Michelle Obama says internet access should be 'universal right'

[Redfairen]

Source: The Guardian

Michelle Obama has declared that access to the internet should be a universal right, in a rare and controversial foray into the world of international politics during a cultural visit to China.

The US first lady, who is on a week-long trip to the communist state with her daughters and mother, risked upsetting her hosts in Beijing by declaring access to information as a birthright. During a speech at Peking University's Stanford Centre, she called for greater freedoms while refraining from a direct attack on the controls over information in China.

.......

Obama told a crowd of about 200 students, most of whom were from the US: "It is so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media. My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens, and it's not always easy. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world."

She added: "When it comes to expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information – we believe those are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet."



Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/michelle-obama-internet-access-universal-right

[TBF]

1. Then why in the world are they supporting TPP?

Why You Should Care

TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens.

The US Trade Rep is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the US entertainment and pharmaceutical industries agendas, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[truedelphi]

8. Oh, Michelle uses her position to provide the distraction -

"Look over here, at my pretty organic garden that I am planting."

And "Don't look over there, at the men my husband is appointing this week, Vilsack, and Mike Taylor. (Both men were cloned from the loins of Monsanto's death crops.)

[proverbialwisdom]

16. Check it out.

Michael Pollan ?@michaelpollan Mar 18
"First Lady Has Food Industry in a Frenzy" - http://NationalJournal.com http://bit.ly/Otchvo

http://www.nationaljournal.com/outside-influences/first-lady-has-food-industry-in-a-frenzy-20140316

First Lady Has Food Industry in a Frenzy
Michelle Obama's push for better nutrition is bringing sweeping changes to agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, schools, and American homes.

By Jerry Hagstrom
March 16, 2014

By many accounts, the Obama administration is leading the most aggressive campaign to improve the nation's eating habits in many decades. If the President and first lady have their way, the American people will cut down on sugar and sodium and eat more whole grains, lean meat, low-fat dairy products, and fruits and vegetables by the time he leaves office and in the years to come.

Many of those changes could result in multibillion-dollar shifts in how the government and consumers spend their money on food. Perhaps just as important, the efforts to reduce sodium, sugar, and fat will force companies to make changes in how they prepare, store, and ship food. But many of those initiatives are under pressure from food companies and from members of Congress.

On Friday, in a speech to the Partnership for a Healthier America—a private-sector group set up to push the administration's nutrition objectives—the first lady said:

"Because of what we have all done together, today, 32 million kids are getting healthier school meals. Tens of thousands of schools are removing junk food ads from their classroom. Fifteen thousand child-care centers will be providing healthier snacks and getting those cute little kids up and moving. Food and beverage companies have cut 6.4 trillion calories from their products. We will soon have better nutrition labels on 700,000 food items. Hundreds of new or renovated grocery stores are reaching millions of people in underserved communities."

But the very same day, at a House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, the opposition surfaced.

<>

[truedelphi]

29. All the platitudes in the world issued by Michelle will not save

This Administration from being remembered as the Admin that will be forcing our grand kids having to eat the fusarium and vomitoxin contaminated foods that this president's appointees are allowing to flourish.

The first lady can cancel every activity but her promotion of healthy eating, but those speeches are not two percent as effective in terms of real results in the nation's farmlands as her husband making decent choices regarding the top posts at Agriculture department, and the top positions at the FDA.

Two things to point out:

One: Our nation's ability to be protected from lasting harm from GM foods is time sensitive. Already so many millions of acres of cropland have been contaminated, that in the event of a Presidency where the GM stuff is outlawed, the pollen will exist in such extreme quantities that the GM stuff will continue to flourish, even without being directly planted.

Although the public is getting the jist of the meaning of GM foods, all Industry needs at this point is to keep someone like Obama in office for another year or two. Then there is no turning back. Pollen could care less about the laws we re-write. Once GM pollen is out there, game over.

Two: Many people will say, "Well you need to tell the President and have the scientists, like Don Huber, tell the President about the dangers of Gm foods."

But the President already knows the arguments - after all, has Michelle never talked to him about the importance of organics?? (Of course, the totally cynical among us think she could care less about organics, and that both of them are CIA driven career people. Having one person in a partnership say X while the other states Not X is a CIA driven tactic.)

