digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at rasmussenreports.com

49% Say Government Should Regulate Internet

rasmussenreports.com — Nearly half of Americans (49%) believe that the federal government should regulate the Internet the same way it does radio and television, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pcgeek101, on 06/21/2008, -11/+435Wow, this is not good. The U.S. Government has its hands in way too many things already. The web is free! The web is open!

    Dugg to get the truth out there.
    • Danikar, on 06/22/2008, -5/+21The web is not free or open it is controlled by the telcos.
      • supermanred, on 06/23/2008, -1/+9Uh, last time I checked I can put a website up about anything any time... I didnt have to ask a telco to put up a web site.

        Just about the only thing that an ISP wont let you put up (wont host) web wise is a site about something clearly illegal like ***** dead bodies, but anything else within reason is allowed, wether it be pro-bush, anti-bush, pro-america, death to america... it's all on the web.

        What these people want is for our internet to consist of FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC. that is all.
    • jjb123, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12What about net-neutrality?
    • barius, on 06/22/2008, -5/+14Net Neutrality is good regulation that protects freedom. Censorship is bad regulation that doesn't. Please clarify your post.
    • ninavicci, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Our government hates freedom.
    • Betrayal, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4http://tinyurl.com/3vchxd
    • oxthemoron, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3With the internets being the series of tubes that it is, I think it's necessary that the Government regulate all the data before we get an overflow or have some of the data flowing down the wrong tube.

      The reason the governments want to stop P2P sharing is because these tubes are not free, and wiring a tube to 300 different people's houses who are sharing a torrent costs the governments and the people running the internets a lot of money. It's a lot of tubes, especially if you have three people in california connected to 5 in new york. It's like... over 10000 miles of tubing.

      It makes sense when you think about it.
      • SpacePoet, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1So what happens to the other 80% of people who aren't using P2P? We have to suffer because of it?
    • willynilly, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2This is *****. Who is this guy anyway? Note that the full disclosure is only available to "members."

      BURY THIS "SURVEY" AS THE SPAM THAT IT IS.
    • blipblipbeep, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Im sorry i have to put this in hear. Lets face it America is screwed and its trying ti drag everyone else down with it. I once wanted to go there but now, i dont think so. nothing against the people, as a lot of them feel the same as i do. something has to be done and the only way im afraid is to fight for your rights (you know the same way u lot fight for your right to bare arms). that is what bushticals is doing he has set up some black ops or somthing to come and kick your asses when you dont play by his rules.

      its time to stand up people. You don't have to be violent just heard. and ill tell you why, for years people have been pissed at what bush has done and is doing. most of you lot in America are just starting to catch on, (sorry but the truth hurts.) not a bad thing, as i know it can be hard to enlighten ones self with all the political and corporate ***** flying about. Especially if u watch Americas main stay television. (fox, abc and the rest)

      Hears the kicker tho, us lot that have been watching (i am a Aussie living in Australia) are even more pissed than you lot in America just catching on. What with fuel or gas at a ridicules price in most parts of the world. and its mostly bushes fault. it happened when his dad went to war as well. all im saying is get your ***** together before someone or something dose it for you. peace out love all round.

      • SpacePoet, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Well, to be fair, it's not so much America as a whole but the corruption and greed that has become our government and at this point there is nothing the average American can do to change that except vote for Obama in November. We have protested, marched on Washington, sought legal retribution, and many other avenues, but they mean nothing to the bunker minded buerocrats. We are just another commodity for them to sell. Many Americans are at the end of their rope and I hope we can elect a fresh and younger person to lead, but i have my doubts, it may be too late already. If Obama is elected this country may have a chance to get back on track, we'll see.
    • Disease, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4I say we start our own internet.

      It'll be free and open source and run on Ubuntu and be compatible with the new iPhone.
    • fromonesource, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.infowars.com/?p=2640
  • stronglifts, on 06/21/2008, -6/+402The web can regulate itself.
    • sebby2022, on 06/22/2008, -12/+4I think everything should be sageable.
    • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -1/+40When it comes time to vote, there should be two lines.
      Line #1 is to vote. Line #2 is to receive 10 lottery tickets.
      People get to only go through one line. That should get rid of the idiots come election time.
      • freexe, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2With a 1 in 25! chance of winning ;)
      • KMartSheriff, on 06/22/2008, -0/+19That's actually an awesome idea.
      • geoboy, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That's easy. I'll just vote for the guy who promises me 15 lottery tickets if I vote for him!
      • tyywebb, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1They would be protesting, "We want to vote....and get lottery tickets!!"
    • tk0680, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7And has been doing so for the past couple of decades. Shame that's irrelevant where there's money to be had and responsibility to be pushed away ("oh little Timmy saw cleavage on the internet while I was off banging the neighbour, help me government!").
    • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11The web doesn't regulate itself, and claiming that it does is an argument that is doomed to fail, as there's porn, foul language, violent & disgusting images, the whole gamut.

      Just like everything else in the world, its up to the parents to help kids understand that the real world is not all sweetness and light. If the parents can't handle that responsibility, they can get site blocking software.

      If we instead turn to restriction, we'll have an internet that is like US network television - dumbed-down for the mental and maturity level of a fifth-grader.
    • ASHTONZANECKI, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3This is totally not happening anyway. FIRST OF ALL... the WHOLE WORLD shares the internet, and I'm certain countries that we are already not on good terms with (like France, China, North Korea, Iran etc.) would not respond well to this sort of thing... And plus, how would the U.S. government regulate the WHOLE INTERNET??? There are at least a billion web pages...
    • BarbedImp, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0For some reason, people seem to have some sort of fear of running their own lives. They feel like they can't govern themselves and want other people to run the show. Whatever happened to free speech? I don't think people want to be worried about Big Brother watching their every move.
  • fudged71, on 06/21/2008, -6/+572it's the WORLD WIDE WEB. why should a government regulate it? that's stupid.
    • caferrell, on 06/22/2008, -21/+12It is not stupid, in fact the Corporate Government of America (CGA) sees the Internet as perfectly subversive.
      They control the dialogue in the Media and they want to control the dialogue on the Internet as well.
      It is not stupid, it is planned and quite intentional. the CGA wants compliant workers and dependable consumers. They are not interested in a political debate outside the narrow guidelines that they have establishd
      • bravo1995, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Oh, no! Wake up, sheeple!
      • elbonito665, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Last time I checked when you use the word WORLD that means it includes us (non-Americans). :|
      • masterm1nd, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2They controlled you to say that... but why? I think this goes deeper than even you imagined
        .
    • Alegoo92, on 06/22/2008, -9/+4World Wide Web doesn't mean one government can't censor it and everybody else can enjoy it.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/22/2008, -12/+2Because the "World Wide Web" is owned by US, ICANN, AT&T, and Sprint.
      • Konstantino, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1No, we own the world wide web.
      • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1American telco's only own the backbone that goes through the US.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Through which majority of traffic must travel.

