The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works

from the just-like-the-reporter,-the-tv-commentator-and-the-internet-commenter dept

Update: Please read our update on this story, The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works, explaining how one of the cartoonists parodied below has decided to send DMCA takedown notices.

Earlier this week, the A Good Cartoon tumblr first posted a bunch of ridiculous and misleading political cartoons about net neutrality that showed zero understanding of net neutrality. And then the person behind the site remade many of those cartoons, but replaced the words in them with "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works!" For reasons unknown, the original Tumblr post that had all of them has been taken down, but many of the images are still viewable via John Hodgman's blog, and they're worth checking out. Here are just a few with some additional commentary (because how can I not provide some commentary...)
Right, so actually, the rules are designed to do the exact opposite of the image above. They're designed to make sure that the big broadband access players can't delay things and have to deliver your content faster. The idea that the FCC will be stepping between the content and people who want to see it is completely false.
I don't even know what the original cartoonist was trying to say here, because it doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. The text in the original cartoon was "time's up, next!" which makes even less sense than the first cartoon. The whole point of the new rules is to prevent broadband providers from putting these types of controls on your internet usage.
Sensing a pattern yet? All of these cartoons are pretending that the new rules insert the FCC between you and the internet. And all of them pretend that the FCC is going to do what the broadband providers themselves have said they want to do -- which these rules are designed to prevent. So, yes, the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works.
At least this one doesn't go for the easy (but wrong) joke pretending that the FCC is now watching what you do online. Instead, it's claiming that there's no reason for the FCC to "fix" anything because it's "not broken." But that's only true if you ignore the attempts to break neutrality along with how the broadband providers purposely made your Netflix slow in order to get the company to pay its tolls. And, of course, it also means having to ignore what the broadband providers have been saying themselves for a decade now about how they want to double and triple charge internet services to reach end users. If you pretend all of that isn't true, then maybe the original cartoon makes sense. But, all of it is true, so the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2015 @ 8:24pm

    These same cartoons can be found on the site http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/ A conservative leaning site. Every time I saw one of them I wondered if the cartoonist was working for the Telcos or if they just genuinely don't understand what net neutrality is.

    Either way FUD like this is spread all over the place and it is amazing to see and hear how much people believe it instead of seeing the cartoon and investigating more fully the matter to get real facts surrounding the issue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 3:20am

      Re:

      If you are a zealous conservative, you will listen to republican politicians who repeat that message ad nauseam. It is becoming a closed circle where republican politicians makes claims about big government, the conservative press repeats the claims, the conservative people takes the press story and increase the FUD. The conservative politicians then rejoice for their segment of the population are in sink with them and that is all that matters.

      It is the same with liberals and democrats. Zealots in the politically leaning press are hurting democracy by shortcirquiting facts in discussions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 7 Mar 2015 @ 4:04am

        Re: Re:

        Zealots in the politically leaning press are hurting democracy by shortcirquiting facts in discussions.

        Come on. If people could be interested in facts, they would not need elected representatives in the first place.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:07am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
          - Winston Churchill (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The US has a democracy like the Soviet Union practiced Marxist communism.

            Actually trying either one might actually be a good thing.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Cal, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Which is why the USA is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. It has never been a democracy, nor will she ever be one.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 1:09pm

              My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.

              Granted it's the US was never supposed to be a participatory democracy If by a Republic, you mean a representative democracy, I think that was the intent of the framers, yeah.

              I don't think it's that either. None of those for whom the people vote actually represent the will of their constituency. The US is a failed republic.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                David, 7 Mar 2015 @ 1:25pm

                Re: My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.

                “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

                “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

                Benjamin Franklin, answering a bystander upon departing the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  RD, 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:37pm

                  Re: Re: My poli-sci is rusty but I don't think those describe the same things.

                  “A Republic, if you can keep it...”

                  ..for more than a couple hundred years.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:59pm

                    The implication is correct.

                    The fact that the US republic has clearly failed in only two centuries makes for a sorry and embarrassing beginning to a civilization with such promise.

                    Since the land stays and the people stay, no matter how we organize them (or don't) we still cannot say whether the US is just plain an embarrassment. All the nations go through their phases of glory and shame, and this one is so very young.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      David, 8 Mar 2015 @ 1:37am

                      Re: The implication is correct.

