| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (146)

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:16PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
But... but... corporations are malicious, evil overlords who have positively no incentive to retain their customer bases!
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:48PM Randomessa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
These big companies already *are* entrenched. There is a cable company who owns *all* the cable lines in my city and handles all the billing, regardless of who you order the cable service from. I am not in some remote village; the options are to deal with them or do without. So much for this vaunted free market that ripples monopolies that I keep hearng about.
Reply

Posted: Apr 14th 2010 11:27PM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem with your third option is that Comcast, like many ISP and cable companies, is a literal monopoly in most places and for some people their jobs and/or their schoolwork require an internet connection.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
You know, I come to Massively to read about video games and don't need someone's skewed view of politics. I'm disappointed in Massively for allowing this. While I have my opinions of Net Neutrality, and support everyone's rights to speak their mind, I don't think that this is the proper forum to present it. Not all the Massively readers have the same world view and to bring politics into a gaming site in such a caustic tone is troubling.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:38PM wampa stompa said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
DW, that's just ignorant.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:42PM DiscordSK said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm not really sure you read the article. Its pretty obvious if you had, that this is the perfect forum for this discussion. You are on a website that discusses games that for all intents and purposes live on the internet, and are directly affected by any changes to that enviroment.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 5:42PM AlamoeJones said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's why this is an editorial. They have quite a few of them on this site. You probably just haven't noticed because they don't usually take on heavy issues like this. What a maroon.

Great article Sera. Along with your past articles about the portrayal of women in mmos and sexuality in mmos you're really leading an important discussion.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 9:58AM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
How is what he said ignorant? He is completely correct in what he has said. This is definitely the wrong place to twist articles to your view of politics. I'm pretty sure me and everyone else who comes here comes here for news about MMO's, and while this is MMO relevant we don't need someone trying to twist it with their political beliefs. Leave that crap for elsewhere.

Likewise I'm fairly irritated/surprised that Massively would allow for something of this nature to be published.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:33PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Wow Seraphina. Look at someone pretending to be a real journalist. Do us a favor and STFU about politics. I don't care one way or another. If I want news I will go to other sources. I come here to hear about MMOs. I don't need your liberal psycho-babble assaulting me first thing when I load up massively.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:34PM DiscordSK said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Watching Fox News is akin to a televised version of Chicken Little. If they aren't claiming the sky is falling every 30 minutes, then you know its a slow news day for them.

That aside, Net Neutrality is a big deal. We are basiclly between a rock and a hard place. Do we want government regulating the interenet.. probably not. BUT, as it stands right now we have private citizens with private interests doing that already. Personally, I find the the latter more scary.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:33PM Lateris said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
The FCC has found a loophole.

I support net neutrality but I am against big Government regulations. In fact I am respectfully not for big government at all. So any regulations for internet use is only a way that these companies will rape the American consumer. These companies have been trying to cash in on their form of regulating bandwidth since the dot com days. I am really glad you wrote this article. Politics is really starting to hit our arena as well because of the millions of dollars generated from subscriptions.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 6:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Government regulation in the interest of the public good is part of the whole social contract. This isn't "big government", it's our government doing right by us by not allowing corporations/private interests to control the flow of and quality of information on the greatest creation of our time - the Internet.

Opponents are essentially splitting hairs in the interests of politics and money. The government has a very valid purpose and responsibility here. The corporate interests that are eager to prevent that from happening want citizens to jump to exaggerated conclusions (any regulation = communist socialist take over by a black president etc, etc).

It's very simple to me: the Internet should remain as open as possible. Let parents (et al) regulate beneath that umbrella. I am paying my ISP for access to the Internet - plain and simple. That's all they should give me for my money. I shouldn't be subjected to quality of service alterations that are in their financial interests. Keep that shit separate.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:44PM GenericPerson said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Excellent article. This type of news gets lost in the garbage that outlets typically report. As much as I *love* hearing about the Gosselin's, Dancing with the Stars or any slanted view article bashing a political opponent I love hearing about what might be coming my way soon.

As for DW's comment, if you hadn't seen it here would you have seen this on any news outlet. After all this topic will effect a major portion of our gaming community very soon and if we don't start protecting our privileges now we may lose them down the road.

When the internet is outlawed only outlaws will have internet.

Posted: Apr 8th 2010 1:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
What concerns me most is that this is just a backdoor way to give Corporations even more control over the information we're allowed to share and receive.

When is the last time any of you took out a television ad to state your point of view? Exactly. Money talks, and with this move it is all about the bottom dollar.

