Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: smart on 23/12/2017 09:36:44
-
Did we lose net neutrality because the elites hijacked the FCC to control the world wide web?
The social neuropolitics of net neutrality is about protecting Internet freedom from content trafficking, censorship, and blocking. The integrity of the Internet protocol should be protected by fully democratic system and be placed into the public domain. The active control, censorship and throttling of Internet services by global communication corporations is a prejudice against the user of Internet services paying for unlimited access.
-
Did we lose net neutrality because the elites hijacked the FCC to control the world wide web?
No, because of due democratic process.
The US voters elected Trump who promised to be more business orientated. One of his first moves was to place previous head of Verizon in charge of FCC in order to give it the big business orientation rather than the consumer protection leaning of the previous head.
At least Trump kept his promise, unlike many politicians.
-
No, because of due democratic process.
We need to protect democracy from destroying our civil rights.
-
The neuropolitical hijacking of net neutrality will destroy Internet freedom and establish a new electronical world order operated by global communication corporations.
-
We need to protect democracy from destroying our civil rights.
So you prefer dictatorship?
-
Did we lose net neutrality because the elites hijacked the FCC to control the world wide web?
No, because of due democratic process.
You might want to clarify that for the roughly 96% of the population who were not allowed to vote for the man who is wrecking the web.
-
So you prefer dictatorship?
No.
The US voting system is not fully democratic to begin with. We need to make better democratic systems to fully operate protection over our civil/constitutional rights. The corporations should be prohibited from tampering with civil rights through neuropolitical hijacking of the Internet.
-
You might want to clarify that for the roughly 96% of the population who were not allowed to vote for the man who is wrecking the web.
I thought the US viewed themselves as sole guardians of democracy for the rest of the world.
Surely they were voting for the rest of us ;)
-
You might want to clarify that for the roughly 96% of the population who were not allowed to vote for the man who is wrecking the web.
I thought the US viewed themselves as sole guardians of democracy for the rest of the world.
Surely they were voting for the rest of us ;)
Nope, they vote for ill informed shorts sighted personal gain.
-
The US voting system is not fully democratic to begin with. We need to make better democratic systems to fully operate protection over our civil/constitutional rights.
How are you going to do that?
Commercial groups have far more money=influence on the ‘democratic’ system designers ie politicians than you ever will have.
Here in the UK government suppressed smog death statistics to protect the coal industry and the sugar industry successfully lobbied to prevent research into the damaging effects of excess sugar consumption. In the US meat, soft drinks, and supplements industries pressure groups have sucessfully limited legislation and recommendations to the detriment of consumer health.
You will never compete while politics is seen as a career for making money rather than a public service.
PS @Bored chemist , i see you posted while i was typing. Seems we are thinking along same lines
-
The integrity of the Internet protocol should be protected by fully democratic system and be placed into the public domain.
The internet protocol is protected by a democratic process managed by the IETF which allows qualified individuals to propose extensions or replacements - it's called the "Request For Comment" (RFC) process.
- This process is conducted online, and is in the public domain.
Today's IPv6 protocol can be seen publicly available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8200
- It was developed over a period of around 18 years by many technical experts.
- I did not hear any news that a democratically-elected president was proposing to annul a democratically-developed internet protocol.
So what did you mean?
-
Does this conversation belong better in "Just chat" ?
-
We need to protect the Internet from neuropolitical hijacking: The elites are using the Internet as a psychological tool to destroy net neutrality and the integrity of the world wide web.
-
hi @evan_au :
I realize the term "neuropolitics" may confuse people unaware of the psychological consequences of hijacking net neutrality. This is a very important issue and I insist to believe into the neuroengineering of net neutrality by the elites in order to force adoption of a socialist global Internet operated without full democratic representation.
-
Does this conversation belong better in "Just chat" ?
hi @chris
I just thought that "New theories" are for experimental topics and "Just chat" for general questions..
Anyways, I hope not to have offended anyone by suggesting that net neutrality (NN) need to be protected from neuropolitical hijacking... (NH)
-
Why did @evan_au moved this topic to "Just chat"?
Why do anyone hardly understand any social neuroscience to begin with? :(
Note, this is not a official complaint but a way to promote the importance of neuroscience threads in this forum.
-
How are you going to do that?
Commercial groups have far more money=influence on the ‘democratic’ system designers ie politicians than you ever will have
You cannot drain the swamp with a small knife. You need a longer fork to destroy all corruption in science and technology like the Internet.
The politics of neuroscience research and development are poorly understood! ;)
A full democratic system would resist corruption by restricting corporations from influencing either directly or indirectly the electoral process.
-
A full democratic system would resist corruption by restricting corporations from influencing either directly or indirectly the electoral process.
The democratic system we see in most countries requires sponsorship for the politicians to reach the common people via advertising, staging rallies, stacking facebook "likes" (or stuffing letterboxes) etc.
- That money comes from corporations, individuals, and government sponsorship
- All you can hope to do is to place some controls on that sponsorship, such as:
- Making the sources and amount of sponsorship visible in a public register
- Making government sponsorship conditional on achieving a minimal amount of public vote. This will discourage crackpots from claiming government sponsorship.
- Documenting instances of foreign government sponsorship
But even then, there are lobby groups that may not themselves give money to the government, but if they represent powerful groups of voters, significant cash flows in the economy, or significant trading or military powers, they can sway government policy without directly contributing any money. It is hard to see how you could track all the pleas, threats and promises that reach a politician (or their staff) in a given year.
There have been instances where a democratically-elected government has attempted to steer the results of elections in another country - a decidedly non-democratic process. There have even been cases where a democratically-elected government deposed the democratically-elected government of another country, and installed their own dictator.
A fully democratic government must be democratic both internally and externally.
- This means not influencing the elections or policy of another government.
- This is a paradox, because those outside the democratically-elected system have no say in the election, and thus, by definition, are inconsequential, and subject to manipulation for the most trivial of selfish reasons.