          Furthermore, ICANN manages all the IP space and domain names.

          Like it or not, the US "owns" the Internet.
        • HolyChimp, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3But if America broke it's internet, the rest of us could go on just fine without it.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2No, you wouldn't. If America broke it's Internet tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to do jack *****.

          ICANN is the authority for domain names an IP space. If ICANN decided to move the US out of that system for some reason, you'd have a DNS server meltdown.

          If the US just decides to turn off the Internet tomorrow, all the top-level TLDs could go dead. You might be able to still connect within a ccTLD, assuming that those sites didn't have any interaction outside of that - which is highly unlikely on today's Internet.
    • wipis, on 06/22/2008, -4/+14Well our government already tries to police the world and control foreign markets. Why not the last free form of media. How is it that we keep electing republicans but, keep having a bigger and bigger government that sticks its fat little fingers in everything?
      • AvrgJoe, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2and still try to argue that the Dems are the socialist, the ones who are going to increase the size of government.
    • mrzeero, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1PNAC?
    • topgigmedia, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4There will always be a way around any government filter. That said - I think I am going to vomit.
    • Naryuu, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4well china does it, it would be basically the same here if it somehow happened
    • kelmaster1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2because 49% of the people that use the internet use no more than 5 sites. Everything good that becomes popular with the masses becomes washed out with retards (digg??). The Bill for government regulation will probably be disguised as "protecting our children against child pornography". Obviously child pornography makes up an incredibly small part of the internet but it will allow them to regulate the internet as a whole. Kind of like the Patriot Act, the target is an incredibly small part of the population but everyone is affected by the law. I hate that *****...
  • codercaff, on 06/22/2008, -3/+295How on Earth can somebody want that!?
    • RoflCoptah, on 06/22/2008, -18/+2because i want them to
    • btschul, on 06/22/2008, -0/+122They don't understand it
    • psylemon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+50ignorance. 's like people being racist or homophobic. these people use the internets for email. period.
      • benecere, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13And they hear stories....they, then, spread the stories. Since they aren't seeing much of it themselves, it is a big scary place where all manner of evil occurs. It's not hard to scare people about things they don't understand.
    • championchap, on 06/22/2008, -1/+26They probably think that a regulated Internet means less malware, that pedophiles will be unable to make use of it for sharing child pornography and that any harassment can be tracked directly to you right away.

      There are some up sides to policing the Internet, just that the negatives are stuff the casual user will not think about.
    • Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Odds are, the questions were too vague and people were saying "yes" while thinking of forcing ISPs (like Comcast) to shape up.

      In that regard, I think the government needs to put it's boot up some ISP ass to give people more options, to get some upgrades to the aging infrastructure, etc. I can't see those things happening any other way.
    • mrzeero, on 06/22/2008, -2/+12They are like McCain and don't use computers. Or they can't read and heard it on FOX News.
    • glenSM, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3well considering 21% of whites and 39% of blacks rarely or dont use the internet this is where the numbers may have came from. Theses are figures from the article.
    • peestandingup, on 06/22/2008, -6/+3Jesus freaks.
    • g00dETH3R, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13Bet the question was -
      Would you like the govt the censor the web TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
      • GRTWHT, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You KNOW that's the angle they'll use and a surprising chunk of the US population will swallow it hook, line and sinker.
    • Wakuko, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3I bet you the stats where pulled from someone's ass who has an agenda to regulate the webs all for political reasons.

      • LenBaird, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I agree. I smell a fake anytime the news starts reporting that people think its cool for the government to act like the Nazis.
  • OmegaWolf, on 06/22/2008, -8/+116I think if some of these cattle had their way, we would have a similar setup to China. No thanks!
    • tk0680, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6And, brilliantly, you can bet they're the ones who will denounce China as Satantown at any opportunity.
  • Lososaurus, on 06/22/2008, -33/+174Those same Americans voted for Bush and look where that got us.
    • Wewillknowsoon, on 06/22/2008, -17/+10as if voting for gore/kerry would have been any better. they are all new world order scum and their attack on the internet is a real threat to freedom.
      • Ajajadude, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3Gore's left testicle would've done a better job than the moron we currently have.

        Ok, over exaggeration, but the point still remains: not too many candidates could do worse.
      • Jeremyz0r, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2And you don't think Bush doesn't want new world order? Take a look at who his grandfather is *****. Another good find is the "Patriot Act". In 2005 he secretly signed an agreement to merge mexico and Canada back with the US.

        Bush is one of the biggest threats America has ever seen, so is every other republican that eats out of the Federal Reserves' hands.
      • JigoroKano, on 06/23/2008, -3/+2That's what Bush voters tell themselves so they can sleep at night.
      • Herolint, on 06/23/2008, -1/+2You are right. Bush/Gore/Kerry/McCain/Obama. It's all the same crap in a different gift wrap.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/22/2008, -7/+22It boggles my mind how diggers say things like this. You obviously don't have any facts to support this and it obviously wouldn't be the case that the two extremely large groups are the exact same people.
      • mossblaser, on 06/22/2008, -9/+8Are you trying to say you voted for bush?

        You pillock.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/22/2008, -4/+8Well, when you assume *****, you're often wrong. I haven't had the opportunity to vote for a president. Lol at the logic where simply not bashing him for illogical reasons means I voted for him. Pillock, wtf? Ohh I see, you're a self titled "chap" from Great Britain
        • Amiga500, on 06/22/2008, -7/+1He doesn't have the balls to tell you who he voted for.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4You don't have the brains to know that stating what you obviously do not know as fact makes you a blatant idiot.
        • Schmich, on 06/23/2008, -4/+3"I haven't had the opportunity to vote for a president" we can see that.
        • sealhands, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5to clear this up, i believe those who voted for bush and those who vote in favor of govt regulation of the internet are both extremely stupid. there is your connection. if you voted for Bush you're an idiot. if you voted for govt regulation of the internet you are an idiot. if you voted for one, chances are you voted for the other because you're an idiot.
        • webXL, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3What's hilarious is that people think Republicans and conservatives are out to censor and regulate speech when the Democrats are in favor in reconstituting the "Fairness" Doctrine which mandates that political views must get equal airtime because the public "owns" the airwaves. It's censorship, no matter how you look at it.

          Bush & co. maybe trying to snoop on everyone, but I think they could care less what you're downloading or posting. They care more about non-citizens talking to people in the middle east. AND FOR GOOD ***** REASON.

          If you're downloading copyrighted material illegally, you're a cheap asshat who like most of the entitlement generation, and wants SOMETHING for NOTHING. I was one of them. And still am to a certain extent. Without property rights, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.
      • Naieve, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10Traditionally Republicans are supposed to be for less government.

        While that might not be how the parties seem now, that is how most republican voters think.