                      Well, the settlers took the lands and its riches from the Indians, herding them into reservations. The corporations take the lands and its riches from the settlers, herding them into cities.

                      And dollar bills are cheaper to print than glass beads were. And the dollar bills still are valuable because you can buy weapons and use them for stealing land and goods. It's just that nowadays we prefer supplying the thieves in other countries with weapons in return for a share in their spoils. So the dollar/weapon/goods circle has been globalized.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Mason Wheeler (profile), 9 Mar 2015 @ 7:02am

                      Re: The implication is correct.

                      The fact that the US republic has clearly failed in only two centuries makes for a sorry and embarrassing beginning to a civilization with such promise.

                      Actually we're a bit beyond the historical average by this point... which is sad in its own way.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ObscureMammal (profile), 8 Mar 2015 @ 3:48pm

        Re: Re:

        It's confirmation bias, people hate to be told they are wrong. They feel like it's an attack on them personally. When you tell certain people they are wrong they interpret it as you telling them they are too stupid to discern facts from spin.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Derek Kerton (profile), 9 Mar 2015 @ 3:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          All along, I though my problem was that instead of politely saying: "What you are saying is wrong."

          I actually say: "You are too stupid to discern facts from spin."

          But what I'm getting from you is that there is no point in me trying to be more polite. Results won't change.

          Well, at least I'll save the effort.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Pragmatic, 9 Mar 2015 @ 9:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What ObscureMammal says. I see that all. The. Freakin'. Time. And it makes no G-D sense!!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2015 @ 8:46am

        Re: Re:

        So you're saying that politicians are just mouthpieces for corporate propaganda? The horror!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      cypherspace (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 5:02am

      Re:

      Remember, these are the low-information voters who'll believe that Net Neutrality is a Marxist plot

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Cal, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:35pm

        Re: Re:

        What makes you think that it is "Net Neutrality" concept that is the problem that they have, and not the government agency itself?

        May as well give that over to the NSA,... Oh, basically they did.

        If you do not understand our legitimate government; and you do not understand what is going on with those who serve within it now then how will you ever understand what the people are objecting to, and if they are correct to be worried - and they are.

        File this somewhere and see if later down the road I am not correct. I will be.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          cypherspace (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 3:41pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          What makes you think that it is "Net Neutrality" concept that is the problem that they have, and not the government agency itself?
          The root cause of the problem is that the FCC has been captured by corporate interests who act against the wishes of the public - like the pro-telco FCC commissioners that are holding up the release of the new rules. And keep in mind that Antonin Scalia - who is probably the closest in terms of political views to these cartoonists - says Title II is the most constitutionally sound way to obtain Net Neutrality!
          May as well give that over to the NSA,... Oh, basically they did.
          You're conflating two separate issues. Do you realize the pro-NN crowd - including EFF and ACLU - is and has been vehemently trying to push back against the NSA?
          File this somewhere and see if later down the road I am not correct. I will be.
          I suspect you'd say the same thing about phone companies if we were having this discussion in 1934.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JEDIDIAH, 9 Mar 2015 @ 9:37am

          Horrible historical irony.

          > What makes you think that it is "Net Neutrality" concept that is the problem that they have, and not the government agency itself?

          That's even more retarded. These rules that they are fighting against are the same rules that reigned in the original telecom providers and allowed the Internet to flourish.

          These people are collectively trying to saw off the branch they are sitting on right now.

          I don't recall Reagan Republicans fighting this stuff like the Palin Republicans have been.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DNY (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 9:40am

      Re:

      Alas a lot of voices on the American right confuse the interests of incumbents in the market with the good of the free market. And no, they usually aren't shills for the industries involved, just confused about what is actually good for the free market.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re:

        1) There is no such thing as The Free Market, with the possible exception of the black market.

        2) Voices of the American right heard from various media are indeed paid industry shills and yes, they are confused.

        3) There is much confusion of incumbent's interests with constituent's interests on both sides of the aisle.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cal, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:10pm

      Re:

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cal, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:28pm

      Re:

      Or can it be that there is no real idea of how the FCC functions and how everything that it "monitors" to keep it freed u is now under the auspices of a cartel?