And repeatedly he has allowed himself, like in so many other areas of his decision making, to be persuaded by those with the Big bucks. He could have asked for face time with the activists, but he could care less about activists. (Unless they are from the Crimea!)

So that when the activists against Gm crops persuaded Dept of Ag head, Vilsack, that he should insist on a buffer zone between the alfalfa crops that are GM and the rest of the croplands of America. Vilsack was agreeable to this idea, so the industry-controlled WH immediately sent over a dozen WH staff members to twist Vilsack's arm!

So Obama is no innocent. He intends to get the going-away present similar to the one that Mr Clinton got from Monsanto and Big Banking Interests, the promise of $ 100,000 every time he appears before a corporate podium.

[proverbialwisdom]

43. We mainly find GMOs in processed foods as additives from corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets.

Or in actual foods derived from canola, cottonseed, corn (cooking oils, chips) or soy (tofu, soy milk) not specified as organic or non-gmo, plus any dairy containing rBGH. Easily avoided, all, especially following policies advocated in article above. Don't you get it? Indirect confrontation will work. That and consumers organizing and makin' noise about what they will no longer tolerate (like 'yoga mat' in Subway bread) or gmo salmon (below).

It's not reasonable to ask any one person to stand between a corporation and billions (above), but we can. Yes, we can. No cliche, rather an engaged informed public. Check it out.

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2953/kroger-safeway-join-trend-away-from-gmo-food

Kroger, Safeway join trend away from GMO food
March 3rd, 2014

Largest U.S. grocery stores will not sell genetically engineered salmon

The two largest grocery stores in the United States, Kroger (NYSE: KR) and Safeway (NYSE: SWY), have made commitments to not sell GMO salmon, according to statements released today by Friends of the Earth and a coalition of more than 30 consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups, including Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch and Consumers Union. These stores join other leading supermarket chains -- now totaling over 9,000 stores nationwide -- that have already rejected the GMO salmon that is still under review by FDA.

<>

The total number of companies committed to not sell genetically engineered salmon now stands at more than 60 retailers, including Target, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, H-E-B, Meijer, Hy-Vee, Marsh, Giant Eagle, and now Safeway and Kroger, representing more than 9,000 grocery stores across the country.

"This is good news, as FDA's human and environmental assessments of the safety of this genetically engineered fish are both seriously flawed,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the public policy arm of Consumer Reports.

Nearly 2 million people -- including scientists, fishermen, business owners, and consumers -- have written to the FDA opposing the approval of genetically engineered salmon and in response to Aqua Bounty’s revised draft environmental assessment in 2013. Despite this outcry, the FDA is still considering approving GE salmon and has said it will likely not be labeled, so consumers will have no way of knowing if the fish they are feeding their families is genetically engineered. At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish are currently under development, and the FDA’s decision on this genetically engineered salmon application will set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals (including cows, chickens and pigs) to enter the global food market.

"Today's announcement by major grocery retailers makes it even more clear that there is no demand for GE salmon," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "It's time for the FDA to deny the application for this unsustainable and unnecessary new genetically engineered food."

<>

[truedelphi]

49. The only part of your spiel I would have trouble with is

Where you list all the things that contain the additives from the GM crips, and then you say it is easy to avoid Gm.

Well yes and no.

Yes if you have switched your household to an all Gm free household,with only fresh produce, home made millet or rice bread, but who stays home all the time? (Wheat is usually not Gm, but it is heavily sprayed with RoundUp and so that should be avoided also.)

But am glad you reminded me of the website,a s connecting them will be worthwhile.

[proverbialwisdom]

75. FYI: 1) it's not hard and 2) it's more important for some than others.

It's ok for old farts to be as careless and clueless with their own health as they want after learning about the subject online, as this information is not in the MSM. Go for it if there's no concern about paying for it later with poor health. OTOH, other groups may reach different conclusions and act accordingly to the detriment of the 'food' industry. Tough break for them, that internet.

http://www.news.wisc.edu/22637

Study suggests potential association between soy formula and seizures in children with autism
March 13, 2014 by David Tenenbaum

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4669069

http://legiscan.com/CT/bill/HB06527

Status - Completed Legislative Action
Status: Passed on June 7 2013 - 100% progress
Action: 2013-06-25 - Signed by the Governor
Text: Latest bill text (Chaptered) [HTML]

Summary
To require any infant formula or baby food sold or intended for sale in the state of Connecticut to include clear and conspicuous labeling if the infant formula or baby food contains any genetically engineered materials.

