having a hard time determining of what use they, actually, are.