This could potentially give Corporations like Comcast or Cox the ability to determine and control what information you can receive. And should that control lead to more profits for them... they wouldn't be crying about that.

What is worse is that if I were in a rural area where only one ISP is available (IE, like Comcast in several areas), and they decided to limit my access, I would have no competitor to turn to and no government resource to help aid me.

I look at it this way. The internet is a vast library, right across the street from my house. The ISPs have now become crossing guards who may, or may not, let me across the street to easily obtain access to that library, depending on how much I might want to pay them.

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 3:48PM Ryn said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Sera.... Where do I begin?? Full disclosure, you are my favorite writer here, hands down. I was hoping for once to be able to read SOMETHING on the internet on a daily basis without it going down the political road. Now I can't. You took us there.
I'm a conservative. I believe in the constitution and what the founding fathers vision of this country should be. I do listen to both sides and make up my own mind of what is correct. That being said, I don't understand why the liberal bias towards ONE(1) new organization when the liberal view is expressed on every other news channel. NBC CNN ABC CBS MSNBC, not to mention a majority of the blogs on the net support liberal views. Do you feel so threatened by ONE news channel that you have to attack it? One? Yes it does have the best ratings, only because obviously they are giving the viewers what they want.
My advice is to stay on course and present both sides and let the readers decide. I want my rights protected, but I question Big Governments commitment to doing so. Just look at their track record. They can't do anything right, and just not our Government, all others as well.
Massively doesn't do Rated reviews. You take the middle of the road approach and let the readers make up their mind if a game is worth their time, an approach I greatly appreciate and hence why I read Massively.
I believe Massively would serve their readers in the future by doing what it does best: Present the facts unbiasedly and let the readers take it from their. Being preached to is the last thing I want to read on here.
Lets remember the Founding Fathers, you know, the ones under attack these days, are the reason both you and I can express our views here as we are. They started this country so all viewpoints are protected. Lets honor them by respecting others opposing views and keep Massively above this pettiness.

BTW, I'm the one mentioned on the podcast the other week confessing that you are a great writer.

Mark

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:01PM Eamil said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Fox News is a target because they're the most blatant about it. I'm sorry, but they are. CNN is getting there, but right now Fox News, and Glenn Beck in particular, takes things so hilariously over the top that I'm honestly convinced that a good number of those viewers they boast about are actually tuning in just to have a good laugh.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:06PM aurickle said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Amen, Mark! Right on all counts.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:13PM mifuneseven said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Relax, it is clearly labled as an opinion piece.

On a side note, what is the notion of duality? Since when were there only two acceptable positions: Liberal and Conservative. And who exactly is it that gets to define those terms. Much like the "founding fathers vision" it isn't as cut and dry as most people think.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:43PM Lionhearted said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Mark, she's talking about net neutrality, which is NOT a partisan issue. Mainstream conservative organizations, as well as liberal organizations, are widely against getting rid of net neutrality. I feel bad that rightwing conservatives on the ground buy into that crap Glenn Beck is spouting. This isn't a "liberal" issue. You're being hoodwinked.

Bottom line: this is an important issue for the internet gaming world. It's fantastic she brought it to an audience who probably doesn't know much about it, when it effects them so greatly.
Reply

Posted: Apr 7th 2010 4:37PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
NBC CNN ABC CBS MSNBC are all owned by huge corporations. Huge corporations are not, by definition, bastions of liberalism. Corporate news divisions primarily exist for the purpose of generating ratings and therefore profit; not for disseminating unbiased, or even biased news. Corporate owned news comes from a corporate perspective and often is beholden to what to what other corporate advertisers will sponsor, and what will support revenue generation from other branches of the owning corporation.

Fox pushes it one step further--at the behest of Ruport Murdoch--by doing away with journalistic pretenses to push an aggressive and relentless pro-corporate message thinly disguised as news. Just because the other corporate news channels don't follow this strategy does not automatically make them liberal. MSNBC has some shows with liberal hosts, but that is done for profit-generation, not for ideological purposes.

If you want to hear news from an actual liberal perspective, incidentally, you'd have to turn to an independent source like Free Speech TV, which relies solely on donations from individuals, and is therefore not beholden to toeing the corporate line on all issues.

How is corporate control over every aspect of our lives any better than government control over every aspect of our lives? The answer is simple. It isn't. That is why the ideal system, the same system we have enjoyed for most of our country's history, is an equilibrium between government and corporations, with each keeping the other in check. Any suggestion that we have only two choices, extreme government or extreme corporatism is just feeding the imbalanced irrationality that threatens our nation's stability.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW