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, or mode of communication.
If you want to watch the stupid flow, just ask someone about net neutrality. The number of people who can actually define net neutrality (here are some NSFW porn stars to break it down) is inversely proportional to the number of politicians willing to hold forth at some length about it. It seems odd that something so few truly understand can engender such passionate debate, but stupid can circle the globe and be off on a second lap before intelligent drags itself out of bed.
For reasons that really don’t make sense, net neutrality has become a classic Left/Right, Blue/Red, Liberal/Conservative bone of contention. Even though every American would benefit from all data on the Internet being treated equally, the weeping and gnashing of teeth emanating from the Right would have one believe that net neutrality was responsible for every evil act from the Lindbergh kidnapping to Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012.
First, Ted Cruz said that Net Neutrality was Obamacare, then Donald Trump decided it was the reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine, and then another wingnut said Net Neutrality was like a tree trunk, and one said it was like a rope, and another, standing a few feet behind, said it was soft and mushy. Bryan Fischer thought that Net Neutrality was about requiring all ISPs to charge the same rates to all subscribers regardless of whether they have dialup or broadband (not even close).
And then there’s Alex Jones, the human sewage pipe who believes that net neutrality IS JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!!! For reasons only he fully understands, Jones conflated Barack Obama’s statement that “for most Americans, the Internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life,” with the mistaken belief that community WiFi systems are just this side of…wait for it…SOCIALISM!!!
Be careful; you don’t want to get too close to the lunacy. It might rub off on you. And Jones was just getting warmed up:
Yeah, this has been the plan for a decade. Free equal wifi that’s paid for by taxpayers, but you have no rights on that wifi, and you can’t get to InfoWars.com or DrudgeReport.com, that the White House officials have said they want to shut down, essentially.
So this is it. They’re coming. Drums, drums, drums of the deep.
This is just a high tech version of what the Soviets and the Nazis and the Chinese Communists and Fidel Castro and every other nut ball did.
Jones’ take on net neutrality is just too stupid for words, but par for the course for an attention whore who’s without a doubt never been accused of being the sharpest tool in the shed. Like many on the Far Right, Jones has an opinion on net neutrality that’s based on little more than fantasy, ignorance, and Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Likewise, Sen. Ted Cruz’ rampant ignorance regarding net neutrality is not merely ill-informed; it’s breath-taking in the depth and breadth of its stupidity and dangerousness. A Senator who may well have a hand in the final decision on net neutrality clearly doesn’t have a clue about the reality of what he’s opposing. Consider the source; Cruz would stop breathing if Barack Obama came out in favor of oxygen. To Cruz, it’s not about internet policy, which he clearly knows nothing about. It’s about scoring cheap political points by appealing to his base of foaming-at-the-mouth, knuckle dragging, firebrand Conservatives who hate The Black Guy in the White House © with every fiber of their being. If Barack Obama endorsed beer, these assclowns would immediately become teetotalers. Meanwhile, in the real world, the argument looks much different:
Though the network will never be neutral, we can find ways of promoting a vibrant market for fast internet speeds that’s open to everyone. At the end of his rant, John Oliver actually comes pretty close to the real issue. Advocates, he says, “should not be talking about protecting net neutrality. They shouldn’t even use that phrase. They should call it preventing cable company f—-ery, because that is what it is.”
Do we want an internet in which a few companies control access to information along with the speed with which that information is transmitted? Do we want an internet of the “haves” and “have nots?” Are we will to accept a solution in which data is subject to the whims of companies concerned only with their bottom line?
THIS is the debate we should be having- one based on facts and reality, not ignorance and posturing by people who really should remove their anterior from their posterior. (When even Conservatives begin to turn on Cruz…well, it IS kinda fun watching them eat their young, knowhutimean??)
Or we can let the jackasses make the rules and we’ll deal with the fallout…sort of like how we vote now. BECAUSE NET NEUTRALITY WILL DESTROY US!!!!
