EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Wants You to Create the Next YouTube
He's said it before, and now he's said it again -- but this time President Obama's unwavering statement in support of Net Neutrality couldn't have come at a better time in the fight for our Internet freedom.
Monday, during the president's live online YouTube interview follow-up to his State of the Union Address, Obama told the world: "I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality."
YouTube's "CitizenTube" invited people to pose questions for the president and allowed them to vote on the questions they most wanted Obama to answer. More than 11,000 questions were submitted, and some 667,000 votes were cast.
A question about Obama's stance on Net Neutrality jumped to the top of the "Jobs and the Economy" category. (If you're scratching your head asking, "What the heck is Net Neutrality?" - go here.)
The question was posed by James Earlywine of Indianapolis:
An open Internet is a powerful engine for economic growth and new jobs. Letting large companies block and filter online content and services would stifle needed growth. What is your commitment to keeping the Internet open and neutral in America?
Obama's strong response will help move the needle in a debate where industry groups have been pulling lawmakers in the wrong direction. Indeed, Obama even called them out on it.
Obama said:
I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality. I campaigned on this. I continue to be a strong supporter of it. My FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has indicated that he shares the view that we've got to keep the Internet open, that we don't want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn't have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet.
This is something we're committed to. We're getting pushback, obviously, from some of the bigger carriers who would like to be able to charge more fees and extract more money from wealthier customers. But we think that runs counter to the whole spirit of openness that has made the Internet such a powerful engine for not only economic growth, but also for the generation of ideas and creativity.
Watch the video:
There are three reasons why this statement is such a victory. First, the Federal Communications Commission is creating rules now that would stop Internet service providers from blocking and controlling Internet traffic. Big companies like Comcast and AT&T have been lobbying hard to sway the FCC away from a strong rulemaking, and have been spreading misinformation and spin about Net Neutrality. Obama's words yesterday show that his administration is as serious as ever about Net Neutrality, and that a powerful FCC rulemaking on Net Neutrality has the backing of the White House.
Second, this is further proof that Net Neutrality is a mainstream issue with the backing of millions of people. With so many people submitting questions for the YouTube interview, and tens of thousands voting, you'd think that a "wonky" issue like Net Neutrality would get lost. But people understand that an open Internet is central to all the issues they care about, and that allowing companies to co-opt and control the Internet would destroy it. It's clear that people want answers and action, and it's not acceptable for lawmakers and public officials to dodge what's no longer a "fringe" issue.
Finally, Obama made clear that an open Internet is central to our economic recovery, spurs job growth and drives innovation. In fact, he says that ISP's anti-Net Neutrality stance runs counter to the Internet's ability to foster economic growth. Beyond promoting free speech, access to information and a diversity of viewpoints, the open Internet underscores a robust and healthy economy. Small businesses, graduating students, and online entrepreneurs can all use the open Internet as a platform for their big idea or business. Indeed, someone may be making the "next YouTube" right now.
President Obama made his position loud and clear. Now let's hope that the FCC follows through. In fact, let's not just hope; let's demand that they do. Make sure they hear from you.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Megan Tady. This is welcome information.
We need to push on this because Obama has deliberately misled people before. We cannot trust him (or anyone else in the Capitalist capitol) to keep his word.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
if Obungle is that big a supporter of net neutrality re: the openness of access to online media, then he also ought to be pushing existing legislation to open up access to low power FM radio stations to non-profit organizations and he hasn't said jack about it.
Youtube itself is just part of the Google empire and they practices net-discrimination by using the deliberately CPU-burdening Flash 10 For it's videos. This blocks out a large number of people who cannot afford or don't want to buy newer PC's.
Youtube used to work fine on my older machine, but since the changeover to flash 10, I'm locked out.
Like digital TV (still only in the US at this point) it is all part of a grand scheme to drive consumer perfectly good products with expensive crap we don't need, and fill the landfills with toxic electronic junk.
Good point, but scarcely anyone cares since we're drowning in too much technology. If you can't afford it or don't want to fork over big bucks for it, constantly updated technology, which is usually worse than the older versions, will just leave you in the dust. The billionaires at Google and YouTube aren't interested in petty problems of the poor, the unemployed and economically marginalized. Just as they aren't accountable for landfills crammed with toxic electronic junk. Ever see the movie "Idiocracy"? We're almost there, just be patient.
there are many other video-sharing websites.. you could try them out..
there are also many, many other search engines besides google (ex, clusty.com) that don't track you like google..