        Thus it would be safer to say the people who DIDN'T vote for Bush want this.
        • JigoroKano, on 06/23/2008, -2/+5I believe dildos and vibrators are still illegal to sell in Alabama. Traditionally Republicans are for less government when it suits their needs and more government when it suits their needs. Need I mention drug laws?

          Saying Republicans are generally for less government is like saying Democrats are generally for honesty. Everyone is for honesty and everyone is for less government in the ways they don't want it to operate.
        • webXL, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Both parties have ideals and then when either party gains power, it does everything in its power to keep it. That does not mean supporters of those parties favor the abuse of power. It just means they fear the other party's abuse of power more.

          So it's always a choice for the lesser of two evils. It would be nice if we could get the least of four or five evils, but the parties are too powerful to let that happen. It's in both of their interest to preserve the current system
        • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Almost everyone wants the government to regulate what they don't like. Take smoking for instance, instead of leaving up to bussiness owners (maybe adding a tax break incentive to non-smoking establishment), people seem to want the state to regulate that ALL business be smoke-free. At this point, we might as well tear off the band-aid quickly and completely ban tobacco, but the tax revenue from cigarettes keeps that from happening.
      • mpeters13, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1It's called Sarcasm, and somehow, I think Lososaurus is correct. But that's just a hunch...
      • RomanThommassen, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1 50 % of the US people are completely retarded and doesn't deserve to live at all...people like you make me sad you idiot.
    • BuzzFriendly, on 06/22/2008, -1/+18Then you do not know the facts. There is healthy blame to go to both parties on this. Perhaps you could thank Bill and Hillary for the DMCA and Tipper Gore for your video game ratings. I am in no way a Bush fan but you don't need to point your finger at a person, but rather a place called Washington.
      • Herolint, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Exactly! I don't know how Digg folks can so easily forget that it was the Clintons who brought us the DMCA and Net Act; not the republicans.
    • alpharaptor, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6to keep with godwin's law, those who are for the regulation would also have been for hitler's germany
      • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Before Hitler proved to be a genocidal egomanic he was one of the most popular and highly respected leaders of the time...
    • goliathlyricist, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1clearly you all missed the humor in this comment. well minus the 94+ diggers that didn't.

      how the ***** can one country regulate the internet. *****. it's international. cannot and should not ever happen.
      • Herolint, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Do you think that "cannot" and "should not" has ever stopped the US Government before?
    • skyroket, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Hey *****, I voted for Bush and regret it. I'm not for regulating the internet. There's plenty out here like me.
  • bmcnally, on 06/22/2008, -1/+166Government? Bad idea - leave it to the users. Give the government an inch and they'll find a way to levy a tax on it.
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11And they'll censor it and start imprisoning people who say and do things with it they disagree with.
    • skcoder, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1That'll be 25 cents for your comment, payable to US GOVERNMENT.
  • fmtoffolo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+54so sad
    • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Half full or half empty? Should I depressed that half the people around me are idiots that have learned nothing from 12 years of history lessons... or should I be happy that half the people around me aren't for incompetent, overbearing, big brother security?

      Personally, I blame the CSI, Law and Order shows that show a way too caring and competent police force with people in the labs/departments doing the job of 20 technicians. They are all experts at fingerprints, bullet trajectories, blood spatter, ballistics, weapons, wounds, and computer programming/hacking. And that all crimes are solved within the hour.
      • HolyChimp, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1In fairness to shows like CSI though, if they were 3 days long and had 42 different main characters then they probably wouldn't be as entertaining to watch.
    • deanc, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lif ...


      hmmm smells like astroturfing to me. goto http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=22212833295& ... for the real story.


      Cheers,
      Dean
    • tiuk, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I just hope when I have kids I'll be telling them about how the internet was in jeopardy when I was growing up, not about how good it used to be.
  • Lagger, on 06/22/2008, -3/+247I wonder if it was an internet poll.
    • ninja0, on 06/22/2008, -2/+27on some website for noobs
      • TremorX, on 06/22/2008, -0/+22In the industry we call that "AOL"
      • j3ff86, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7you're pro or you're a noob. that's life
    • dbrinn, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7Rasmussen Reports is a corporatist pollster...of course their poll is going to reflect such a surprising result. it's surprising because it was a poll that was conduced with the results previously determined. the questions that were used for the poll were not presented in the article (which appears on the Rasmussen Reports website!!!!) and could have been worded in such a way that government regulation of the internet was not the intent of those being polled, but was interpreted this way by Rasmussen Reports...

      DON'T BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE...IT IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE.
    • redwallhp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5They called a group of eleven people at 3 AM.
    • Schmich, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4A bit hard to get 49% out of 11.
    • notanidiot, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2yeah, according to polls, Ron Paul should have kicked ass this presidential campaign.
  • zarvensha, on 06/22/2008, -2/+84How in hell can I comment on this?
    It's just another one of those dumb as a box of hammers ideas people keep coming up with as they are too scared to actually take responsibility for their kids.
    Too much Violence on TV - V Chip.
    Don't like swear words in music - warning stickers.

    Crap in handbag when will they ever learn?
    • caferrell, on 06/22/2008, -3/+20This case is quite different. The government doesn't really care about violence on TV and the polemic about it keeps SecurityMom busy.
      Control over the Internet will regulate what we are doing right now. The government gets nervous when large numbers of people are exposed to ideas that are not presented in Public Schools or on the Mainstream Media. The Corporate government certainly sees the Internet as a challenge to their all pervasive authority
      • sconnor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1You reflect my own sentiments beautifully.Would love to have you on my friend list as this is not the first time I've taken notice that we seem to be on the same page!
    • schrankage, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4I tried talking to my mother once about the Internet and the information on it, and she said "isn't that all just opinions?"

      The Internet is is a threat to the status-quo, and there are certain institutions and organizations who are trying to destroy it, or at least lessen it's impact.
    • WallyAnti, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I'd like to come out and say screw all you breeders if you cant take care of your little noisy awful things. Not all of us exist so you can successfully make little copies of your ideal selves. Keep your hobbies from interfering with my affairs.
    • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1And yet with those measures, TV, music, and games are still too violent and have too many bad words 'cos the idiots that supported the warnings can't be assed to actually pay attention to them.
  • ghaib, on 06/22/2008, -9/+31349% of Americans think that the Internet should be regulated? 49% of Americans are morons.
    • ninja0, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1949% of americans probably don't even use the internet. Thats like saying you wanna buy a new mustang, but you think that the gov't should make the GT model only 200HP.

      why?
    • cnot3, on 06/22/2008, -0/+30I could have told you that half of Americans are morons before the poll.
    • zephyr42, on 06/22/2008, -0/+38I'd have to say more than 49% of Americans are morons.... and I'm an American.
    • Borgcube636, on 06/22/2008, -3/+16That is the one problem with statistics. It cannot possibly be 49%, as a vast majority of people were not polled. At least I wasn't...
      • redwallhp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7I wasn't either. I bet they called-up a minuscule amount of people they figured would agree with what they wanted to say, and made sure to call really early in the morning. Either that or they just made up the statistic...
      • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Apparently you've never taken a basic statistics class.
      • Borgcube636, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2^^ No I haven't, lol
    • jwdav, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Think of how stupid the average person is ... now imagine that half of the population is even dumber.

