Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Something tells me that trying to regulate the internet isn't gonna blow over so well. Millions of angry people use it. They will try to fight for it. It's more than just a screen of texts and graphics, it's a life center of the modern man.

Go ahead, try to regulate or block internet. See what happens. However, you should be prepared for either very bloody actions or a repeat of history. This isn't the first time in the early decades of the modern era where the government believed they could control a legal "item" that millions enjoyed.

I suppose we can be prepared for Neo Prohibition, if what I read is as fact as it is hyped.

Of course, I'm not 100 percent sure what all the rules and regulation the government is trying to slap onto our world.

Wow. Actually, these new rules are the biggest step towards net neutrality so far. If it passes, companies won't be allowed to slow or block your access to websites for commercial gain. It doesn't go as far as some would like, but it certainly doesn't spell imminent dystopia.

I am glad to be living in a 3rd world country.

At 12/21/10 03:57 AM, iamgrimreaper wrote: I am glad to be living in a 3rd world country.

The Netherlands is not a third world country.
Unless your userpage is lying.

Uhm... does this affect Canada?

At 12/21/10 04:19 AM, Makeshift wrote: Uhm... does this affect Canada?

It would affect everyone, really. Think of all the US based sites you visit.

At 12/21/10 04:20 AM, HungarianSupermarket wrote:

At 12/21/10 04:19 AM, Makeshift wrote: Uhm... does this affect Canada?

It would affect everyone, really. Think of all the US based sites you visit.

The FCC rules do not involve web hosting, only web access. This won't directly impact people outside the US, but honestly you should wish it would.

For years, people have been worrying that ISPs would either slow or completely eliminate access to sites that did not pay them a large fee. Small websites would therefore be marginalized in favor of established, wealthy sites.

These rules make this scenario impossible. Yes, they could be better. But your internet rights just got stronger, not weaker.

Well there goes Newgrounds. I'm out.

*stands up and leaves the room*

At 12/21/10 04:37 AM, defegistor wrote:

At 12/21/10 04:20 AM, HungarianSupermarket wrote:

At 12/21/10 04:19 AM, Makeshift wrote: Uhm... does this affect Canada?

It would affect everyone, really. Think of all the US based sites you visit.

The FCC rules do not involve web hosting, only web access. This won't directly impact people outside the US, but honestly you should wish it would.

Oh. Hmm. Well it will still definitely affect people outside the US, as websites will no doubt have to change, or in worst case scenarios just shut down.

At 12/21/10 03:39 AM, Coop5245 wrote:

At 12/21/10 03:33 AM, Sectus wrote: You can't regulate the internet. If you try, hackers will fight back.

Anonymous better tear shit up then if this passes

This ^^^^^^, times %u221E

Of course they will, we know them too well.

"pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet."

They're both so brave and noble.

At 12/21/10 03:19 AM, HungarianSupermarket wrote:

At 12/21/10 03:18 AM, walterwagner wrote: In in Australia. SUCK MAHHH DICK

enjoy Obama Cockfags

What america does, australia follows.

I live in Australia, and 100% agree.
Once America was the fattest country .. Now...?

And I'm sure 4chan will have found a loophole within a matter of minutes.

At 12/21/10 05:03 AM, Brelm wrote: This thread just proves that newgrounds is full of stupid as fuck kids who think this is actually a bad thing for the internet.

Elaborate. You can't just walk in and say something like that and walk out.

I'm not American.

Suck on that shit.

At 12/21/10 11:35 AM, Hyrcia wrote: I'm not American.

Suck on that shit.

You do realize other countries want to make a profit on the internet as well, right ?

At 12/21/10 03:53 AM, defegistor wrote: Wow. Actually, these new rules are the biggest step towards net neutrality so far. If it passes, companies won't be allowed to slow or block your access to websites for commercial gain. It doesn't go as far as some would like, but it certainly doesn't spell imminent dystopia.

WaPo is filled with biased bullshit. I wouldn't trust that view on it too much, as I've heard a bunch of people questioning that article's credibility.

At 12/21/10 12:18 PM, ThePortalGuru wrote:

At 12/21/10 03:53 AM, defegistor wrote: Wow. Actually, these new rules are the biggest step towards net neutrality so far. If it passes, companies won't be allowed to slow or block your access to websites for commercial gain. It doesn't go as far as some would like, but it certainly doesn't spell imminent dystopia.

WaPo is filled with biased bullshit. I wouldn't trust that view on it too much, as I've heard a bunch of people questioning that article's credibility.

Well, here are some more. Each one notes pros and cons, since they are news articles rather than editorials.

The editorial you linked to is written by a very liberal internet activist, so his ideal proposals would never get enacted in the face of corporate opposition. These rules are a compromise. No one is happy, but it seems consumers get slightly more out of them than the ISPs.

At 12/21/10 02:41 AM, ThePortalGuru wrote: Basically, Blaze, internet companies will be able to regulate the content that internet users put up, restricting certain things they are/aren't allowed to say.

Oh yeah? just fucking watch me. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

ohai guise

Only in America.

My internet's slow as fuck anyway, any slower access to any sites and I might as well switch back to dial-up.

So essentially this law will censor anti-government and anti-AT&T etc. stuff on the Internet?

FUCK THEM BOTH!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!

This is against the 1st Amendment to our Constitution! This law cannot be passed! What right do companies like AT&T have to control what we post on the internet? This is a free country! I am so angry that people are allowed to have anti-war protests at military funerals, yet WE are being bleeped and blurred! This, my friends, is a large step towards corporations running our government and controlling us. I don't think that our fair and just Judicial System will let this happen.

At 12/21/10 01:06 PM, psychicpebble wrote: Is this the end of internet porn?

It may well be. We must pray that Anonymous won't let this happen.

The world is ruled by large corporations.

I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, but these rules have nothing to do with censorship. In fact, they are meant to help preserve the status quo of an open internet. Let me explain.

As you may know, the internet infrastructure is sagging under the huge demand for streaming videos and bandwidth intensive applications. Since it is very expensive to upgrade, the companies who maintain it, such as ATT, are desperate to reduce internet usage or raise more revenue. One solution, which ATT has already implemented on the iPhone, is to impose bandwidth caps. Another is to cease being "neutral."

Practically speaking, this means internet would be sold like cable TV. For $20 a month, you would get access to email. For an extra $10, you could get ESPN.com and FoxNews.com. If you want Youtube, you need to buy the "all access package" for $60 a month. If you want to read the New York Times, be prepared to wait five minutes for your page to load, if it does at all. Since it competes with FoxNews.com, which is paying a hefty fee to the ISP, the Times will be slowed to dialup speeds or blocked altogether.

The FCC rules forbid ISPs from implementing such a system. In other words, the rules endorse net neutrality. Also note that the rules only affect the plans your internet service providers can provide, not any content on the internet. You can keep on looking at boobies all you like.

What are the downsides? Well, although the rules prevent a "slow lane, fast lane" internet system, they do allow a "fast lane, very fast lane" system. They also don't do very much to oversee mobile internet. (Any reasonable person will tell you these faults will inevitably lead to fascism and/or communism.)

TL;DR: At least read a damn article before you decide Big Brother is taking over.

Just like porn trying to be censored, it won't happen.