Backstory: http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/mar/12/labeling_of_gmo_baby_food_and_baby_formula/

[ballyhoo]

17. What is hard to believe is that she thinks that others

don't see the diversions. I wonder if Xi Jinping was rolling his eyes in his head. When TPP comes it will be all over but the shoutin'. And it is coming. There will pretty much be nowhere left to hide. Course, with the US Navy now getting information on parking tickets via LinX is there really anywhere to hide now.

[truedelphi]

25. Glad you put in the last sentence of your post -

I'll be waiting for the battle carrier to come steaming into my driveway to collect on those tickets!


But the reason for the diversion - people like upbeat news, and it is fun, I guess, for many Democrats to focus on Missus Oval Office, rather than the deplorable control the One Percent holds on the President.

[ballyhoo]

28. I understand. And know you are right. But as I

get older and compare the world in 1957 to now, I wonder what happened and it steers my thought. I voted for Obama twice. Maybe part of the reason for her food talks is that Dad now works at Target selling laundry detergent rather than P&G doing 5-year plans. Now all Dad can afford is cheap food and tap water.

[djean111]

2. Cool! So she is against the TPP, and will advocate for the FCC to give us back net neutrality!

Right?

[Doctor_J]

3. Heh

call me when that happens. 12D chess or something means we have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and meet the transnationals half way and deal with the extremists in our party. The excuse is in there somewhere.

[jtuck004]

6. It's really too bad the manufacturing of excuses doesn't create the kinds of jobs real manufacturing

does.

We would be HOT! , wait...not that funny

[Ken Burch]

12. If it did...they'd offshore the excuse plants. n/t.

[jtuck004]

13. Yeah, there is that.

dang I wish that was funny

[uppityperson]

4. I hate to say it, but huh?

[closeupready]

5. I just love her. This is yet more reason to, IMHO.

If there is anyone more American and patriotic than her, I can't honestly think of who that would be. K&R

[truedelphi]

9. Loving the distracting factor of the middle-class destroying duo

Might feel good, but I would rather have a couple in the WH who realized that their Monsanto supporting appointments and their TPP supporting activities cause terrible harm to real people.

[sulphurdunn]

27. Walk down any busy street in America

and you'll dump into more patriotic people in five minutes than she is. Geeze!

[Cha]

37. You're calling our First Lady unpatriotic? Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah,

on rw boards.

[sulphurdunn]

44. Read what I wrote,

before putting words in my mouth. OK? The key phrase was "more Patriotic". The word "more" is a comparative modifier. Also, the insinuation that I am a right winger for challenging your superlative statement about the first lady's patriotism is an ad hominem fallacy. Look it up at the same time you check out the definition of "more." You might also want to compare the differences between nationalism, patriotism and cultism.

[phleshdef]

47. What you wrote was garbage because you have no clue how patriotic Michelle Obama is

[sulphurdunn]

54. Well, if you can find a

patriot-o-meter somewhere, and if Mrs. Obama can be show to be the most patriotic American, I'll be happy to retract my rebuttal of that claim implied by the post I originally responded to. Otherwise, I'll remain skeptical.

[phleshdef]

55. Patriotism is subjective bullshit to begin with.

[sulphurdunn]

59. That was my original point.

To suggest that someone is the most (fill in the blank) based upon opinion is subjective bullshit.

[phleshdef]

61. That didnt sound like your point.

The way you put it, it definitely came off as an insinuation that Michelle Obama is lacking patriotism.

Aside from that, I'm not even sure why you bothered to comment. The post in question didn't say anything that justified that kind of response.

[sulphurdunn]

68. I chose to respond

because conferring sainthood on politicians (and the First Lady is a politician) substitutes personality for critical thinking about policy. However well intentioned, such attitudes are a threat to political objectivity and deserve a response. My response was a simple analogy, was civil and short. What I find disturbing is all the rude fuss it stirred up.

