Comments on: Christian Coalition wants some of that ole time Innernet

By: Faank

Faank — Thu, 25 May 2006 04:04:53 +0000

Are you SURE she didn’t actually say that? Sounds about right to me – if everybody would just stick to what they do best (the CCA to promoting Christian principles and Moby to selling his songs out to the highest commercial bidder) we’d be better off in this debate. As it is, I’m having a hard time sympathizing with any group that comes out in favor of net neutrality, and the CCA jumping on board sure isn’t going to change that. By the way…what’s Eve’s MySpace url?

By: MRT

MRT — Thu, 25 May 2006 00:54:29 +0000

The CCA wants to protect websites from the evil telecommunication companies. Yeah right. This is probably all about the CCA having the ear of the government so they can block websites they don’t agree with. This is not even an issue that should be debated, they are demanding legislation for things that haven’t even happened yet.

By: frank04

frank04 — Wed, 24 May 2006 14:09:35 +0000

Amusing post. I usually find myself at odds with the CCA, and this is no exception. Just as I don’t care what REM has to say on this issue, I don’t care about the CCA, that is unless they have recently become experts on tiered access or differentiated service, which I doubt.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:32:12 +0000

Well, she ddn’t actually say this, and there are a lot of Christians who have no use for the CCA.

By: Net Chick

Net Chick — Wed, 24 May 2006 03:42:00 +0000

As a Christian, I can not even imagine this actually coming out of someone’s mouth – much less the associations’s representative. Please know, we are not all like this. I am against net neutrality and feel the government has no place in regulating the internet, under any circumstance.

By: calamityjane

calamityjane — Tue, 23 May 2006 23:40:46 +0000

Holy crap. Blogs re: NN don’t have me laughing out loud that often. “Gimme that snake to handle”…*snort*

By: thunderrolls

thunderrolls — Tue, 23 May 2006 13:45:44 +0000

For me, anytime the CCA gets involved with an issue, I automatically raise a red flag. With this, this post (which is pretty hilarious) doesn’t miss the mark by too much. It seems like political favors are being called in to align on this issue when, for me, it’s a real non-issue. Put regulations on the internet when and if there’s ever an _actual_ reason for doing it, not because of possible abuses in the _future_ and because Moby says so.

By: watcher

watcher — Tue, 23 May 2006 03:20:03 +0000

everywhere

How right you are! The threat to content on the Internet doesn’t come from the ISPs. Right now the government may be content to just get their hands on how the Internet is run, but once they have control of that, how long before they want to regulate what each site does, posts, promotes, or explains.

I wonder how supportive Google and Microsoft will be of Internet Neutrality when they’re the ones on the chopping block?

By: everywhere

everywhere — Tue, 23 May 2006 02:07:24 +0000

Good stuff. If the Christian Coalition is so concerned about certain political content being blocked, why are they interested in having the government regulate the Internet? once the government gets involved, we can kiss any notion of “neutrality” good bye. This is a prime example of a misinformed group adding to the misinformation campaign surrounding an issue.

By: Luv2Box

Luv2Box — Tue, 23 May 2006 00:42:29 +0000

This NN has really twisted my head and I think this may be the funniest posting I have read since the Democrats and MoveOn.org made it such an issue, so THANKS! With CCA joining, now everybody has got be shaking their head, saying, ‘huh?’ There is something just not right about MoveOn.org and CCA getting in bed on this issue. That alone tells me this issue is not even ready to be discussed!