Forum Post: Free media is needed for real democracy to succeed
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 12:03 a.m. EST by multi123123
(24)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Without a free media, democracy is impossible.
The ultra-rich elite have tight control over all the media.
They literally filter what you are allowed to see.
Without a free media, you will never be able to make responsible decisions. Thus democracy is made impossible.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/21/1315570/-Palestinian-commentator-Rula-Jebreal-explodes-on-MSNBC#
Shredding MSNBC's programming. And just clarify for the usual internet trolls, no this does not mean I then must endorse FOX "news" lol :)
Why are we so biased with our coverage of Israel?
"Its because of AIPAC, its because of the money, and its because of Sheldon Adelson"
Exactly.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/21/1315570/-Palestinian-commentator-Rula-Jebreal-explodes-on-MSNBC#
[Removed]
We need to make it ingrained in the constitution .That way it's a secured right.
I propose that Americans use an Article V convention to revise the First Amendment in a way that would give access to activists with bonafied information, expose, conspiracies etc. to mainstream, national broadcasts. Activists would have to have public support and verified information to a degree NOT proportional to the size of the problem addressed. Based on the fact that others know things and if they find there is an issue and a place to respond to, they will, and the body of truth gets larger.
I have a page about the revision and have written a draft of the amendment there.
http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html
A very simple concept. Speech vital for a peoples survival must be shared and understood or they will not survive. It provides some profound critieria for what speech the public must support in order to maintain constitutionality at a maximum. It also brings ancient natural law that completes the constitution.
I have not seen a single thing on the MSM saying that OWS is all about ending the corruption of politicians.
Well with the introduction of government regulation of the internet very shortly you will most likely see the freest form of media we have ever had disappear.
there's a difference between regulating the bandwidth providers and regulating the internet. The bandwidth providers bought the bandwidth from us via government auction... and sell it back to us.
They want to set up their own websites that stream video and music and stream it faster or for free to us. Competitors, like YouTube, NetFlix, etc... must pay more money to get fast streaming. Mom & Pop sites... like Revver would be slowed down if they can't afford the rates. What we would see is a regulation of the internet, not by the government, but by corporations who would force out the mom & pop competitors.
Without net neutrality... we lose start up small businesses.
Sounds to me like government is going to regulate "Neutrality" when it's regulation of bandwidth was the problem to begin with by your description. I own a small business and operate a website that I have all the bandwidth I need for and I pay pennies for it really. I am waiting to see how much more I will have to pay after the regulation takes effect.
It's like water law. Back in the west, the person who controlled the source of the stream/river controlled everything below it. It led to horrible corruption until laws were passed that helped people downstream get water without extortionist practices. Bandwidth/net neutrality is the same thing.
I understand but you said it yourself that government was auctioning bandwidth from the get go why? It was not theirs to sell. The less involvement they have the better. Their involvement will do nothing but drive prices up. You can't compare bandwidth to water because someone has to use resources to generate bandwidth, water falls from the sky and runs through a stream that has to be blocked intentionally and illegally in order for people to be extorted. If you want to find the biggest perpetrator of that kind of extortion though look to the federal government and the Navaho Indians. They can't touch the Colorado river flowing through their nation because the Fed's won't let them. Fear anything the government wants to control.
think cellphone bandwidth
Cell phone bandwidth is yet another FCC regulated thing that requires government payoffs to receive. Originally it was thought that bandwidth over the air was limited so the FCC was just supposed to manage it but that all changed and now that we know the game the rules have changed and you have to payoff the feds if you want in. Why aren't the airwaves free? Fed involvement. None the less it does take equipment to produce the frequencies used and the equipment needs to be maintained so there is a charge for it's use. The higher the bandwidth the more equipment needed to do so. I work for Verizon so this is what I do for a living I have an understanding of costs involved from the company side. I'm not saying they don't fleece the consumer for top end services but there is a cost involved in providing it.
Right... there is a cost for providing the service. The thing is, they can easily recoup those costs already. What they want is to be able to earn more money by charging which websites you go to, by speeding up loading speed to those websites that pay them... which all adds up to a regulation of the internet via corporation. My concern is that it sounds (especially when you look at plans some of the providers have had) that Mom & Pop startups will be the ones most heavily affected, stifling competition from the top down.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]