[phleshdef]

72. Making slightly hyperbolic positive comments about figures and personalities people like....

...is normal and it doesn't equate to conferring sainthood. And no, it isn't a threat to political objectivity, that's nutty. People who are interested in having a politically objective discussion will do so regardless of what kind of praise or criticism others heap on certain public figures.

There is nothing wrong with being a fan.

[Cha]

50. yeah, you're the one who has no fucking clue how "patriotic" Michelle is but

you jump right in with shit about her on the net.

[sulphurdunn]

52. I'm sure I have as much of a clue

as you do. You started with the Obama worship. Your sort of raging fan idolatry is why political messaging is fashioned for low information chumps.

[phleshdef]

58. Cha never claimed to know the full extent of her patriotism. YOU did.

And now you bust out the "Obama worship" dog whistle. Why don't you just get off everyone's ass? The poster that initially was praising Michelle Obama didn't say anything that justified your dickish attitude towards them.

[sulphurdunn]

69. Gawd!

Enough! I apologize. I'll say anything if you will just STFU. OK?

[Cha]

60. Nah, you're just some anonymous poster on the internet who

thinks they know shit about the First Lady.

[sulphurdunn]

66. Nah,

I'm someone who knows he knows no more or less about the First Lady than any other peasant. It is absurd to propose that someone who praises the First Lady for a trait she may or may not possess knows more about her than someone who doesn't. Try and grasp that concept.

[phleshdef]

71. It was an innocuous statement. The fact that you are so offended by it, that it was even on your...

...radar of concerns is what is absurd.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

51. Yes, because FLOTUS is completely an American hater. Are you a birther too?

Truther?

Come on. . .Townhall.com is that way --------------------->

[sulphurdunn]

53. Are you capeable of rational thought,

or just name calling? The Townhall folks live in the same all is black or all is white reality you do. They're also just as infantile. There was a time when most Democrats actually had 3 digit IQs. Sadly, those days are past.

[phleshdef]

56. Infantile? You think attacking someone's sense of patriotism is adult discourse?

Spare the lectures about rational thought when that's your idea of rational discourse. You simply have no place to talk.

[sulphurdunn]

63. I never attacked anyone's sense

of anything. But when someone begins confusing their own opinions for facts, I have plenty of room to talk. To have suggested that no one is more patriotic than Michelle Obama was ridiculous. That in and of itself is no big deal unless it becomes a substitute for critical thought. A democracy can only function when policy supersedes personality.

[phleshdef]

70. " To have suggested that no one is more patriotic than Michelle Obama was ridiculous."

I seriously doubt the poster posting that meant it in a literal sense. Normal people use exaggerations like when complimenting people they like. Its pretty standard human communication.

"So and so is the nicest person I ever met"
"That guy/girl is the hottest guy/girl on the planet"
"This is the worst day of my life"
"I don't think you can find anyone better than such and such than so and so"

This is just how people talk. We normally say these kinds of things for effect and most people know to not take those kind've statements literally.

[L0oniX]

73. ...and were you a school bully?

[dipsydoodle]

7. Other countries may not have the density of population that the US does.

In case she hadn't noticed.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. The U.S. is hardly a dense country - it ranks 182 internationally in that regard.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. This thread cracks me up. The haters are so bitter they now are attacking the First Lady...

Really, the only difference between a great deal of the far left and the far right is that the left tries to pretend their hatred for Obama isn't real.

[TBF]

18. I like Michelle - just strikes me as odd that she would

say this while TPP is out there in the background. If POTUS does not support the provisions of TPP that may limit access to the Internet then I wish he'd come out and say so. If you or Pro have something to offer on that I'd be happy to read it. Thanks.

[closeupready]

31. +1. Saturday, March 22, must be Bizarro Day on DU.

I've read every post here, and I still don't get why she's being so heavily criticized here on a board that is supposed to be at least SOMEWHAT partisan, except that some people just enjoy complaining.

[Cha]

38. They're so Bit-ta got a poster calling her unpatriotic.. whine whine whine..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=762514

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. Meh.

You transformed 'there are lots of people more patriotic' into 'she's unpatriotic'.