'The next youtube' is probably already out there, but it's a question of where the users' go. How about a government-run you tube that has maximum flexibility or browsers (flash, etc), options for lower-res versions, fewer limits on size, no tracking of users, and no advertising - wooo hoooo ;))
Is Clusty really much different from Google? They both keep query logs that could identify you. From Clusty's privacy policy:
"This log information includes your Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, referral data, the date and time of your query and one or more cookies (described below) that may uniquely identify your browser. We use this information to operate, develop and improve our services."
Google keeps this info for 18 months, and then scrubs it a bit to make it less personally identifiable. Clusty doesn't say how long they keep theirs.
Evan Mallory
Well, I'm no expert, but here are some things: The info you describe is available to any server that has a user visit it's webpages (like CD). I guess you could email them and ask them how long they keep their server logs for, but it's the same info that any web page server has. Since it's not personally identifiable - I'm guessing they don't have to say?
Google goes waaaayyy beyond that. They track you all over the place through their ads that are on virtually every web page and through the toolbar, gmail, etc. There is a huge list somewhere with all the 'smart' ways that google tracks your behavior and tries to build a profile of you to determine what ad to show you (and who knows what else). Toolbar is listed as really one of the worst offenders - it tracks everything. They claim 18 mos, but who's really watching and testing what they do? Probably not our government.
Clusty is nothing by comparison. Did you read their privacy pages?
http://clusty.com/privacy
Here's one huge difference:
"We do not use cookies to uniquely identify you or to track your behavior"
http://clusty.com/privacypolicy
It doesn't even say if they save the search querys themselves!
Plus there are many ways of searching that google just doesn't do. imo, they are too busy being billionaire ego-masters of the universe to improve. For example, offering simple clustering or better filtering of results. There are other search sites that use these features.
Hated pet peeve: "Oh just google it" instead of "oh just search it"
Thanks for the recommendation, by the way. I'm going to give Clusty a try for a bit. I'm happy to support a smaller company. I agree that Google search is probably stagnant at this point.
Google Toolbar is awful, yes.
My (minor) complaint about Clusty's privacy policy is that while query logs may not technically be "personally identifiable," practically speaking the combination of a user's queries, IP address, and usage pattern can identify that person, even if there is no login information associated with the session.
They do use cookies to improve their service, just as Google web search does. A cookie doesn't "uniquely identify" you, but it does uniquely identify your browser session, which, again, is not that different.
ah, good points, thanks. We need better federal laws to determine what is 'personally identifiable' and what how the logs are kept, policy to disclose that data, etc..
Hasn't anyone here heard of Scroogle?
Just use the "Scroogle" scraper and do your google searches in anomynity:
http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
If you like it, send them a contribution.
pjd412: I'm also locked out of using YouTube.
Goggle is also, as you stated, a very wealthy entity, and is sucking too much money out of the real economy -- IMO.
"Like digital TV (still only in the US at this point) it is all part of a grand scheme to drive consumer perfectly good products with expensive crap we don't need, and fill the landfills with toxic electronic junk." -- pjd412
I agree with you!
I still use a 450mhz 640 MB Dell at home. It still works perfectly for everything else.
I guess I could try a newer video/graphics adapter card.
My computer, too, works perfectly, which means, I shouldn't have to buy another just so that I can access YouTube, and other video that calls for the update.
When Obama says he's a strong supporter of something the people want, it means he's gonna go behind our backs and make sure it fails.
Yeah, he "believed" in And PROMISED SINGLE-PAYER, too!
Obama said:
"I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality. I campaigned on this"
This should worry you. Look up what he said about his other campaign promises. Then look at what he is doing.
Exactly - why do people still think it's important what politicians say? What matters is only, and only, what they do. (unless they are talking about something they already did). For example, Obama claimed he never campaigned for the public option. That was a lie.
" Obama told the world: "I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality." "
You hit the nail right on the head. THIS SHOULD WORRY YOU.
