I normally avoid any opportunity to delve into political debates on Mobilism as it's one of the few peaceful havens left on the Internet that doesn't cater heavily to one side or the other. However, there is a great deal of misinformation floating around about Net Neutrality that is being pushed hard to open the door to very specific political agendas that are not in our best interest. What I can say about it immediately is that the Internet was doing just fine prior to Obama signing in Net Neutrality in 2015 to deliver us to this disconcerting matter of controlling a worldwide platform of information that should be inherently open and free in all its splendor.
The bottom line of the debate is giving one of two entities regulation of the flow of content of the Internet as we know it, and have been enjoying commercially since the 1980's. One side of the power struggle allows complete control and regulation by U.S. alphabet agencies (such as the FCC), and the other side hands over policing policies to private corporations to regulate the flow of our [now relatively free] data as we know it. As some of you already know, the tech industry is heavily swayed by liberal political views, and have been actively engaging their powers to shut down free speech anywhere they can, including Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube (owned by Google), Instagram, Snapchat and the entire barrage of social media. Also, Google has been actively de-listing links by the thousands from their notorious search engine that contradict their political views, which are beyond radical at this point, and violating anti-trust laws silently without resistance and with complete impunity in America (though, they are currently being sued with several lawsuits in Europe). Twitter is also actively stripping verified accounts with blue checkmarks from those who express contradictory beliefs, and also deleting accounts of regular users who decide to share their opinions and views.
One disgruntled Twitter employee actually disabled President Trump's Twitter account for twelve minutes before it was finally rectified. This is the level of attack our free speech is under, and the direct assault on personal Constitutional freedoms Americans should
enjoy through the countless deaths of our military efforts to ensure our rights. If they can ban the POTUS, they will certainly ban you when you disagree with them. Any conservative views are now labeled as 'wrongthink' and 'hate speech' by the left, and are being banned from these platforms by simply having an opposing opinion to the radical left-wing media that is ultimately controlled by Deep State with gobs of lobbyists throwing money at our government officials. This doesn't sound like a world I'm interested in seeing in my lifetime, but 1984
is finally here in all its glory.
As we've recently seen with Hollywood, NFL, Mainstream Media, PC Games, Magazines, Newspapers and all other forms of entertainment, political views have cut their income, traffic and ratings down to all-time lows in favor of their agenda. I'd also like to add that the infamous George Soros is behind quite a bit of this destabilization as he just injected yet another $18 billion to fund industries, media groups, social networks and private political protest groups (Antifa, BLM, La Raza, ShareBlue, Correct The Record, Purple Revolution, etc.) with toxic idealism that is detrimental to free speech, free market enterprise and critical thinking, not to mention acting as domestic terrorist groups in some cases. As I am not familiar with any fees for access to private sites if Net Neutrality is repealed, corporations do no make money by alienating half of America, though they have been losing billions of dollars since last year while the stock market continues to soar to record highs. Blockbuster movies now tank, NFL games host stadiums with empty seats, cable-cutting has reached record highs, Netflix is hemorrhaging, Magazine/Newspaper subscriptions dried up, and anything else pushing liberal agenda has taken a huge tumble in revenue. It only makes sense that they need to charge extra for access to what the public wants, even if they hold extreme disdain for the content. Corporations cannot afford to bleed revenue as they have been for the last year and a half, which is exactly why this has become such a hotbed topic. Half the country has tuned out, and they want their money, one way or another.
Obama's ridiculously complicated Net Neutrality bill is over 400 pages thick full of regulations, restrictions, guidelines and complex legalities that nobody will ever read completely, just like his 'Affordable Care Act' that is tanking the country with healthcare that nobody can afford to use. Working families are paying mandatory minimum monthly premiums of $1,200 per month with a $7,000 deductible under this nightmare plan, what do they have in mind for our beloved Internet?
As the U.S. government gains control and regulation over the flow of data on the Internet, these same alphabet agencies are heavily prone to lobbying, corruption and foreign influence (eg: George Soros) over what we view in general. With massive billions pouring in from Soros alone, how can there be any guarantee that true free speech will be upheld? ISPs won't be able to charge extra for sites if they aren't even allowed to exist in the first place due to being labeled by fake political groups such as the ADL, SPLC and Snopes. Let's not forget that the ADL labeled Pepe the Frog
a hate symbol because the Clinton campaign (through David Brock and company) threw cash at them to derail memes that were tanking her already failed progress. Pepe the Frog. A cartoon. Hate symbol. Ridiculous. The very same groups also threw money at Wikipedia to edit and lock Pepe's Wiki page to contain libel and pure political lies that mislead the public, much like Fake News CNN. This is what we can expect when lobbyists start dumping sacks of laundered money on the doorsteps of our elected officials, which is now on the horizon thanks to Obama's wonder plan to relinquish control of a universal information system that was born to be free to all.
Those living in the United Kingdom know exactly what the repercussions are for expressing their opinions through social networking, which is about as fascist as anything I have ever heard. Law enforcement there is going door to door arresting private citizens for 'wrongthink' on Twitter and Facebook, then giving them stiff prison sentences for simply having an opinion about their newly acquired refugees from afar. Meanwhile, these said refugees are allowed with near impunity to gang-rape and murder their citizens and get a paltry two months of community service as punishment because 'they didn't know any better'. I'd be mad as Hell if I was a Brit, but apparently they aren't allowed to voice their opinions publicly now, which is exactly the direction the left wants the Internet to go.
So, to encapsulate this dire situation, we are now looking at a fork in the road with a vital decision to make for the future of the integrity of our Internet. Either we risk complete and utter censorship through residual government corruption (pro-NN), or we become taxed to death trying to view content that actually interests us (anti-NN). Either way, we are in a deep bowl of yogurt, in my humble opinion. All I know is that the Internet was doing just fine from the 80's until 2015 until someone's feelings got hurt.
Also, John Oliver (and HBO in general) is about as radically left as it gets, as well as anything else you'll find on TV except for One America Network. Perhaps including his radical right counterpart, Alex Jones, might be in order to completely confuse the subject for everyone since the basis of argument on both sides is generating an epidemic of public fear. The bottom line is to find a neutral source of information on this Net Neutrality issue to review the facts, not politically infused opinions, which are many. And with 400 pages of complete nonsense to pine over, they intentionally don't make it easy because all opposition must be controlled somehow.* This comment is my opinion, view and observations on the matter, and does not necessarily reflect, in whole or in part, any such views held by Mobilism, staff or its members.