Now personally, I think 'patriotism olympics', whereby you go around comparing how 'patriotic' people are is silly, but it's disingenuous to change people's words and claim they said what you want them to have said, rather than what they actually did.

The only one who explicitly said 'unpatriotic' was you.

It's as bad as the logic in that car insurance commercial where the woman says 'then how did I get this safe driving check?' after the guy says 'men are better drivers'. Whether or not we agree that 'men are better drivers', that statement has nothing to do with whether one individual (the woman) is 'good enough a driver' to get a safe driving check. (And the guy is probably wrong anyway, but you'd check with someone who knows the stats to prove it, not introduce one anecdote.)

I also think 'patriotism' is overrated. I'd rather have people doing what's 'right' for humanity as a whole and the environment we depend on, rather than spending all of their energy worrying about one specific geopolitical unit.

I consider the current FL probably the best since Roosevelt, btw, but I'm not going to go twisting the words of people who disagree with my assessment so that I can insult them.

[Cha]

67. Yeah, you're right.. my bad.. that's the way I read it. But, I see that according to

genius there that she's only less patriotic than 5 random people on the street.

[JoePhilly]

42. They'll be complaining about her dresses next.

[Kild the Radio Star]

14. Absolutely

But not for my 9-year-old daughter.

[alp227]

15. Y'know I would agree with her in principle, but in the real world

such universal access would empower bad ideas. look how many Alex Jones and Freeper and ant-vaccine and kook types pollute the blogosphere and comments sections of news sites. that's the trade-off in a first world nation with widespread literacy and information access: the stupidity outweighs the reasonable.

[TBF]

20. "Such universal access would empower bad ideas" -

ok. So you are against freedom of speech? That's the very first amendment.

[alp227]

24. On the internet the dumb outweighs the smart.

Free speech is an inalienable right. The means of speech in this case an internet connection...whole different story.

Do you think the conspiracy nut types who pollute the web were as empowered in the time before electronic communications, as they are now?

[TBF]

26. I think that we should not limit

access to the Internet. Period.

[proverbialwisdom]

35. She's right, you know, and therein lies the hope for change.

In a 15-minute speech she delivered before a mix of American students studying at Peking University and Chinese students who have studied in the United States, she called on young people to be “citizen diplomats” and stressed the importance of the free flow of ideas over the Internet and through the media.

“That's how we discover the truth,” she said to the crowd of about 200, which included a handful of officials from major universities in the U.S. and China. “That’s how we learn what’s really happening in our communities, our country and our world. And that’s how we decide which values and ideas we think are best — by questioning and debating them vigorously.”

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

41. I'd look at priorities...

I'd rather have a declared universal right to food and clean water, and work on things like 'universal internet access' after we've got things people actually have to have to stay alive taken care of.

The internet is a great resource, but Maslow's Hierarchy says you need to address survival before anything else...

[grasswire]

76. exactly

I'm so glad you're here on DU.

My first thought was no....shelter and food should be the absolute and inviolable birthright of everyone born on earth.

Access to technology is pretty much still a first world issue. When children and the elderly are starving and homeless, we simply can't focus on Internet access as equal to food and shelter.

[ancianita]

19. If she's right, then the only way that can happen is if it is a publicly owned, controlled utility.

[Swede Atlanta]

21. No Michelle, I don't think access to the Internet is a "right"......

certainly not before we protect people from persecution on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, etc. and ensure everyone has a decent roof over their head, nutritious food to eat and access to affordable health care. These in my opinion are "rights".

Technology, and specifically the Internet, facilitates the open exchange of ideas and access to information. I would consider it a very important commodity but don't know I would equate it with a right.

[phleshdef]

62. So having access to the modern standards of information delivery and communication shouldn't be...

...a right?

[TeeYiYi]

22. Tsk. Doesn't that 'pretty gal' know her limits?...

TYY

[proverbialwisdom]

36. +1

[reformist2]

23. Right intentions, but kind of misses the point. What we all have a right to is a basic income!

[TBF]

30. Access to information - education if you will -

these are critical. I think it goes right in hand with right to shelter, food & health care.

I would have no problem with proper taxation and minimum income either - those are good things.

