Apparently George Soros foot the bill of the Frank La Rue’s ‘research’ for the UN that concluded that the Internet is a “human right” subject to the same creeping legislation and special interests as every other ‘right.’
Advocates of net neutrality, a position championed by the billionaire Soros and by the U.N., argue governments must regulate private censorship and bandwidth online to ensure it remains open and free. Soros, a philanthropist known for supporting liberal causes, has articulated his belief in the need for greater U.S. government regulation of the Internet.
I’m all for undermining censorship on the ‘net since it has the ability to reach those who are imprisoned in their borders. However, we already have groups like https://www.accessnow.org/ who are undermining the nefarious policies of these political thugs. (Sec. Clinton has also been pretty outstanding on the issue.) And they don’t have an axe to grind, or legislation to write.
My guess, though, is that ol’ GS would like more official regulation… that he funds. I doubt he’s given a penny to AccessNow, but he sure will help the clunky bureaucrats who now see a need to intervene. I love how leftists mock the Koch brothers for their “fascist” agendas, like promoting free speech, free markets, and civil liberties, while George Soros funds the ways to promote controlling others.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the whole “net neutrality” gig. The basic concept is simple, but the implication are nefarious. The long term consequence is that it declares the net to be an open highway.
Now exactly why does George Soros care about that ? .. and I don’t mean in the theoretical. Keep in mind that there are no exceptions in the “net neutrality” proposals for keeping out huge amounts of data that could tie up the network. The “telco” companies currently gatekeep primarily to keep QOS “Quality Of Service” the about the same for all customers. Exactly what business could use an “information superhighway” that has no gatekeepers ?
Perhaps, the entertainment industry would like a conduit to send their products to customers for which they would pay a simple “fixed” fee. The ISP might be required to constantly upgrade to keep the network responsive, but unlike a mall developer who would likely be required to update the roads around a new mall development, the ISP would receive no additional payment from these providers.
Just curious, do you guys think private ISP’s should have the right to block First Amendment protected websites? It seems kind of Orwellian to look at an anti-censorship efforts and see nefarious intentions because bogeyman Soros has loose ties to it.
I can acknowledge Koch does some good work by funding anti-police brutality and anti-drug war activities through Reason and CATO. Why can’t right-wingers accept that everyone who touches a penny from Soros is not necessarily an “NWO tool” or whatever.
It’s a solution in search of a problem. nn is a foot in the door that can pave the way for much more nefarious control. (Bram Cohen, who isn’t a right wing nutjob, gets it.) Also, the group I referenced was referred to me by an Iranian refugee, who uses it to give information to build resistance. If George Soros is so committed to freedom, he should start with helping this group that has already made a private initiative ahead of what some dinosaur at the UN will cook up.
My only problem with that argument is this: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Leftist: Radical reactionary conservative statist.