Jason
Lv 6
Jason asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Glenn Beck on Net Neutrality: Lying or Misinformed?

"It's about eliminating traditional, constitutional points of view from the public arena. But that's not the way it's being built. It is about stopping debate. But nobody will tell you that. It's about ending free speech. It is about Marxism."

Glenn Beck on Net Neutrality, Fox News, 4-5-10

Do you think he is merely misinformed on the subject of Net Neutrality or is he being paid off by the telecoms to intentionally distort the truth?

Update 2:

GoGo Girls, while bandwidth availability does play a big role in the issue of Net Neutrality; the issue is a bit more complex than that.

Net Neutrality is fundamentally an extension of the utility price non-discrimination policies to providers of broadband internet service. The telecoms may price discriminate by quantity of product used (bandwidth) but not the quality, or purpose, of the bandwidth being used (Facebook vs. Myspace, Amazon vs. Barnes and Noble, MSNBC vs. Fox News).

The telecoms have stated that they would like to tier their service by content type, charging customers to access certain websites. This basically allows ISPs to make a money off of the intellectual property of others (Google, Youtube, Facebook, etc). Additionally, they would be at liberty to block any content that the disagree with, namely, the web-content of their economic and political competitors.

Glenn Beck has the issue completely backwards. Is it intentional or in error?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Raatz
    Lv 7
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's hard to say if he's stupid or lying on net neutrality... since he's dumb and a liar... He's a preaching for people to be against their own best interests constantly. I really can't tell if it's on purpose.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Unless there is more to this net neutrality issue than I'm aware of, I thought it was all about bandwidth. I support the telecom companies stand on this issue. I've built and maintained these networks for years. It's not cheap. But I'm sure if politicians are involved their is something in the woodpile waiting to bite the public in the asss.

    Ya see here's the thing. The Telecom companies don't care and cannot see the specific content. the ISP's can, BIG difference. The Telco's care about bandwidth and if the ISP's are chewing up bandwidth with their product they should be charged accordingly. The ISP's don't want to spend the money, so they are trying to make this about ending free speech, when in fact that is a crock of dung.

    The Telecoms are NOT distorting....it's the ISP's

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Erika
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    on an identical time as you're appropriate in the form you're describing the "internet neutrality" act, in fact nonetheless that the government particularly has no organisation being in contact with it. it particularly is the previous foot interior the door argument. in case you enable even one infringement on the device that facilitates voters to talk freely then it particularly is plenty much less complicated to get the subsequent one. And the subsequent one. etc. on an identical time as what you say is in all probability (even probably) appropriate and not the present purpose, the undemanding premise of the foot interior the door remains sound. besides, it particularly is the different provisions in the invoice that are controversial. for occasion it could enable the president to snatch administration of the internet throughout the time of cases of national emergency - beats me how they might do so yet there it particularly is. and of direction that "emergency" is defined via the president. are you able to declare despotism? think of of it this way, could you prefer to have allowed Bush the authority to stick his nostril into the internet? In any vogue? i think that the answer to that isn't in basic terms "no" yet "hades no" to an incredible a lot of human beings. and that they could be appropriate. the probabilities for abuse from this act are merely too great to forget approximately approximately and could influence to many regulation abiding voters and should no longer be interior the hand of ANY flesh presser from any party. So are they applying hyperbole to drum up opposition. valuable. Are they incorrect in how they are claiming the invoice as written would have an influence? in all probability, a minimum of interior the quick term. yet they are commentators - no longer newsmen. And merely like politicians, they are below no criminal accountability to checklist the entire fact. in fact, merely like something of the main surprising flow media - who do declare to be newsmen - they tell the fact from their perspective. those 2 are merely portray a image of what the destiny would look like if this invoice passes. And regrettably it particularly is not any longer a exceedingly one.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Glenn Beck: Lying.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    he exists to distort the truth

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Oh I think he is flat out lying about what he is because he knows how stupid his audience is.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Lying is all he knows.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.