8 comments

• 

  Don Marti

  1 year ago

  Why is the Media so unhelpful about attributing the source of these things?
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Sonia, you are all mixed up:
  
  This reality, unfortunately, has led many to the erroneous conclusion that since openness is good, the government should force it, no matter what the cost. However, government force rarely leads to the open societies people seek. Take Net neutrality advocates, for example.
  
  because government is nothing more than an expresson of the collective will, and that will may be wrong or right in wanting net neutrality, but it is simply oppression to deny a free people the ability to make a law about such an important issue as net neutrality. Without net nuetrality, large corporations will continue to oppress and restrict the individual liberties which we should hold dear.
  
  Net neutrality is the First Amendment of the internet, and to deny this important freedom is oppression.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Why is the Media so unhelpful about attributing the source of these things?
  
  I would change it slightly to say:
  
  "Why is the Old media so unhelpful about attributing the source of these things" because in the world of new media we have websites like www.sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org, to uncover the media propaganda of the large corporations.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Sonia, your premise that government regulation to promote openness would be wrong is grossly flawed. The problem is that corporations are themselves not being transparent with the public. The focus of your post should be on the corporate behavior not on the potential for what may be considered onerous government regulation.
  
  Let me phrase it this way. The free market system is based on accepting responsibility for your actions and being transparent in your actions. If corporations do not have the maturity to act responsibly and in a transparent manner, then government regulations is appropriate. So I find it misplaced that you fail to bring the business tactics of Comcast, Versizon, etc. to light.
  
  The implicit assumption to be derived from your post is that it is OK for corporations to use underhanded business practices and we should protect this absurd "right" by castrating the government's ability to control abusive practices.
  
  Also there is the reverse question. If corporations are given a "free pass" by this forum on underhanded behavior, then the consumer is logically entitled to use the internet in any manner that he or she see fit. Obviously this implies anarchy and I don't think we want an anarchistic economic system.
  
  Simply logic dictates that we have a level playing field for all players.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Also there is the reverse question. If corporations are given a "free pass" by this forum on underhanded behavior, then the consumer is logically entitled to use the internet in any manner that he or she see fit.
  
  It would also be logical to extend the possible reaction to Sonia's argument beyond the internet to "any means the individual sees necessary to oppose corporate power" This could include acts of violence against corporate tyranny.
  
  This is exact why I favor government action, through action of a free press and democracy to oppose corporate tyrranny, because I am strongly opposed to violence.
  
  Those, like Sonia and the IPCentral gang, who oppose actions to limit corporate tyrranny through government action are inadvertently building a society that will be dominated by undemocractic processes and ultimately violence. I would suggest the exellent book Oryx and Crake for those who would be curious what the outcome of such a violent society with today's technology could end up looking like.
  
  It is no accident that those at IPCentral admire China, not India as a model for development.
  
  See this post:
  
  http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2006/09/07/p...
  
  
  The bottom line
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  The bottom line is that corporate power will be resisted, and that resistance will either occur through democratic processes, or if those processes are eliminated, the resistance will continue through other means.
  
  (Note: click on enigma_foundry below for link to article about IP Central and their admiration of China; links are apparently no longer allowed in TLF!, except for links in poster's name. Why is that?)
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Quite true, those who "oppose actions to limit corporate tyrranny through government action are inadvertently building a society that will be dominated by undemocractic processes and ultimately violence."
  
  Personally, I wouldn't go as far as "violence".
  
  Anecdotally, it appears that corporations are acquiring(in the figurative sense) the government power (on their own volition) to define what is "illegal" and to then "arrest", "judge", and "fine" those in "violation". But I may be over-reacting as I have not really researched this concept.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Personally, I wouldn't go as far as "violence".
  
  Neither would I--I am deeply committed to non-violence--but the society which would result from the policies of the corporate power advocates would be, I feel, a very violent one. It would also be one in which we would be lacking many of the essential freedoms we now take for granted. Thus, their proposals must be firmly rejected.
  reply