      /had to be said
      • rgov, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Wrong! Half the population is dumber than the median, not the average.

        /had to be said
        • coyote1284, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The average would be a lot lower than the median...
    • WallyAnti, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2With regard to the older set (who probably make up a big chunk of that 49%) they are morons when it comes to the internet. Sorry. My grandparents can't navigate a cell phone menu. So they are voting out of pure idiocy with regard to the matter. Most of them have no concept of what the internet is or why anyone could possibly want it.
    • minoss, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yet people (on digg) want net neutrality legislation. Now who's the moron.
    • macinit1138, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Remember, the media controls the majority's thinking in this country. And it goes without saying that in our system, the majority rules. Simple control exerted over a democracy that doesn't need to control every single citizen, just the important 51% of them. Last two election results read like a cartoon strip for the above. They're almost there at 49%, and you can bet the house that they'll get the needed 2% or more to start their systematic subversion and control of the greatest threat to tyrants everywhere--the current free-flow exchange of information which we call the internet.



    • Chigga75, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Well, it does make sense. 50% of the population has below average intelligence.
  • WaxenPith, on 06/22/2008, -14/+79It sounds like parents that want Uncle Sam to do the parenting part for them and turn the internet into a ***** television.

    The internet doesn't belong to anyone and is therefore ungovernable.

    The internet is a perfect example of everything that is right with socialists ideals and should remain free for everybody on earth.
    • lordmetroid, on 06/22/2008, -0/+16Wrong, the internet is owned by many uncountable number of people each owning one small part of the inter-networks that makes up the internet. They can themself set rules for their own small part of internet and that way order is maintained.

      Or as the Greek would call it, anarchy(without archon) id est without centralized control.
      • skinnyskittles, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5so much for the governmental indoctrination that anarchy equals chaos
    • jedi3335, on 06/22/2008, -3/+18You couldn't be more incorrect. The internet is more the perfect example of purely capitalist ideals. Socialism indicates no individual ownership and strong central planning. These ideas couldn't be more antithetical to the realities of the internet, which is an example of a perfectly unplanned system (at least in terms of the content, not the technical backbone). It is the ultimate free and competitive marketplace. Any government regulation and interference of content would totally destroy this perfect example of global capitalism.
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4The Internet backbone is owned by private corporations. Content is owned primarily by private individuals, groups, or corporations that lease bandwidth from the telco's.
    • phrenzy, on 06/23/2008, -3/+3Ugh more people that have to try to claim something they love was born of the "free market" in order to defend their religious conviction in pure Capitalism.

      Do you know how was the infrastructure for the net developed? Capitalism? Corporations? Wide eyed entrepreneurialism? Nope. Government and higher learning institutions via your tax dollars.

      That sounds pretty "socialist" to me.

      The problem is so many people are trained to hear Socialism and think "Stalinist / Communist" which basically demonstrates a jingoistic reaction to the word itself. Many great things came from 'Socialist' programs in the US. Many great things have come from free markets and private enterprise. They each have their place.

      Sometimes the free markets can't or won't serve the people because it does not help their bottom line or selfish interests. If there was no public education, it would basically mean that children born into poor families would have virtually NO chance of getting an education while the people with more money would be able to perpetually send their OWN children to the best schools. This is why we engage in the "socialist" practice of using tax dollars to fund education for EVERYONE that wants one (at least k-12). It is because we recognize that some things are worth contributing to collectively in order to benefit the country as a WHOLE.

      As much as we (justifiably) decry totalitarian socialism, we are a Capitalist-Socialist hybrid system and it seems to be working out ok so far.
  • WaxenPith, on 06/22/2008, -32/+200PROTIP: It's the women who are the problem

    From the article:

    73% yes to 13% no -- that it should be a crime to harass someone on the Internet.

    Seventy-one percent (71%) have some awareness of the Drew case, with only 25% saying they know nothing about it at all. Women (79%) more than men

    (67%) think Internet harassment should be a crime. Age is also a factor, with support for criminalizing such behavior higher the older the respondent.

    Women also feel much more strongly about federal regulation of the Internet, with 55% in favor, 25% opposed and 20% undecided. Men reject federal regulation by a small margin – 46% to 42% -- with 12% unsure.

    Digg me down, but this is why women don't belong on the internet, they don't understand it so they fear it and want it to be regulated.
    • WednesdayLaw, on 06/22/2008, -7/+108>this is why women don't belong on the internet

      So you DO want it regulated?
    • Alegoo92, on 06/22/2008, -13/+7Tell that to Veronica Belmont or somebody.
      Really your comment is based in the misconstruing of facts.. and by that I mean that you're a nimrod.
      • redwallhp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Molly Wood, Veronica Belmont, Melissa Anelli...
    • ninja0, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11It's lack of knowledge that the poll turned out this way. it's ***** BS.

      How about they do a poll with people that use the internet every day on a regular basis? And actually UNDERSTAND it?

      That should be an interesting poll...
    • zephyr42, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1It seems like this surveying people that did not have a long term look at the effects of regulation on the internet.
    • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/22/2008, -3/+19Women and children, life is less stressful without them.
    • elizabethb221, on 06/22/2008, -17/+10I seriously hope that you're being sarcastic.

      If not, thanks a lot. You want me to leave? Too bad.

      Sexist *****, not all women are dumb bimbos.
      • smackythefrog, on 06/22/2008, -5/+10elizabeth the bimbo....
      • mustang460, on 06/23/2008, -3/+7did you bring the computer into the kitchen? if your not your breaking the rule #1
      • walugi, on 06/23/2008, -3/+5congrats on sounding like a huge bitch.

        you're _so_ empowered
    • heyimcamcook, on 09/10/2008, -9/+19i agree, women should stick to the kitchen.
      • sugarazor, on 06/22/2008, -11/+6yeah, it's too bad for you no woman is ever going to put up with a moron like you and actually cook you something. go back to your frozen burrito, sexist creep.
        • mustang460, on 06/23/2008, -0/+7man the harpoons!
        • smackythefrog, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1how good was the pussy that whipped you to speak like that? take a frozen burrito in the ass and sit down...
        • sugarazor, on 06/23/2008, -3/+4Oh well you got me there... I'm so pussy whipped that I would need to even keep it up on Digg. Or maybe I don't need to say ignorant ***** like women need to stay in the kitchen to make myself sound cool on the internet. Of course, the only woman that's ever been in the kitchen for you is your mom.
      • drgmdp, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1don't forget the broom
    • Rambus89, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3ATHENE
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 06/22/2008, -11/+4STFU douchebags
      • chrispr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4While I somewhat agree, an eloquent response to this would have been much better.
      • mustang460, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1make me a sandwich
      • smackythefrog, on 06/23/2008, -2/+1do you take pride in being "the only girl on digg"?? maybe it's a sign for you to log off, shut down the comp since you cant handle the reality... of you growing up to being a lesbian...
    • benecere, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10You're misquoting it: Those are statistics for Americans, not American women.

