It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal regulation of Internet coming, warn FCC, FEC commissioners

page: 1
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Edging ever closer to the Peoples Republic of China between gun control,no fly no buy,climate change hysteria. Comes Internet regulation under what I call the most FALSE pretenses I have ever heard. Censorship,policing bullying. If these new powers are anything that were granted to another state agency after the Gun Control Act of '68.

I wonder what they mean by targeted content? In a nutshell that means everything they disagree with politically ? I don't know, but what we do know is what we have seen from other government agencies like the IRS targeting their political opponents. and this crap.



Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission


Something wicked this way comes.

Some of you will just simply chalk this up to paranoia. Some of you won't, but I see the writing on the wall.

This nation has gone full blown intellectually challenged to put it politically correct.

Anyhow.

This my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
edit on 30-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
It seems the Left Wing side has nothing much to offer their supporters anymore.

They can't seem to get what they want.

So they go after the average Citizens including their own supporters.




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Lol the fox news thing came from a gop candidate that felt he was treated unfairly by fox. But of course the Washington examiner doesn't mention that and just goes off on how it is the evil dems that started it all!



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Edging ever closer to the Peoples Republic of China between gun control,no fly no buy,climate change hysteria. Comes Internet regulation under what I call the most FALSE pretenses I have ever heard. Censorship,policing bullying. If these new powers are anything that were granted to another state agency after the Gun Control Act of '68.

I wonder what they mean by targeted content? In a nutshell that means everything they disagree with politically ? I don't know, but what we do know is what we have seen from other government agencies like the IRS targeting their political opponents. and this crap.



Democrats targeting content and control of the Internet, especially from conservative sources, are pushing hard to layer on new regulations and even censorship under the guise of promoting diversity while policing bullying, warn commissioners from the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission


Something wicked this way comes.

Some of you will just simply chalk this up to paranoia. Some of you won't, but I see the writing on the wall.

This nation has gone full blown intellectually challenged to put it politically correct.

Anyhow.

This my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


Neo aren't you one of them oath keepers???
At what point do you oath keepers actually do something other than type on the internet?
edit on 30-6-2016 by JoeLowUSA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The article notes nothing specific. There are republicans whining, but no details.

Also, you linked to our own thread 'this crap', and in that thread it was shown that 'climate science deniers' were not to be prosecuted. It was about a business's relationship with their shareholders. At least you referred to the thread correctly.
edit on 30-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JoeLowUSA

The only Oath keepers relevant to the topic are those congressman.

And their consistent lack of it.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: JoeLowUSA

The only Oath keepers relevant to the topic are those congressman.

And their consistent lack of it.



That is a quote by James Madison, correct?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoeLowUSA

Dolly Madison maybe?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
So, in other words..

ATS IS effective.

Lol



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
So, in other words..

ATS IS effective.

Lol


That's just it.

Do you think the STATE will let anyone be critical of it ?

ATS has much a target on their backs as the 'drudges'.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
It is clear to me that liberals don't care about the Bill of Rights. They constantly are fighting to take away the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and any other Constitutional right that get in the way of their Authoritarian agenda. I am against ALL Authoritarians, but you don't see Republicans attacking the Bill of Rights the way Democrats do.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
It is clear to me that liberals don't care about the Bill of Rights. They constantly are fighting to take away the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and any other Constitutional right that get in the way of their Authoritarian agenda. I am against ALL Authoritarians, but you don't see Republicans attacking the Bill of Rights the way Democrats do.


I would not take away any part of the bill of rights. I talk sometimes about the interrpretation of the 2nd, but of course I care about them. They aren't generally fought for by conservatives, especially the 14th.

If that is clear to you, your thinking is muddled.
edit on 30-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

I wonder what they mean by targeted content? In a nutshell that means everything they disagree with politically ?


A nation that requires all these "secret" agencies, like NSA, CIA, DIA, Secret Service, MI, and on and on, has a lot of things to hide. Then there are people like Edward Snowden who releases secret info to the world, and Panama Papers, and on and on.

What's the point of having all these secret agencies, if anybody can publish the secrets on the Internet for all to see?

So, practically, you can't have both free speech and secrets. They are incompatible.

What you'd really like is for the people to "believe" they have free speech, but in reality keep them in the dark about many things.

Problem is that everybody is waking up, beginning to think for themselves. That's why China is clamping down. But, China has much less secrets than the US. So, the USA inevitably must follow the China path, and become even more restrictive than China.

The time will come when the Chinese in China will be able to say "look we have more freedom than those in the USA."



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Mandroid7
So, in other words..

ATS IS effective.

Lol


That's just it.

Do you think the STATE will let anyone be critical of it ?

ATS has much a target on their backs as the 'drudges'.


A whole bunch of us are critical of it on here every day.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Mandroid7
So, in other words..

ATS IS effective.

Lol


That's just it.

Do you think the STATE will let anyone be critical of it ?

ATS has much a target on their backs as the 'drudges'.



Yep, death to free speech is coming.

DAMAGE CONTROL, DAMAGE CONTROL

I knew it after the house debate. The speakers face looked like he won the lottery.




edit on 6 by Mandroid7 because: sp



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The only description I know of in regard to 'targeted content' is the ads that follow you around when you buy something or , possibly, ads disguised as articles.

Both have been looked at to regulate.
edit on 30-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)


My foot injury happened in a pair of wedge heeled sandals I bought at JC Penney. That morning I was on the internet looking at their summer sandals on sale in store and later went to the store and bought them.

The ads for the exact same shoes followed me around. I got so angry I went through the complicated process of disabling I think irt is 'creditio' or something weird. Its a company that does that. My ABP was doing zip to remove them.
edit on 30-6-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
It is clear to me that liberals don't care about the Bill of Rights. They constantly are fighting to take away the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th and any other Constitutional right that get in the way of their Authoritarian agenda. I am against ALL Authoritarians, but you don't see Republicans attacking the Bill of Rights the way Democrats do.


It is spreading, we are hosed.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I can translate the democrats concern:
If it wasn't for the internet, Hillary Clinton would be America's sweetheart!





posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

This article doesn't show anything but a source willing to omit parts of the story to get yalls panties in a bunch. Works rather well looks like, guess it is easier just to take things at face value if you agree with it right?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
As long as they dont mess with my porn viewing im happy




top topics



 
25
<<   2 >>

log in

join