The Internet is rigged !

I remember when our resident  conservatives were screaming about net neutrality and how that was going to allow the government to determine what websites you get to see.     I dont think they understood what net neutrality was aside from it being something Obama supported.

But now we actually have a White House that wants to regulate your search results in Google...because Google search results yield things that hurt Trump's feelings.

The election is rigged! There's a spy in his campaign ! And now the internet is rigged too!

Quick!  Someone call the wambulance.

Fret not conservatives. Kudlow is on the case. 

How would Net Neutrality stop left wing domination of the media, including social media? 

Say your ISP suddenly turned left-wing.  They could throttle down the speed that Fox News loaded and streamed to make it unusable but then they could load MSNBC lighting fast. Net Neutrality prevented something like this from happening but conservatives overturned it.  

Mark's answer fails to address Bob Orme's question.   The bias at issue has nothing to do with the "Net Neutrality" issue of biasing the speed of data transmission.

It does have to do with biased "content" itself, biased to the left by those controlling much of the media.  

Here's an opinion piece in today's Washington Post summing up the issue plainly.  It concludes that "these big tech companies have the power to influence elevtions and even the state of democracy itself."

Along with the author DonDiego doesn't have a simple solution, . . . it is up to the consumers of the information to realize the bias and take it into account, . . . but how can the consumer do that if the content they get to see is itself based on biased selection.          

It's a puzzlement.  But it has nothing to do with the solution within the Net Netrality legislation.

It's a puzzlement.  But it has nothing to do with the solution within the Net Netrality legislation.

Bob's the one that tied the two issues together. I simply provided him an example of how Net Neutrality could benefit him.

That being said the way to address the problem if you fear a liberal monopoly of media is aggressive anti-trust enforcement. For example, don't allow Facebook to buy Instagram.  Break up Google and/or force it to open up its platform to competition like the EU did. Simply put, quit approving mergers in big tech and media because there is a monopoly. I wouldn't oppose that.   If you are simply opposed to liberal content, reenact the fairness doctrine.  Of course, that would also mean conservative outlets would have to balance their conservative opinion content with an equal amount of liberal opinion content. Personally, I don't agree with the second option but as a practical matter, it would work as it worked in the past. 

So, there are two solutions. See it isn't hard to figure out. 

I didn't tie the two issues together. PJ did in his parent note.

The social media giants could indeed face having to break up their monopolies. The fairness doctine wouldn't apply here. The biases are currently being created by the social media giants by censoring or blocking content THEY ALREADY HAVE. They wouldn't have to add additional content to "balance" their content...just stop blocking what they already have.

Dont drag me into this - I just pointed out history on this board.

There was a very passionate thread on the old forums where our resident conservatives tried to define "Net Neutrality" as the gub'mit censoring the internet.    (Of course anyone who has read the net neutrality legislation understands that it guarnatees the exact oppositte.)

But its ironic now that we have a White House the literally comes out and says they want to censor the internet how those same people are strangely mum.     Its a real head scratcher, ain't it?

The content they currently block is content that calls for violence, racism, homophobia and conspiracy theories that slander innocent folks and cause them harm(like the Sandy Hook parents).  Even then you have to go pretty damn far to get blocked. 

Which of those do you want uncensored Bob?   

Content isn't blocked simply because it is conservative or liberal.

Mark writes:

"The content they currently block is content that calls for violence, racism, homophobia and conspiracy theories that slander innocent folks and cause them harm."

It's not just about blocking content.  It's also about things like biased search engines.

The reference I cited in a link above [4:36pm 29 August] provides insight into such bias"

" 'Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal?' Trump said in his tweet adding that '96% of results on ‘Trump News’ 'are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good.”

One's definition of "good" may differ from that of President Trump, but the bias is clear.

Here's another link the reader is unlikely to click, the source of the 96% figure above: 

 PJ Media

The site includes a neat little chart summarizing somebody's idea of the right/left bias of lots of news sites.

Just like the author of these links, DonDiego doesn't have a neat solution.  The consumer should educate himself about newsite bias and realize content might well reflect that bias; no one can make that happen.