      FTA"Americans also believe overwhelmingly -- 73% yes to 13% no -- that it should be a crime to harass someone on the Internet."

      The only quote about women in particular is the one that states it's about women in particular:
      "Women also feel much more strongly about federal regulation of the Internet, with 55% in favor, 25% opposed and 20% undecided. Men reject federal regulation by a small margin – 46% to 42% -- with 12% unsure."

      That's just wrong, dude!
    • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5You had me until that last sentence...and I'm not a woman.
    • mustang460, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7oh silly womens and your smaller brains
    • carolinax, on 06/22/2008, -0/+16Ah, misogyny on the web.

      Look at the facts: 1000 people were surveyed- that's an INCREDIBLY small pool- out of 300,000,000. The report didn't mention where was it taken, or anything directly about their income/ethnicity (though it just glosses over it).

      CLEARLY women aren't the problem. It is misleading reports, like this one, that float around the web that spread faulty stats to gather support for a particular cause, ultimately misinformed people use these "opinion polls" as validation.

      What you should be denouncing, WaxenPith, are rash generalizations which the poll is guilty of, and in the end, you are too.
    • Skooma714, on 06/23/2008, -1/+5Women's suffrage gave us prohibition.
    • GlassCalx, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind that Rasmusssen is an Evangelical Christian/Republican type person. It seems more likely that his 49% figure is more the result of creative question phrasing and question order, than the result of women messing with the internet.
    • dreamtiger, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4Geez, this might be the single stupidest post I've ever seen on Digg.
    • restivo, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4dude. women shouldent be allowed on the internet??
      do you realize that means no porn!!!!!!!!!
      • PrometheusZero, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2The prophet speaks truth... heed his warning...
    • PeachHipGirl, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0Clearly you never get laid you Neanderthal. And dude, please speak only for the women in your country. You live in the most ***** up Christian backed country in the world. Pay attention to your own backyard.

      Oh and put away the World of Warcraft, brush your teeth, get a lobotomy and then maybe a female or two might throw you a pity *****.

      Basement dwelling fool.
  • coffee200am, on 06/22/2008, -26/+10But I want my free government health care and education and I want the government to nationalize the Oil Companies and run them! Oh.... but don't touch the Internet...
    • Amiga500, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2Yes. Some solutions work better for some problems then others. Imagine that. I am amazed by stupid ***** like you who think in binary terms. How the hell do you function without the ability to judge and weigh each individual situation? Guess that would be to much work for you.
    • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Someone had to say it coffee. Amazingly, it's unpopular. You might argue that things should be judged individually, and that may be correct to a degree, but the principle is still the same.

      Gas and health care aren't as affordable as the Internet, so I guess it's ok to have them get involved there O_o
    • orxor, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4There's no such thing as *free* government health care, or *free* government education. In fact public schools in my area spend almost twice as much per student than good private schools. Oil companies shouldn't be nationalized and in fact the government should not be as involved with them as it is already, maybe if the government and oil companies weren't so friendly we wouldn't try to take over every country that has oil. In fact government should stay out of everything, including the internet.
  • purplesky1000, on 06/22/2008, -14/+53did anyone happen to notice that only 1000 people participated in this survey?
    • S7aind, on 06/22/2008, -14/+11Even 100 people is generally a good indication of a population. You don't need every single person to participate to get a pretty accurate number
      • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8But it does depend on where they made the survey. Did they take sample out of some localized (NYC, rural area, etc) or did they flip through a national phone book? Things like that can skew the results.
      • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10Are you ***** kidding me? No survey of Americans is the least bit valid with 100 people; 4000 or 5000 is generally a good minimum.
        • kcpepper111, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1You're right that 100 is too small, but 1000 is enough. 4000 or 5000 is overkill and only produces an insignificantly smaller margin of error compared to 1000 people.
      • Zempz, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7i forgot the calcuation but i know that for a representation of 300,000,000 the sample size needs to be much bigger to be adequate. the deviation of a sample that small cant be generalized to a population that is proportionally much bigger
      • scabbers, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Great idea, how about just 1,000 people get to decide who's president next time? I'll bring the people.
    • gbates31, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6One-thousand person surveys are pretty standard from what I've seen.
      • TheKiah, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7Just because they're standard doesn't mean they're good or proper ways of determining anything at all.
        • kcpepper111, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Take a statistics class. 1000 +/- 50 or so people is good regardless of how big the population is.
    • SwedishNinja, on 06/22/2008, -4/+10You all fail at statistics. Generally, 1,000 is considered a good sample size of the population. Most major polls use it.
    • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Surveys like this are generally from a random sample. If they aren't from a random sample, then they aren't considered valid. But if they are from a random sample (which through randomization should cover a pretty wide representation of the population), then 1,000 people is a good enough sample to give you ~ +/-3% margin of error.
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1and that it mentioned MySpace there too... does that mean that these people that voted on this thing are MySpace users?? lame
    • Justice101, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1In the end if the issue ever comes up, it won't be the majority who decide, it's who cares strongest on the issue and is willing to fight for it. Internet, ho, bring me my sword, we do battle!
    • scantly, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1so basically, 490/300,000,000 people believe the internet should be regulated as far as they know. What is that?

      0001633333333333333333333333333%. That's really shocking news...
    • metromax, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Having more than 1,000 participants in a survey usually yields for a higher margin of error, just a stats thing, really.
  • 919kwjc, on 06/22/2008, -5/+69I'm really concerned about this country. Why are so many people looking for the government to solve all of their problems. Wake up people, government is the problem! Tell me ONE thing you think the government does well... just one.
    • tomis, on 06/22/2008, -1/+9Because they've been babied their whole lives and thusly afraid of reality.
      • mrzeero, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Exactly. If Jesus can't protect them from it, then they want the government to step in.
        • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure what you mean to say with that comment. If that is a slight at conservatives for seeking government intervention in regulating moral issues, then you should also realize "liberals" seek government intervention on a whole host of issues as well.