[truedelphi]

64. Hear! Hear!

And it would not be hard for concerned officials to see to it that our jobs are returned. For instance: If Sallie Mae wants to remain the privatized agency in charge of student loans, than Sallie Mae shouldn't have third world people working for the agency.

[Akoto]

32. Man, there's some Michelle hate going on here. As if she decides TPP policy. n/t

[Cha]

39. Really.. but, lets get the hate out on her anyway.. call her unpatriotic..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=762514

[Guaguacoa]

48. ??? English is not my first language

and I can see nobody said unpatriotic in that post. Saying "Bump into someone more patriotic" is nothing in the way of saying unpatriotic. I see it's not only the rw'ers that are dishonest.

[Cha]

57. Right, my bad.. there's degrees of "patriotism" and Michelle is 5 degrees less than

anyone you bump into on the street.. according to some anonymous poster on the net.

[Guaguacoa]

84. Again Dishonesty, the poster did

not say ANYONE you bump into. It's not only right wingers that are dishonest. Twisting someone's words to insult them is hateful.

[Cha]

85. Oh for fucks sake quitcher whining.

[Guaguacoa]

86. Oh for Fuck's sake you are the one that's whining AND lying. Get a life and try going honest.nt

[Cha]

87. You poor thing..

[Guaguacoa]

88. You sniveling little twit.

Lying to insult someone is pathetic.

[Igel]

33. Context matters. As does tradition.

I don't think she's saying it's a positive right, one that governments have to provide or ensure. That's one meaning of "open access". If I'm unable to afford access because I can't afford having cables strung across the Mojave or pay Cox or Comcast, I'm "denied" "open access."

She's expressed them as positive rights but they're negative rights. Governments shouldn't block access to the Internet. This is a different kettle of fish, makes sense in context, and doesn't make her husband out as a hypocrite. TPP and net neutrality don't come into play.

Think about it this way: If governments are forced to provide Internet access, that means they're responsible for the cables, routers, etc., etc. Why stop there? What if they can't afford Internet connections? Why, governments can provide that. What if they don't have browsers or equipment for browsers. Why not have governments provide those, either? Then there are Internet skills.

If governments simply shouldn't block access, easy-peasy. They don't have any laws in place that block access.


Does this jibe with the rest of what she said? Let's see ... Freedom of religion. If governments have to provide freedom of religion, then presumably they need to provide the locations for religious activity. Government-provided churches, mosques, temples, groves, etc. But what's a location without the accoutrements. Government-provides chalices and chasubles, crucifixes and washing stations are next on the list. And without the materials needed for services, what's the point? So the government becomes the biggest provider of Bibles, Tanakhs and Talmuds, Qur'aans and Ahadith. Etc.

And freedom of expression? I want my government-provided radio station, blog, and print media--at least a page of print, thank you, tabloid-sized, and 30 minutes of air-time (even split, radio/tv ... preferably satellite radio).

She may well want more of this kind of thing and think that ultimately it should be a universal right. But that's a far cry from declaring it a "universal right." Context matters.

[truedelphi]

65. Also, you might want to check out someof the many fine posts that the EFF has written

About the TPP and what will happen to the internet if it goes through.

Articles like this one:

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[Sienna86]

34. Could she tell Comcast ? nt

[onehandle]

45. Fuck Yes! Nationalize Communications!...

Finance, Healthcare, Pharma, and Energy.

[adirondacker]

82. +5000! nt

[Skittles]

46. she is correct

internet access is not a luxury, it is a necessity

[L0oniX]

74. She is correct! We all use inet like we used to use the USPO to pay bills.

We all need to have at least a minimal connection to do our banking and bill paying ...safely ...and it is a necessity for public education and an informed society.

[uppityperson]

78. Libraries are good places to hook up on the internet.

[durablend]

83. Until TPTB ban that

Can't have that "One Nation Under Comcast" (pat pending) if people can get on teh internets without paying for it, y'know.

[hughee99]

79. It certainly would make it easier for the NSA to track everyone if only they could all

get on the internet.

[Amonester]

80. Shhh!

It's a secret.

agent m...

busy decrypting?

[marshall]

81. Access doesn't necessarily mean free speech

It just means being able to read. That content may or may not be filtered and otherwise controlled by agencies charged with maintaining approved social order.