Everything that this man and his Administration, the whole government really, I can't just blame it on Obomber, everything they say is ALWAYS opposite to what they mean and do.
Him saying he is all for Net Neutrality should be taken as a warning sign that something is getting ready to happen here, what they do is Obomber says he is all for freedom of the net, blah blah blah, then they rush thru some restrictions laws, that Obomenr signs and passes, then he gets back on TV or youtube in this case, and says how mad he is about the new Law, the one that he signed ahead. Just like the TARP Bailouts for the Too BIG To Fail corporations and Banks.
It's the good cop bad cop routine. This way they can say oh see it was the Republicans or the Corporations (government created and subsidized corporations that is) It's all a game of Smoke and Mirrors. Open your eyes and see that already.
Be warned. Obomber is playing you, those who are naive and keep falling for these same tricks.
This campaign promise should be harder to break. Imagine what would happen if he could kill the Internet by killing net neutrality. Maybe we'll all take to the streets?
No, no. The Internet won't be 'killed' outright by any single act. It will begin with small, insignificant drips -- a minor 'excise tax' to maintain your current access and speed; minor slowing that slightly frustrates but does not outrage.
The control of the web will continue to slowly but inexorably tighten until one day the public wakes up and goes, "How did that happen? I don't remember seeing this coming. Oh, well, nothing to be done about it now."
A properly functioning authoritarian government avoids above all anything that will shock masses of people into action against it. Think Germany in the 1930s, or the U.S. 1980 to present.
If the elites fear that the Internet is being used by the people to override tyranny, then this could happen. I don't see them doing this in the foreseeable future. They must be watching us and counting on the Internet to distract us from taking to the streets.
I signed the petition in the link to the article. If net neutrality isn't kept, Common Dreams and other progressive sites may be history, and the internet will be for those with money.
Just leave the Internet alone.
No Restrictions, No Taxation. Nothing.
People have ways of blocking their children from watching what they do not want them to see.
There are programs to help parents and institutions that need these services. This IS a matter for individual parents to deal with, NOT The Government!
My suggestion is for everyone to learn languages (computer programming languages) learn the hardware and how to set up localized internet structures.
Basically, if we are going to have to face the threat of any sort of regulations on the internet, we ALL need to learn to be internet Pirates and Hackers in our own rights.
Setting up smaller internet providers and servers will help to keep localized communications up and running and people will be able to bridge the gaps to cover large areas.
I am not saying I would prefer this, but it is something we should think about and consider, incase they do smash the hammer on the net.
Liar, Liar, Liar springs each promise from the political mouth aplomb
the words are only used to calm and defuse any public opposition bomb.
For if the president so straightly says what good folks believe as true,
Then he hopes we should not worry that respect for our rights is long overdue.
Thus mollified we stay at home and not mass together with force.
While our backs are turned, laws are made by pick-pockets without remorse.
They take even more from those who are left with less than nothing.
With the hand of state around the throat, the last breath blocking.
Do you think the corporations who are the only recognized people with rights today,
Will forgo yet another chance to make millions of poor slaves and serfs pay?
The media and military empires do understand each other very well.
Conquest and power are all they can understand, for that is about all they can tell.
If the Net is so important to our Society, then its basic infrastructure should be in the PUBLIC realm not the private one.
A Net Neutrality rule will be great. But it is still the equivilent of some kind of "equal access" law for private toll roads instead of the publically funded road system that we all know and love so well.
To me the Net Neutrality fight is like the Medical Marijuana fight:
It would seem to be a positive first step, but it is not because there is no reason we shouldn't go for what we really want (legalization/Public Net). The "first step" allows for a private market to exist where really it shouldn't (ISPs/black market non-medical cannabis use).
-matti.
There's much her I think that needs a semiotic reading (what's not stated):
1. What about piracy? Are you folks in the US still being sued for downloading music?
2. What about cloud computing? Who will master the servers?
3. What about the Google Book court case? What about books? What about writers?
4. How can the movie and TV industry when I can download this stuff for free?
AND, let's FACE it, since we're going down the TUBE anyway, it's best not to give a TWIT!
Sounds good so far.
Man, we had better watch this carefully.
don't we have to censor debate of global warming and pro-capitalism people? And pro-lifers of course. I am sure there is speech codes in there somewhere! viva la revolucion!