          Liberalism used to be about minimizing the government's impact on the individual, but now being "liberal" means supporting a whole host of government programs and regulations.
    • ostreet, on 06/22/2008, -0/+31Make itself bigger.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 06/22/2008, -2/+13I like to have police and fire services. Also roads are nice to drive on. You have to have some government just like you have to have some taxes. But notice all those things are on the local and state level. The federal government should be for defense and nothing more. Although nasa is pretty cool.
      • Zempz, on 06/22/2008, -4/+0isnt nasa private? or i thought it was ,mebbe not
        • RufusMcCoot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1you think PETA would let a private entity put a monkey in space to see if its safe? only governments can get away with that--not that it particularly bothers me though
      • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4You're right, and local and state governments do a much better job at those things than the federal government. Consider that the government spends its highway budget on.... i don't know, anything but highway management and repair.

        Social services can be useful to a degree, but I think it's a affront to the American people when the government taxes for said services, mismanages them, creates waste, then blows the money they do have on the programs for war, etc.

        Locally managing many of the social services also gives us the option to move to another district/state and take our tax money with us if we are absolutely opposed to how it's being run. But if everything is handled at the federal level, and the fed screws it up, what recourse do you have? Leave the country?

        That was the whole idea of being United States. We are a collection of 50 sovereigns, united by the common purpose and goals of individual freedom. However, states are free to choose their own way to approach problems that arise, and other states can observe and see what works and doesn't for their own issues. But having the federal government stick it's nose into everything is inefficient and burdens the people.
        • XanderDee, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1That is why the constitution is a negative document for Federal government they MUST NOT, MUST NOT and if there is anything else not thought of they can't do that ether.... But they do it anyway because as long as we have food, money and entertained we don't really care.
      • linuxpenguin, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1As cool as NASA is, Burt Rutan essentially beat them - without the federal funding. They picked two national launch locations as close to the equator to the earth so that they could use Earth's centripetal acceleration to help get the rockets going quicker, and he just decided not to use a rocket.

        Plus you're missing his point. . . yes, there are many reasons that the government is good and necessary, but often the government does things that are half-assed, unnecessary, and/or a bad idea.
    • dood, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2They made a pretty nice foundation for the Internet.
    • Peck3277, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Tax collection
    • mrzeero, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11Protect large corporate interests?
    • SwedishNinja, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Don't worry, I think we'll soon be CHANGING into a bigger, more helpful government! :)
    • bigdog44gg, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1It runs the license bureau ever so well. That is why I'm for Government healthcare and internet censorship. How could we go wrong. Washington knows what we need. They will take care of everything!!!
    • sconnor, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1**** things up for its' citizens while personally profitting as much as poss. .Think freely,act respectfully/responsibly,& actively keep our PUBLIC SERVANTS in line with the Constitution.Patrick Henry,"Give me liberty or give me death!" I wonder if it isn't time for another "TEA PARTY"? Tea anyone??
      • bitterbug, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act was designed to deal with "terrorists" like you.

        And that is unfortunate.
    • sconnor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Exploit its' citizens & sell our sovereignty down the river for personal gain. They've almost gotten it down to a science.
    • nerdofthunder, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2I think the federal highway system is pretty good. That aside...
    • XanderDee, on 06/24/2008, -1/+1They manage money well... No
      They make sure the economy is doing fine... No
      They provide accurate inflation numbers (gas went down in April lol)... No
      They insure elections are fair and honest... No
      They ensure everyone is educated properly... No


      Ok they tax us very well... Yes

      There you go. (actually Ex IRS agents don't pay taxes cuz the know the truth so it could be a no).

      :D
    • italianruby, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0I'll give you two!!! Tax and Slowly take away our rights!!!!!!
  • burgerboy06, on 06/22/2008, -16/+61.) Read Poll
    2.) Click "Yes-Government Regulation"
    3.) ....
    4.) Log on to google, search for pie, get 26 results all from msn and aol
  • ogallivanslist, on 06/22/2008, -6/+6ohhhh *sighs* dear.......
  • MrsJay, on 06/22/2008, -4/+35 Thanks for not paying attention, America. As our rights are slowly stripped away.

    http://digg.com/politics/Proof_our_civil_liberties ...
    • hshadow914, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2or you could have directly linked to the story...
    • xerigen, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3That is downright scary. MSN already filters our internet apparently.
    • speakafreaka, on 06/23/2008, -0/+3Doubleplusungood
  • chicoer2001, on 06/22/2008, -4/+34The reason why tv and radio is regulated is because the lack of wave lengths. Try to start your own tv station and see how easy it is. Newspapers arent regulated because anyone can publish a newspaper. Anyone can also start a website.
    • bravo1995, on 06/22/2008, -0/+16Well let's start regulating newspapers too! This'll be fun!
      • sconnor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Actually, major players already are, I'm sorry to inform you :~(
    • Zempz, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0lol viva la 1984
    • skinnyskittles, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3tv and radio need not be regulated either.

      http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty5.asp

      scroll down to "Freedom of Radio and Television" and read
    • sugarazor, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1The funny thing is, the government started regulating radio and television and not newspapers because people had a choice in newspapers, while there were limited TV and radio stations, so changing the channel wasn't always an option.

      Flash forward to modern times, what do you have more of in your city - radio stations or newspapers? Radio stations, of course. If anything, the government should regulate profanity in the newspaper and let radio do whatever the ***** it wants. Unfortunately for those of us in the radio business, no one seems to remember this little tidbit of information.
    • Laputian, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6If we create too many websites we could cause the tubes to clog!
      • MrBill79, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I mean, last week I sent an Internet to a member of my staff and they didn't get it until yesterday!
    • sconnor, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Papers & mainstream media IS bought & controlled. Employed by it at one time.Left in digust.Airwaves at present are less vunerable unless the "Fairness Doctrine" is imposed.I just get such a "1984" kick out of the names they come up with for the complacent/defeatist public.Research will prove major Wall St. entities & Geo. Sorros have $$$ backed both major pres. candidates' campaigns.Don't take my word for it...prove me wrong.
  • beesaretasty, on 06/22/2008, -3/+40Correction. Nearly half of Americans who still have a land-line phone think that the internet should be regulated. The other 90 percent of the country bought cell phones so they don't have to deal with answering these dumbass surveys.
    • Borgcube636, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7So, in other words its all the country hicks that voted for this...?
    • osufan765, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I actually got a call on my cell phone from somebody trying to conduct a survey :/ I lied and said I was 17 so that they'd leave me be.
    • bugsysservant, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0I still have a landline...

      Does it count if its VOIP?
    • fool13, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I have a land (home) phone so I'm a hick? How bout you're a moron.
    • prahareturns, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Sorry to offer facts but only 15.8%* of US households do not have a land-line. You can't blame everything on republicans and "hicks". Considering that only 35% of people surveyed were against federal regulation and the rest were undecided. Democrats make up more that 35% of the country.

      (*Source: http://www.toptechnews.com/news/Consumers-Ditching ...
      • dlsspy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I have a land line, but only because I can't DSL without it. It has no phone hooked up to it, although I do get the service, so theoretically there can be.

        I'm sure I'm not the only one.
        • prahareturns, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0Point taken and I'm sure there are more people out there in your current situation. I can't find any numbers to support your assertion. I doubt it bridges the gap between the made up number by beesaretasty and the 15.8%.
  • btschul, on 06/22/2008, -2/+61Breaking News: New survey says 49% of americans are ***** pants-on-head retarded.
    • Scagli3tti, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Dugg for visual...lol.
    • ParasyteStuie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Dugg for saying my exact first impression + pants-on-head. lolz
  • noseeme, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6The government should not regulate the internet like it does with radio waves. However, I think the government should assist in keeping the internet neutral.
  • Enochulator, on 06/22/2008, -3/+10"Race also is a factor, with 53% of whites saying they use the Internet every day or nearly every day, as opposed to only 28% of blacks. Twenty-one percent (21%) of whites and 39% of blacks say they rarely or never use the Internet."

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940 ...
    • TremorX, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Xbox Live would like to have a word with those statistics
  • JustAn0th3rFace, on 06/22/2008, -23/+351% of the country doesn't deserve to use the internet.
    • SaperKain, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2I love how most of the people here are FOR net neutrality but AGAINST government control. I guess that is how republicans are able to win elections. Really dumb electorate.
  • ethornquist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+60Take some responsibility and choose your own usage / content, people.

    If you don't like something, don't click on it.

    If you want, have the gov't hold your hand. I'd rather choose for myself.
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Right. And they should not be able to force the choice on you. That's the problem with government regulation; you get no say in the matter. Yes, you get a vote but that doesn't matter; it's still tyranny by the majority. If most Americans believe drugs should not be legalized, does that mean it's right for drugs to be illegal? No. What if the majority of the country believes contraception is morally wrong and should be banned Should we ban it? No. The rights of individuals to do what they want so long as all other parties involved consent to it trumps any attempt to infringe on those rights, even by consensus. Democracy is not the highest form of law; individual rights are.
    • TheInformer, on 06/22/2008, -4/+1That is such a small minded and shortsighted choice. Obama would frown on you.
      • ethornquist, on 06/23/2008, -1/+1Is your name Rod, by chance? Or are you like other trolls, just hiding behind a name?

        Ron Paul would frown on you.
    • kirado4, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2the porn it just follows me..
      • ethornquist, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1" . . . i see nekkid people . . . "
  • Koush, on 06/22/2008, -1/+49These americans REALLY give you guys a bad name.
  • Sanduu, on 06/22/2008, -0/+24It's the ***** idea the government came with lately, like all their ideas. Screw them, the internet is and must remain uncensored.
    • Ogopogo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately the Canadian gov't thinks they can regulate Internet content worldwide using the CHRC s13.1 which makes it illegal to express contempt (or 'hatred') for a long list of groups of people.

      See: www.richardwarman.com, www.ezralevant.com
  • SethEllis, on 06/22/2008, -0/+21The poll is pretty useless since they never specify what "regulating" the internet really means.
    • barius, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Exactly. Net Neutrality is good regulation in the same way that regulating the electric grid is essential. Censorship on the other hand is very bad.
  • S7aind, on 06/22/2008, -6/+18The other half watches porn.
    • ParasyteStuie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1*****, I'm the other half. (*shrug*)
  • 2balls1cup, on 06/22/2008, -26/+5I totally agree. I am so sick of having to read disgusting crap from atheists denying the truth of God's existence. It is immoral and impressionable young kids shouldn't be exposed to it. I am al for a ban on that kind of material.
    • zombird, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7That's what the block button is for.
    • Toshibi, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8Troll some more...
    • kelder27, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1I thought the internet proved god's existance.
    • bravo1995, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10I thought you were kidding (what with the handle 2balls1cup and all), but then I read your other comments...

      Now I'm convinced you're just crazy.
      • ParasyteStuie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1If the message he was trying to convey was that Christians are already retarded in the first place for buying into the whole Jesus fairytale, then perhaps he's ***** crazy like a fox.
    • ramunenke, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7uh huh, so you are all for limiting people's first amendment rights? You make me ashamed to be a christian. If you dont want your kids exposed and you want them believing in God, show them through you actions, through talking to them. Dont put even more power in the government's hands, unless the God you are talking about is wearing red and blue with his white robes.
    • Nexusmonkey, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7No.. its immoral to give only one side of a story and to make decisions on behalf of children.
    • Wewillknowsoon, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7there is no 'g-rated' part of the world, why should there be a 'g-rated' internet? just because you disagree with a certain issue doesnt mean there should be a limit to anyone else coming into contact with that issue. but i guess since you believe in god, youre righteous--should i be prosecuted for saying that to you? kids ARE impressionable, but why should your beliefs be the only beliefs kids are introduced to? would there be any diversity or free thinking if that were so? and guess what, if youre "so sick of having to read disgusting crap from atheists denying the truth of God's existence," maybe you should avoid those sites... you cant really believe that you will change any of their minds anyway, especially on the internet, the ultimate den of iniquity.
    • Yuska, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3You, sir, are a bigot.
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Do ***** yourself, you self-righteous prick. This is a private site, on private pipes. People can say whatever they want and the government can't do a thing about it.
  • leonardoty, on 06/22/2008, -0/+25Good. That means more than half of our country aren't COMPLETE dumbasses.
  • Spartanious, on 06/22/2008, -1/+89So... America owns the Internet now?
    • Borgcube636, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12We, the people don't want to own it. It's our damned government that wants to. SAVE US PLEASE!!!! (we'll work at it too, btw :) )
    • shawn1122, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10I think they mean regulate it for themselves, sorta like the "great firewall of china" or whatever it's called.

      Talk about taking a step back in time. Things should become more free over time, not more restricted, I'm sure only old people who fear teh intertubes would vote for such regulation.
    • digitul, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4AMERICA, ***** YEAH!
    • Gforce20, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Better America than Nigeria or some other country with a poor government.
    • rholm, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0100% of the money that led to the invention of the internet was paid for by US tax dollars through the NSF program....

      You're Welcome World.....
      • justz00t, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Actually it was a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency project that started it all. The NSF just held it for a decade in mid 80s to early to mid 90s when privatization took over and made it the great thing it is today. Never underestimate the power of the free market!
    • PeachHipGirl, on 06/23/2008, -2/+2Gforce, in case you haven't noticed, the American government is full of fascist war mongers aka a piss poor hypocritical government.