      Supreme Court, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

      Guess what? They "abridged" it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      I think they just blindly support who their leaders tell them too and they tell them to support the corporations and rich people that hand them money. Telco's, Defense Contractors, Big Pharma. No thinking necessary, no thinking allowed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 6 Mar 2015 @ 10:12pm

    So they have to resort to outright lies to defend their bogus position. What else is new? (Of course it's saddening to see so many people still fall for this bullshit)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 1:01am

      Re:

      It is because it has pictures :/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      99guspuppet (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      The internet has been turned over to GovThugs ... how many years or months before users get it good and hard .... ?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2015 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re:

        probably the same as how long it took for telephone after that monopoly was broken up. I mean we know how much rates rose when actual competition was involved....oh wait they didn't and you're a completely misguided and misinformed person.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2015 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re:

        probably the same as how long it took for telephone after that monopoly was broken up. I mean we know how much rates rose when actual competition was involved....oh wait they didn't and you're a completely misguided and misinformed person.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Steve, 9 Mar 2015 @ 12:04pm

      Re:

      Well.... The FCC changed Internet service to be classified as a utility. Therefore, however probable or not, the fcc does have more control over Internet services now. They could very well abuse this to censor content they don't like, etc.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 9 Mar 2015 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re:

        They could very well abuse this to censor content they don't like, etc.

        What part of Title II authority would let them censor content? Bearing in mind of course that we haven't actually seen the rules, but I have not seen anyone point out what part of this law would even permit the FCC to create rules that allowed them to censor what content is available.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 7 Mar 2015 @ 1:06am

    Nice

    There should really be something like a Fips award for propaganda comics for the ilk of the original comics.

    Rent-a-pen, conscience included.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 2:26am

    Needs more Ben Garrison

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 4:44am

    So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

    You seem to sure know what's in that 300 pages and reclassification that qualifies us for a 16% tax.

    Does it take 300 pages to define Net Neutrality?

    Are you sure RIAA didn't get their grubby claws in this for suspending sites, servers or IP ranges that are accused of copyright violation. Anyone that runs an even semi-controversial facebook page or Youtube channel knows the annoyance of falsely accused copyright violations suspending their content or sometimes entire service until they prove they are innocent.

    What I want is a full review of those 300 pages. Enough of the back and forth from people who don't know what it contains. Even supporters of net neutrality need to be concerned as to why it took 300 pages to define and why all the secrecy from "the most transparent administration in history" LOL

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 4:57am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      FWIW this site has made it clear that we need to see the full rules before rendering final judgment. Blame the two dissenting FCC commissioners for their foot-dragging.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 5:18am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      Does it take 300 pages to define Net Neutrality?


      No, it takes 8 pages. The rest are the *legally mandated* responses to comments.

      Are you sure RIAA didn't get their grubby claws in this for suspending sites, servers or IP ranges that are accused of copyright violation. Anyone that runs an even semi-controversial facebook page or Youtube channel knows the annoyance of falsely accused copyright violations suspending their content or sometimes entire service until they prove they are innocent.

      Indeed. As we've stated repeatedly, we are concerned about the details in the actual rules.

      What I want is a full review of those 300 pages. Enough of the back and forth from people who don't know what it contains. Even supporters of net neutrality need to be concerned as to why it took 300 pages to define and why all the secrecy from "the most transparent administration in history" LOL

      Except that it's not 300 pages, it's 8. So, really, you look silly when you keep saying 300 pages.

      And, as has been made clear, the FCC can't release it yet because the two dissenters, Pai and O'Rielly have not provided their dissents, which needs to be included for the rules to be released.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:34am

        Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

        And, as has been made clear, the FCC can't release it yet because the two dissenters, Pai and O'Rielly have not provided their dissents, which needs to be included for the rules to be released.

        That brings to mind something that I've been wondering, is it possible for them to essentially veto the entire vote on their own by simply refusing to ever submit their dissents, and therefor block the rules being made public? Are there rules in place where they have to submit their dissents by a certain point, or can they refuse and nullify the entire thing basically?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 7:23am

          Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

          That brings to mind something that I've been wondering, is it possible for them to essentially veto the entire vote on their own by simply refusing to ever submit their dissents, and therefor block the rules being made public? Are there rules in place where they have to submit their dissents by a certain point, or can they refuse and nullify the entire thing basically?

          Yes, they'll submit their defenses. They're trying to stall as long as possible to see if Congress can do something in the meantime, but they have to submit their dissents eventually.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 7:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

            If there's one thing you can count on Congress for, it's not getting anything done.
            For once, it's finally working for the people.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 7:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

            If so, the question becomes "How soon is 'eventually'?"

            With how they've been acting so far, I could totally see them putting the matter off for months, as they try and stall and whip up the people with horror stories about what's in the rules(leaving out the fact that they are the reason the rules aren't public yet), in hopes that that will drive people to tell their representatives to try and undercut the FCC on the matter.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:50pm

        Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

        Mike, IMHO he is right to an extant, this document will be legally looked at through a fine toothed comb, probably at the atomic level. If there is any loophole which could be exploited by the MPAA, oligarchy of ISPs, or anyone else with self serving interests this could be worse than no legislation at all. In the current system it's usually shaming, and public dissent that curb the tides, though the FCC has done a few things like Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent protocol, or Madison River Communications blocking VoIP calls to name some examples.
        So if the 8 pages and contradicted by a simple misstep in one of the 300, this could cause an issue legally, and I'm sure the lawyers are probably already drooling to take a look and offer services to company X. So while this is one of the things I absolutely hate about the US, it's also the reason that I'm sort of happy that the FCC is holding back on releasing anything, hoping that they will cross every t and dot every i.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      PRMan, 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:22am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      Still with the 300 pages?

      8 pages are new rules. 292 pages are responses to public interest comments.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 10:41am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      I agree. I'd love for the dissenting Republicans in the FCC to get their act together and allow the pages to be viewed by everyone. This political game is getting stale. It's almost like they're attempting to stall the release of the ruling until a majority of Republicans can get into power and replace this with a "prioritized network" bill.

      And I'm non-partisan -- but the amount of outright lying being done here and intentional misleading done for nothing else than the sake of the Republican party whims is even worse than the stuff that was being churned out that made the healthcare bill into something that nobody really wanted and didn't really accomplish the original goals.

      Sure... there's compromise. These tactics aren't aimed at compromise, they're aimed at compromising the democratic system. It's disgusting, and displays an outright lack of ethics. So much for Republican traditional Christian values (yes, I went there, because they go there too).

      The US needs to get a few new political parties that actually serve the people instead of multinational "American" corporations based in Ireland.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

        I'd love it if the Pirate Party was able to make a major showing in US politics, as they seem to be fairly good, and represent the public more than the corporations or the government(republicans and democrats respectively).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

          Because it seems that most people never bother to read past the name of anything, you could expect a lot of people to flip their shit at anything bearing the name "pirate".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 4:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

          I like the Pirate Party, in theory. I decided to look into my state's PP, and discovered that their entire web presence was on Facebook. Way to go with showing your love of digital privacy, guy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 9 Mar 2015 @ 9:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

            Yes, but they've got to go where the people are at, so it makes sense to go there. How else can you connect with voters if not on the social media spaces they inhabit.

            That you're right about privacy is not the point, AC. It's about connecting, and that's how it's done unless you want to end up in a circle jerk.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 6:15am

          Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

          I'd love it if the Pirate Party was able to make a major showing in US politics

          All political parties have to be able to show they can govern.

          Normally how that is done is you show you can deliver something to the voters. Existing parties do this via the system "we" are "complaining" about. In places where things are really corrupt/broken groups like ISIS/Taliban are able to rise to power by being LESS broken than what they are replacing.

          If the Pirate Party wants to show they can govern a project they can take on is court watching and gathering information on the broken actors in the legal system. Building out the software to organize watchers is well within the skill set and budget of the Pirate Party.

          But actually *DOING* something beyond whining about how the system is broken isn't what the alternative political parties are about.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Mar 2015 @ 11:36am

            "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."

            So far, our two political parties have shown they cannot govern.

            Ours is a sorry state in which the constituency don't get any actual representation.

            Remember the USSR had their elections too, during their most totalitarian regimes. It gives a sense of legitimacy, like fuzzy dice dangling from your mirror.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 5:33pm

              Re: "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."

              So far, our two political parties have shown they cannot govern.

              Obviously they have otherwise they would have been replaced.

              Like it or not, the wanna-be upstarts have not bothered with actual actions like setting up Court watching and therefore have not shown they can govern.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Mar 2015 @ 6:42pm

                That word: I don't think it means what you think it means.

                Apparently you are using a form of the term to govern of which I was previously unaware. I suspect by your definition Man Haron Monis successfully governed -- that is exerted his will by force -- for seventeen hours.

                I think the Federal Shutdown of 2013 illustrates my point. Neither party could prevent it and a subset of one party felt they had to resort to such measures to press their issue, and ultimately failed.

                So, considering the definitions of governance that I understand (which, granted, may be a tad more idealistic than forcing-others-at-gunpoint-to-do-your-will) neither the DNC or the GOP are capable of governance at all. At best, they completely suck at it, considering their recent record of getting things done in accordance to their constituencies' wants / needs (e.g. not).

                Also this notion that third parties cannot win seats because they cannot govern (or more accurately they cannot sell that they can govern) belies a dissmissal of the consequences of a first-past-the-post electoral system which largely encourages defensive voting. Even a perfect third party that could otherwise secure a plurality vote couldn't get elected since no one is willing to risk letting the other guy win.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 9 Mar 2015 @ 8:28am

              Re: "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern."

              It gives a sense of legitimacy, like fuzzy dice dangling from your mirror.

              Fuzzy dice give a sense of legitimacy?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 9 Mar 2015 @ 7:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

            "All political parties have to be able to show they can govern. "

            Since when?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        eye sea ewe, 7 Mar 2015 @ 4:08pm

        Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

        As long as you Americani continue with your present electoral system, you will NEVER get any significant change in your political environment.

        Your specific problems with government, law enforcement and security force corruption is endemic with your chosen political environment. Even though you have a basis for responsible government and law enforcement, that is your constitution and other various documents and its system of checks and balances, your basic attitudes are an actual hindrance to improving your society.

        The most prominent of these is your innate sense of superiority to all others and that your way is the best and only way to do things. This basic arrogance, which is a fundamental blindness in you as a society, ensures that your continued walk to the precipice will end in you going over the edge.

        This is a real pity as your nation was founded on principles that were outstanding. Your national attitudes give permission for all other nations to become more authoritarian and corrupt as you're becoming more so. You are no longer able to take the high ground because, as a nation, you are now visibly mired in the swamp of destitute corruption.

        A simple example, your nation once accepted people from everywhere, encouraged them to be American and build a better life. But now, the descendent of those people have a terror of alien invaders, irrespective of political leanings. I remember the conflicts in the 70's and 80's over the involvement of foreign nationals in any and all technological developments. The fear that these alien invaders would take back to their nations all these American technological developments and innovations, which in fact were brought to American by these self same aliens.

        /rant got better things to do now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 8:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

          Yeah, it's the electoral system that's to blame. Other countries that have a different system have no corruption at all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Scott, 8 Mar 2015 @ 9:41am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      It takes 8 pages, and then 292 pages of added documents and responces to items submitted by tens of thousand of Americans, as is customary for all legislation of the type.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 9:54am

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      Stop parroting this like you know what you're talking about. It's eight pages. EIGHT. I understand this may be too many for Republicans still.

      The erroneous "it's 300 pages" malarkey is a tactic to spread FUD. The remaining 292 pages are responses to comments submitted to the FCC (out of millions submitted).

      Quit with this 300 pages nonsense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2015 @ 4:18pm

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      That's because the two dissenting commissioners haven't allowed the 300 pages to be released because they are holding up their report on their dissent. Next talking point please.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Greg Keener, 13 Mar 2015 @ 5:38pm

      Re: So confident of those 300 pages of secrecy?

      Now you know. The rules are eight pages long and available to the public. The rest of the document is justifcation amd reasoning by the majority and dissenting minority. What do you know, a week later the rules are available so that everyone can chime in. How's the secret government FUD treating you this weekend?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 5:58am

    8 pages is an interesting thought.

    I look silly saying 300 pages? You mean every major news orginization looks silly with me besides you? Perhaps you have a better source?


    "the 332-page Internet regulation plan"
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382/net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-boa rd

    The 317 page order, entitled Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, a process that’s expected to take several weeks.
    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-votes-yes-net-neutrality/

    It could be a little while before the FCC actually releases the new plan, which is more than 300 pages long.
    http://recode.net/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-in-partisan-decision/

    Now why do YOU keep saying 8 pages?
    also interesting, seeings the FCC's press release alone on it was 5 pages.
    http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

    You keep on saying 8 pages. I do not think you know what that means. lol ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:34am

      Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

      The FCC itself has said it's 8 pages: https://twitter.com/gigibsohnfcc/status/563745632838369280

      You keep on saying 8 pages. I do not think you know what that means. lol ;)


      Why do I expect you to disappear and not admit that I'm right when the rules come out. Reporters are mis-reporting it because the dissenters Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly have been spreading this misinformation that you lapped up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      alternatives(), 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:42am

      Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

      You mean every major news orginization looks silly

      Quite possibly.

      Is there some magic that makes a major news org right because they are a major news source?

      lol ;)

      Does Laughing out Loud somehow make you more authoritative?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

        "You mean every major news orginization looks silly"

        The bigger a news agency, the less likely that it will ever call bullshit on the "powers that be" -- and that's why bloggers are so important for helping to spread the truth amid an ocean of misinformation.

        Yet oddly enough, some people seem to think that these corporate whores (also known as the mainstram media) are somehow more trustworthy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:17am

          Re: Re: Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

          A good recent example of this is the lack of Bill Oreilly coverage in the "liberal media".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 7:12am

      Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

      You mean every major news orginization looks silly

      ^ this is actually more common than a Techdirt commenter looking silly

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      A Concerned Citizen, 8 Mar 2015 @ 12:46pm

      Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

      Good job you lolled and winked or you'd have looked like a right nob.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Steve-o, 8 Mar 2015 @ 2:25pm

      Re: 8 pages is an interesting thought.

      He meant stupid, but was being nice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 6:39am

    That last one could actually be accurate, it just needs to show a bit more, in particular how the ones screaming about how 'It isn't broken!' are one and all cable company reps, lobbyists, and executives, who have all made that very claim time and time again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:03am

    excuse the doubt of government reach

    I don't have to wait for it to come out to admit you're right, it would appear from your source you are right, and the major news outlets got it wrong.

    yet...

    But you truly expect over 300 pages of answers to comments/questions to cover *nothing* that wasn't covered in the 8 pages?

    Perhaps the proponent is minimizing and the opponents are overstating? Perhaps I heard nothing directly from the dissenting votes, merely multiple sources of media I linked... But that's ok, put those who disagree as 'lapping' their misinformation like a dog lapps up water.

    Stay classy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:53am

      Re: excuse the doubt of government reach

      " But that's ok, put those who disagree as 'lapping' their misinformation like a dog lapps up water."

      Hmm, I checked Mike's reply and didn't see anything about dogs. Is trying to put words into Mike's mouth the best you can do? Speaking of classy, that ain't it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:19am

      Re: excuse the doubt of government reach

      Major news outlets get it wrong more than they get it right. Their lack of coverage sometimes says more than their coverage does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:47am

    The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works...

    But he sure knows where the money is!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RD, 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:48am

    Also

    The cartoonist also has no idea how cartoons work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Christopher (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 8:54am

    Credit where it's due.

    "Earlier this week, the A Good Cartoon tumblr first posted a bunch of ridiculous and misleading political cartoons about net neutrality that showed zero understanding of net neutrality. And then the person behind the site remade many of those cartoons, but replaced the words in them with "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works!" "

    So the admission of error counts for nothing here? How about amending the article to call this out?

    -C

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:22am

      Re: Credit where it's due.

      How about realizing that the cartoons still project bullshit which is being lapped up by vomit eating canines.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 3:46pm

      Re: Credit where it's due.

      So the admission of error counts for nothing here? How about amending the article to call this out?


      What admission of error?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 8 Mar 2015 @ 1:45am

        Re: Re: Credit where it's due.

        Reading the article I also got the impression that the "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" was inserted by the original artist responsible for all of the original comics, after coming to the realization that he's been taken for a ride.

        The person you are replying to here obviously got the same first impression. And it would make for a nice story: it's always nice if somebody admits to seeing the light after first getting something quite wrong.

        Maybe reread your article under the assumption of this as the first interpretation and see whether you can snuff this interpretation early on.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 7 Mar 2015 @ 9:44am

    Shills or idiots?

    I cannot decide if major carriers are paying for a major Astroturfing campaign of if there are just lots of idiots.

    Actually, I think that I know the answer to that: both.

    There are lots of low-information idiots to be found amongst the Tea Party votors -- people who have been conned into voting against their own interests. The Astroturfers are egging them on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    99guspuppet (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 10:04am

    History repeats itself .... Re. Net neutrality

    All of the original cartoons were more of less correct. It is ( I think ) Mike Masnick that does not 'get it'.

    For a start ......

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/social-security-broken-promises/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_l ips:_no_new_taxes

    http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx

    99guspu ppet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gamesmith94134 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 10:47am

    network at fault or FCC downgraded itself

    Now, whenever the page is being down;;;;loaded; I just go to another website and read till the page is fully developed. WIFI or DSL is about the same as science advanced and human stupidity expanded. The speed of advanced technology reverses itself in how FCC took charge of net neutrality. thanks a lot..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:29am

      Re: network at fault or FCC downgraded itself

      Download speed and lag time are two distinct and different network issues. Low average download time can be caused by several different things, none of which have anything to do with network neutrality.

      Wifi and DSL are not the same thing and the rate at which technology advances has nothing to do with Network Neutrality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 11:56am

    Copyright takedown demand by the original artist

    despite obvious transformative considerations...

    ...in 5...4...3...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2015 @ 12:10pm

    Transmission vs Content

    Imagine a world where the internet was never conceived, a world where one-to-one communication is limited to telephones and one-to-many communication is limited to mailings.

    Imagine you're talking to your sweetie when suddenly your conversation is interrupted by a 30-second commercial. You don't have to listen to the ad - you can always just hang up - but you've got a few more things to say, so you sit and stare blankly while that important announcement runs its course. You think about getting one of those ad-free phone lines, the kind that most businesses have, but they cost a little bit more.

    Or imagine you've just received your monthly copy of Interesting Things. You dig into the five-pound box, stacking all the circulars and brochures into a neat pile for recycling. You finally uncover your magazine - at last! - and sit down for a good read. It crosses your mind (not for the first time) to upgrade your postal service to the sleeker Premium Delivery, but hey, you gotta sit on something while you're reading about interesting things, and that pile of junk is actually pretty comfy.

    In this stupid imaginary world, the information carriers dictate the conditions of delivery, a two-tiered system where either you pay extra for the privilege of unmolested communications, or you accept the fact that the carriers have become a part of the conversation. They're not doing it out of meanness, or because they're diabolical, but because it's just good business sense. It's their phone lines, their postal routes, after all, and if they can defray the costs of their services by changing the terms of delivery a little bit, what harm?

    Back here in the non-stupid real world, regulations prevent carriers from making perfect business sense. Regulations prevent them from charging both sender and receiver; regulations prevent them from inserting cost-defraying additions to the contents; regulations force them to spend money on reasonably adequate equipment. Is this fair? Is this equitable? You decide - but imagine what your communications would be like if controlled solely by the carriers' business decisions.

    One of the biggest detriments to having a conversation about net neutrality - which is, ultimately, deciding how much these business decisions will impact communications - is summed up in these cartoons. They graphically show the fear that regulations will somehow interfere with content, when all published indications show the regulations will affect transmission. Or in other words, the regulations aren't messing with us; the regulations are messing with the carriers.

    How much regulations will affect the internet is yet to be determined. Governments have a poor track record in reining in mission creep, and the urge to control is never far from their minds. But that's not what they're talking about right now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 7 Mar 2015 @ 3:14pm

    Actually, all those cartoons state the case accurately. If you replace 'FCC' with 'Telcos', that is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Corey Graham, 8 Mar 2015 @ 1:43am

    This author has no idea how government works...

    "...which these rules are designed to prevent. " This author has no idea how government works. Exactly how often does a government program/rule/regulation work out as originally designed? At best, it ends up exacerbating the problem or creating new problems. At worst, it ends up being a power grab. The NSA domestic spying program, for example, was originally intended to protect us from terrorists, but ended up being used to spy on innocent Americans. Another example would be the FDA, which was originally intended to protect consumers from dangerous drugs. But as Techdirt itself has reported, the agency has regularly abused its authority, and instead of protecting consumers from dangerous drugs, it more often protects drug company profits (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110324/02181913605/fda-suddenly-bans-drugs-that-have-been-marke t-decades.shtml , https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140108/20595625813/fda-wants-to-dig-through-everyones-stuff-orde r-to-monitor-online-sentiment.shtml , https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120715/15214619704/fda-spied-emails-to-try-to-silence-critics.sh tml).

    You have to be especially gullible to think the FCC won't do the same with Net Neutrality.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 8 Mar 2015 @ 9:25am

      Re: This author has no idea how government works...

      As opposed to doing what exactly?

      You say the FCC getting involved is a bad idea, due to the potential for mission creep, and I can agree that that would be a bad idea, but what alternative would you have suggested instead?

      Even a lot of people here would probably agree, the FCC getting involved, and re-classification to Title II was not the ideal solution, but what it was was the best out of a bunch of bad options.

      Would it have been nice if they hadn't needed to step in? Absolutely, but doing nothing clearly wasn't working at fixing the problem, and I don't think I've seen any other real fixes proposed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    JSintheStates, 8 Mar 2015 @ 6:30am

    Net Neutrality Ignorance

    And if people weren't ignorant, we wouldn't have terrorist wars over tribal god images!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    SquidlyMan, 8 Mar 2015 @ 7:11am

    TheOatmeal.com Response

    TheOatmeal.com had a great response to Senator Ted Cruz's tweet on the FCC response.

    http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 8 Mar 2015 @ 7:20am

    Isn't this the standard GOP operating procedure? Keep claiming that something you're opposed to is the exact opposite, flood the media with that message. Then the Fox News illiterati repeat it ad nauseam until it becomes "truthiness". We've seen this magic trick too many times, already.
    This spectacle about the FCC is even more absurd. The rules that are 8 pages, with 292 pages of comments, is repeatedly misrepresented. Repeated derision about the public not being able to read the rules, but the reason we can't read them is the 2 GOP operatives are holding up the release. So, GOP prevents the release of the rules then ridicules the rules because they haven't been released. The rules prohibit ISPs from placing speed barriers on the net, but the GOP spreads FUD about speed barriers because of the rules. The absurdity is simply mind boggling and the GOP proves once again it simply cannot govern beyond the level of childish bullying and playground antics.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark, 8 Mar 2015 @ 10:00am

    Encourage your FCC Commissioners!

    So, if you are concerned about the 8-page document (with approx 300+ pages of responses to public comment) being NOT YET RELEASED, please contact the two dissenting Commissioners (both Republicans on the FCC Commision, strangely coincidentally), you can contact them!

    Ajit Pai
    http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai-mail

    Michael O’Rielly
    http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/michael-orielly-mail

    Ask them (nicely!) to please finish their work so the Net Neutrality rules can be released to the public.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    wales, 8 Mar 2015 @ 12:01pm

    Chip Bok is a huge baby

    In a stunning display, Cartoonist Chip Bok has issued a takedown request for the original tumblr post of the cartoons ( http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality ) because he uh, has no idea how freedom of speech or copyright law works.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    VCC, 8 Mar 2015 @ 1:19pm

    Original tumblr post missing

    Per the person who run the agoodcartoon tumblr, the original edits were removed by tumblr after Chip Bok (who you first show in your post) filed a DCMA takedown alleging this did not fall under fair use.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thecartoonistispeople, 8 Mar 2015 @ 3:38pm

    Admission of guilt?

    Maybe this is just a subtle yet funny admission of guilt? If I were patently wrong about something as badly as this cartoonist was, I'd probably do something just as flamboyant just so people would know just how big of an idiot I was.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BeastMode, 10 Mar 2015 @ 5:40am

    I'm Just Here so I won't get Fined.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Caution: Copyright
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.