Posted on 09/21/2011 8:09:35 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee turns its antitrust sights toward Google. Several topics will be on the agenda, but the one at the top will be neutrality: Does Google impermissibly favor some links over others in its search results, benefiting itself and harming competitors? While the question may seem harmless enough, the premise — that regulators should enforce neutrality on the Internet — is actually quite pernicious.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
But knowing that net neutrality has it's roots in marxism means that search neutrality is a trap. This would explain Google's role. Censor conservative websites, get the conservatives to support net and search neutrality in order to make it stop. The marxists at the FCC will gladly "help you out". Just give them more power. They'll take care of everything.
This is not a conspiracy. The word conspiracy brings up images of smoke filled rooms and so forth, people scheming in the dark and plotting things when nobody is looking.
This is an agenda, not a conspiracy. It's all out in the open, for those who wish to simply open their eyes and look at it. Google's censorship of conservative websites is not in question. The marxist roots of net neutrality is not in question. How else would they relate?
No reply needed.
Yet again, the big government neutrality proponents are firing a shot across all of our bows. They are indeed intent on controlling content. This is no different than ‘iphone app’ neutrality. They are authoritarians and want control of content.
Some of you are awake to this agenda.
I have found it to be a very good search engine.
Another thing about GoodSearch is that you can choose a "charity" when you first use it. GS then donates a a few pennies to that charity each time you use it..
Of course my "charity" is Second Amendment Sisters, but you can choose any charity you wish--even FR, if you would like. We (SAS) have received a couple of hundred dollars since some of us have started using it...............
Imagine book publishers and authors sitting still for government mandates on how an index should be constructed. What would a newspaper publisher say to anyone suggesting how their table of contents be written?
I’m okay with this so long as the Senate also grills the New York Times and etc. for doing the same kinds of things.
No one is FORCED to use Google. There are Bing and Yahoo and others if you want at no cost to you. If you think Google is unfair, then use someone else’s search engine. If they lose business, they will change. It’s a free market. The government needs to stay the hell out of it..............
We can use it against other topics too ~ e.g. Santa Claus.
I don't see what the problem is ~ doesn't matter how much Google tries to serve as the Vanguard of the Proletariat we can beat them at their own game.
thanks
I added Good Search to my browser’s recognized search tools
Great! I think you will like it. Since I’ve been using it, I’ve never gone back to any other......
And some of us simply have no need for tin foil. In your case, I'm investing in Reynolds, makers of Reynold's Wrap.
—————What would a newspaper publisher say to anyone suggesting how their table of contents be written?-——————
I’m not quite sure how to answer that.
Most media today doesn’t seem all that different than PBS or NPR.
They’ve willingly thrown their hats in the ring of big government and do it’s bidding.
The stories that are big in government media, are big in the MSM. The stories that the MSM won’t touch, government media won’t touch. They are in many if not most ways, virtual images of each other.
They might welcome being told how to write and when, and so forth. But given their pro-big government nature as it is, why would government ever seek this level of control over them in the first place?
We can only beat them at their game currently because all the doors are open.
They want to lock the doors and swallow the keys.
I doubt anybody in the administration, certainly not at the FCC would consider FR to be very neutral.
Imagine searching for free republic and it not showing up in the search terms, yet go to freerepublic.com and the site works perfectly. This part could certainly fit in as a part of my own theorizing, as none of us can know net neutrality will materialize in the coming years, provided we don’t stop them, of course. They may just decide to emulate china. China’s internet is certainly search neutral, neutral across the board. According to their communist rulers anyways.
But they’re putting it all out there for us to see. The agenda is in full view, from those rare handful of outlets who have dared to cover it all. When they think nobody’s looking, they speak and write the truth to their pals.
Ordered this one yesterday from Amazon.
Radio and television regulation: broadcast technology in the United States ... By Hugh Richard Slotten
http://books.google.com/books?id=cZLQ9R5GKfsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Going forward your posts should be very interesting. :-)
Err, regarding regulations and their abuse, then and now. In more detail and so forth.
Yeah, foot in the mouth moment. You probably know what I meant. Oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.