      ***** America! America has NO RIGHT to decide who gets to see what and when on the Internet. The Internet belongs to the world. Keep your fascist government away from the world. We'd be better off without all your meddling disguised as "helpful"
  • nateabel, on 06/22/2008, -9/+2Hey, maybe we can shut down 4chan this way. It won't be all bad, although I am very much against it.
    • Texmurphy01, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Say what you want about that festering hole, but it is the ultimate in free speech with little or no consequences. It's the side of humanity you might not want to see.
      • digitul, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1yeah it gives pedos and racists somewhere to get their rocks off without retribution
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Yes, you're joking but I don't care. It's that kind of mentality that is ruining us. Just because you don't like something DOES NOT mean you can get it banned. You have to ***** DEAL WITH IT if it's not actually infringing on anyone's freedoms. Let's say I don't like the color red and I somehow manage to get the majority of the country to agree with me. Can we outlaw it? No.
  • sethorama99, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4151% of Americans were too busy jerking off to internet porn.
    • CMuffa, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2No, 51% think the other 49% are jerk offs. You almost had it.
  • DiggGeek24, on 06/22/2008, -9/+4"THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN."
  • Jenovaside, on 06/22/2008, -10/+5I agree to an extent. The government should try to block child pornography. Other then things such as that, they should not.
    • son1k, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8Sure, their promise will be something along the lines of "Our new policy will protect your children from bad images!", but in reality, it'll end up as "We'll only allow you to see what we want you to see." This is what will trap everyone.

      They just need to do what they're currently doing better. Find the ones putting up the child porn and punish them.

      Punish those that do wrong, not those that do right.
    • Jenovaside, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Do you have no faith in the government? They are very trustworthy you know.
      • son1k, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Haha, I'm not even American.

        But if this happens in America, it'll happen elsewhere. It won't even be up for debate. Governments around the world will just follow suit.
      • govsucks, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I have no faith in government. The federal government has mismanaged and gone over budget on practically everything they have had control of. I wouldn't trust the federal government to rub two nickels together rapidly, nor would I give them a squirt of piss if the entire congress was on fire.
      • leechri8, on 06/23/2008, -1/+0Interesting that you revere the government as trustworthy, especially with our latest administration. Faith in trust is something that I don't hold in our government's abilities to provide. If our government wasn't built on a constitutional democracy, I am sure that our "King Bush" would love to run this country as a dictatorship given the opportunity.
      • justz00t, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1I hope that was meant as a joke.
  • robszol, on 06/22/2008, -5/+5Wow, these survey's need to stop asking people who voted for Bush in 2004 these kinds of questions
  • WafflesID, on 06/22/2008, -3/+24***** YOU FRANK!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
  • junskey, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6ignorance is bliss in america
  • Melodik, on 06/22/2008, -2/+39This just in, 49% of Americans don't have the Internet.
  • Rudegar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4hope it would prove as easy as regulating earthquakes and twisters
  • ImpaledNoob, on 06/22/2008, -0/+12This poll was conducted at the FCC's main offices.
  • hcarlgolden, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7leave it alone the government will only make things worse.
  • nycmac247, on 06/22/2008, -12/+2McCain will win.
    We're all gonna die.
    (sorry)
  • UtahApocalyse, on 06/22/2008, -3/+40This is why im Opposed to 'Net Neutrality' it really is just a slick way for the government to get its foot in the door. Sadly, many people support it thinking it will protect the internets freedom, when in reality it wont.
    • sloppychris, on 06/22/2008, -2/+19$20 bucks says most people writing and digging snarky comments about how dumb it is to regulate the internet also support "net neutrality".

      Even though they're the same thing.
      • TJATL, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4You are correct. Digg is filled with a bunch of bandwagon idiots. OH RON PAUL!!! Now, OBAMA is the man!!!! Yay for net neutrality!!!! OMG regulate internet?!?!

        dumb, dumber and dumberer....
      • NicP, on 06/23/2008, -6/+1Regulating telecommunications companies is different to regulating the internet
        • sloppychris, on 06/23/2008, -0/+4How? The people who provide access to the internet are a pretty important part of it.
  • goes211, on 06/22/2008, -2/+11I am glad we live under the constitution and not majority (mob) rule.
    • YancyFryJr, on 07/13/2008, -3/+4Well, we won't have the constitution for long, the way things are going.
    • tech42er, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7I wish we did. Tyranny of the majority is alive and well these days.
    • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5What the hell is a "constitution?"
      • supermanred, on 06/23/2008, -1/+4According to George W Bush its "Just a peice of paper"...
    • govsucks, on 06/23/2008, -1/+3Just wait. The mob is about to force the entire health care industry into servitude. Last week we had collectivists on the hill talking about taking over the oil companies. I guess democrat leaders are taking advise from Hugo Chavez now. Collectivism is far worse and more dangerous to humanity than organized religion.
    • HardyMachia, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1
      Bob Barr, Libertarian for President. Keep the internet free!
      http://www.bobbarr2008.com
  • tillerman00, on 06/22/2008, -1/+31Wow. Next Americans will be begging for shackles and pleading for Uncle Sam to brand them on their asses.
    • SpykerSpeed, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1You already get branded when you get a social security number. The shackles come in the form of income tax and property tax.
      • supermanred, on 06/23/2008, -3/+1Yeah it would be much better if there were no taxes and everyone just went around doing whatever the ***** they wanted.

        Oh wait, they tried that it was called the old west. You wouldn't stand a chance. How good a shot are you?
        • Tyrghast, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2If you knew anything about the 'old west' you'd know it wasn't anarchy. It was something so much cooler.
    • govsucks, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1How do you think you will get your national Health care number. No, just kidding, they actually staple it in your ear.
    • webwiz1986, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Leik the internet is the ONLY form of communication. With the infrastructure we have, theres PLENTY other ways to get around a restricted protocol. Its just gonna take a little creativity.
  • Elsewhere42, on 06/22/2008, -1/+61The Internet cannot and should not be regulated.

    The Internet is the first and only information medium that offers TRUE freedom of speech.

    Even communist China cannot stop its people from viewing "forbidden" content. Every time a government tries to block content, someone comes up with another way to get around the block.

    All information yearns to be free and should be free.
    • trispear, on 06/22/2008, -6/+4Information doesn't yearn for anything.

      People yearn for free communication/speech. And if they can have it, free entertainments. But that is a different subject.
    • SwedishNinja, on 06/22/2008, -6/+1What about CP?
      • supermanred, on 06/23/2008, -0/+9What about it? It's illegal to possess, promote, transfer, watch, keep, make etc.

        Even if someone does put up a web site with CP all those in posession of the pics and videos later will go to jail.

        CP isnt an excuse to lock down the internet to make it American State Internet brought to you by the White House and Blackwater.
      • ParasyteStuie, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1It's what the government will then be able to send to your email inbox at any time if you ever become "out of line," so then the FBI will immediately be breaking into your house connecting you to "terrorist activity" and taze you until your heart explodes.
    • snassiri, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Interesting thought. The internet is very organic in a way, spreading as people come together. It's a powerful force completely unlike anything before it, which is why the powerholders fear it.
  • JasonCox, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8Can we send those 49% of people to China?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 321 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.