Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

Internet freedom??

Why are there over 550 footnotes stamped "non-public: and "for internal use only" in the draft document for net neutrality?


Asked by Carpy at 10:36 AM on Dec. 5, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (18)
  • Do any of you actually know what Net Neutrality means? And I mean a real definition, not some kind of right wing propaganda.

    Yes. But considering you support it, it would appear you don't. You think it means "fairness". Failure to appreciate the secondary consequences and the big picture, as usual. And then 5 years from now, when you are getting calls from bill collectors because your direct deposit didn't go through and your checks bounced, you'll be whining about why the companies screw up, without even realizing it was a direct result of the "fairness" you want to impose on an industry you (and 99.9% of the politicians debating the issue) don't have the first clue about.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:17 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • Transparency was a CAMPAIGN promise...not an ACTUAL promise.

    Answer by lovinangels at 12:55 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • neutrality = government control.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 11:46 AM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • Welll....Wikileaks will take care of outing those government secrets,right? Obviously anything marked as Non-public or for internal use have to be government sites and you wouldn't want them to be revealed. I mean---secrets exposed can undermine our country....That's what everyone is saying . Answer by kerp1960

    Seriously?  So you think that our federal government should just pass laws and then keep the content of those laws from us to prevent Wikileaks from obtaining information on said law?  Should we take all speed limit signs down so we can all just guess at what the speed limit is and then law enforcement can give citations at their own discretion since we can't verify what the law actually says?  Did you even think about that before you typed it out? 


    Answer by QuinnMae at 7:13 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • .

    Answer by Sheraymonet at 3:41 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • Here's your definition ...

    Net Neutrality = New Speak

    Answer by -Eilish- at 4:22 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • good question!

    Answer by san78 at 5:36 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • If you read her typical replies, you would find she doesn't think before or after. Comment by Carpy

    LOL!  I know what you mean.  I am quite familiar with her inconsistencies, but this answer struck me as so asinine I couldn't leave the question without commenting on it.  I mean, how in the world does it make sense to keep the rule of law from the citizens, however hold those same citizens to the letter of these 'private' laws.  It's just so ridiculous.  It defies logic.


    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:41 PM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • Now THAT is funny!

    Answer by soyousay at 11:29 AM on Dec. 5, 2010

  • So mush for Obama's policy of transparency.

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 11:53 AM on Dec. 5, 2010