Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Networking Politics

New White House Petition For Net Neutrality 248

Bob9113 (14996) writes "On the heels of yesterday's FCC bombshell, there is a new petition on the White House petition site titled, 'Maintain true net neutrality to protect the freedom of information in the United States.' The body reads: 'True net neutrality means the free exchange of information between people and organizations. Information is key to a society's well being. One of the most effective tactics of an invading military is to inhibit the flow of information in a population; this includes which information is shared and by who. Today we see this war being waged on American citizens. Recently the FCC has moved to redefine "net neutrality" to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced. We as a nation must settle for nothing less than complete neutrality in our communication channels. This is not a request, but a demand by the citizens of this nation. No bandwidth modifications of information based on content or its source.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New White House Petition For Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2014 @05:29PM (#46836097)

    Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, often complete with redicule and mocking, that is if any attention is paid to them whatsoever.

    These things are at best a token 'feel good' nod toward public relations and more realistically, these things are just flat out time wasters for all involved.

    So why is so much attention paid to them?

    Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government, such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?

    Oh and by the way, president Obama has made his 'transparency' campaign lie completely 'transparent' by now, you all should know that he will follow through on no promise that he doesn't already want to act on (which is most of them) and in the end is happy to lie right to the face of the voter and then go off into a back room and do exactly the opposite of what he states he will do, towards whatever end he pleases. So given that (Gitmo? allowing bills to be reviewed before signing them? eliminating lobbyists from the white house etc.) why would you guys spend any effort at all in trying to influence his decicions or actions? You *know* they could not possibly care less what you proles think.

    Real question; what are you guys thinking here? No one cares!

  • Re:yeah right (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OneAhead ( 1495535 ) on Thursday April 24, 2014 @08:28PM (#46837509)

    He is the one who proposed the current chairman for approval or rejection by the senate, following pressure from his party [].


    Also, chairman != dictator.

    Also, some say that Obama did this to regain some political capital with powerful people he rubbed the wrong way earlier. Be that as it may, I'm not claiming he's free from blame. It gets somewhat harder to do the right thing when everything around you is rotten, but that's no excuse, merely a mitigating factor.

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.