In August 2017, Netflix (NFLX) offered for sale illegal marijuana all over the United States to promote another of its junk junkies-centered shows.
The offer was placed as an editorial article (an advertorial, in the professional slang) in multiple publications, including Variety (“Netflix made the point in its press materials that it’s not profiting off the sales of the product, which are for promotional purposes” — they should tell that to a judge), Mashable, Rolling Stone, and on Twitter. Continue reading Netflix is an illegal drugs dealer
Obama administration has passed mandatory net neutrality rules that force all internet users to pay for the Netflix internet traffic, whether they watch Netflix or not. This subsidy transfers at least $15B of citizens’ money into the Netflix pockets each year. The capitalized value of it exceeds $200B, which is higher than the NFLX market value. In exchange, Netflix made a $50M+ production deal with Obama.
Who said “corruption”? For the Demonrats, it is business as usual.
An axis of the Democrat Attorneys General, far left groups, and various opportunists filed a bunch of lawsuits, challenging the repeal of Obamanet and mandatory net neutrality. These challenges have been consolidated into the case 18-70506, pending before the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco (ouch!).
I filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of the FCC and the United States of America. The Motion states that Obamanet and mandatory net neutrality violate my rights, as well as the rights of almost every other American, under the Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution, and the I, IV, IX, and X Amendments. Continue reading Motion to Intervene in Support of Obamanet Repeal
The idea of government regulations of ISPs for net neutrality, expressed by Tim What’s up in 2003 and mostly adopted by the FCC in 2005, turned on its head under Obama’s administration, which turned it from a user’s right to an obligation. This mandatory net neutrality (“MNN”) was probably the worst violation of the First Amendment since the passage of the Bill of Rights. The supporters of MNN usually claim that it protects users against abuse by their ISPs. In fact, it “protects” users from exercising choice regarding content. The idea that ISPs have strong incentives to mistreat their paying customers is foolish. But even if an ISP does that, the customers have a large set of consumer protection laws on their side. Most cases cited by MNN supporters are lies or misinterpretations. Somehow, consumer protection laws seem to fail (or are not applied) to protect consumers against Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc.
We access the internet media under absurd rules, unprecedented for any other media: a typical user paying annual internet access fees of $1,000 cannot choose toward what internet content and services this money would be applied! Obama’s FCC has already made the choice for us. And the choice reflects influence of the far-left groups. Continue reading The Web Without Mandatory Net Neutrality
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
The suppression of conservative websites in Google organic search results has been documented many times. Continue reading Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”
Final update: Google has permanently banned me from AdWords:
“We’ve confirmed that your account is in violation of our AdWords policies. Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated. Please avoid creating additional AdWords accounts, as they will be subjected to the same suspension.
Our support team will not be able to give you any more specifics on the suspension.”
(Updated on January 9 after the initial publication on January 8.)
Google suspended my Adwords account two days ago. Continue reading Google Has Suspended My Adwords Account
The FCC repeals Obamanet, but throws out net neutrality. That demonstrates difficulties of repealing anything with the name starting with Obama. Obamanet walked all over the First Amendment. Unfortunately, real net neutrality becomes a collateral damage in the process. Continue reading FCC Repeals Obamanet and Throws Out Compulsory Net Neutrality
In 2015, in a vote along partisan lines, the FCC reclassified the Internet to be a telecommunication service subject to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act (the infamous FCC-15-24 Obamanet order). This was done under the pretext of net neutrality, but had nothing to do with net neutrality. Google participated in the preparation of this order, was fully aware of it, did not object. Rumor has it that Eric Schmidt personally wrote parts of the order, and broadened it. Then Google took full advantage of this reclassification and ignored its obligations stemming from it. Continue reading Google Liability under Title II
This article continues Obamanet vs. Net Neutrality, published in the American Thinker. It is about how Obamanet (incorrectly called net neutrality) all but destroyed the freedom of press. The new FCC, chaired by Ajit Pai, voted to repeal and replace it. The repealing order has not been published yet, but already encounters fierce resistance. Thus, we will live under Obamanet for months or years. It is important to understand it in depth, because it is much worse than thought even by conservatives.
The announcement that the FCC would regulate the internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act caused righteous outrage (for example: Like Obamacare? You Will Love ObamaNet, NRO, February 2015). The full text was published weeks later and probably went unnoticed. It’s a pity because saddling the internet with antiquated regulations was peanuts compared to its other effects: Continue reading Obamanet vs Freedom of Press
With unbelievable audacity, a group of 21 individuals declared themselves “the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet” in a foolish letter to senators and representatives (1), and protested the repeal of Obamanet. The fake news media has not contested their claims (this CNBC article is an example), and even used their letter as an argument against the Obamanet repeal.
These individuals, some of whom would not recognize an IP address, are like Baron Munchausen, Continue reading 21 Self-Proclaimed Internet Creators Join Al Gore!
“Two and a half years ago, I said that net neutrality was ‘Obamacare for the Internet.’ At the time, the Obama administration, in its typically deceptive manner, had conflated net neutrality — a worthy idea, as originally defined, to protect an open internet — with reclassifying the internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, a burdensome, behemoth of a law that gives all sorts of authority to the government …” – Senator Ted Cruz, May 1, 2017
On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission chaired by courageous Ajit Pai voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Contrary and opposite to the fake news media’s claims, the Obamanet order weakened or eliminated net neutrality, which had been established as FCC regulatory policy in 2005 by the Bush administration. Continue reading Repeal of Fake Net Neutrality aka Obamanet
In the battle for fake net neutrality, there are also non-political motives behind this disguised attempt to take away our freedom. These ideas were best expressed by George Takei, an actor and activist, in a 2014 interview with WaPo that touched on the subject of net neutrality (2):
“Brian Fung, WaPo: Would you be open to paying a toll — or would AARP be open to paying a toll — to Internet providers to reach your audience?
George Takei: Well, this audience was built not by them, but by our efforts, by our creativity. And once we have that audience built, they want to charge us for it? … a policy has to be created to deal with the fact that access to large numbers of people was built by us, using platform.”
Apparently, some in Hollywood regard us as property they have built and own. They want the government to protect their “ownership rights.” Continue reading We Pay ISPs to Use the Internet, NOT to be Used or “Reached”
The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group. Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin. From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis is mine):
“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …”
Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”
Quotes from dissenting opinions on the Federal Communication Commission “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24 (the Obamanet order).
“Americans love the free and open Internet. We relish our freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, both at home and abroad. So it is sad to witness the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control.
It shouldn’t be this way. For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a ‘vibrant and competitive free market . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’ And dating back to the Clinton Administration, every FCC Chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”
“But today, the FCC abandons those policies. … It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct … . So why is the FCC changing course? Why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? … We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told us to do so.”
“The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” Continue reading Net Neutrality Realism vs. Obamanet