Where does Obama stand on internet regulation etc?

Obama for net neutrality
Mccain against it
Next prez picks supreme court judges,could be very bad for biz.

obama is best for your busines

I don't think either one will be good for us. Thye both have ties to religious fanatics, which should answer you question.

what exactly will that mean (in real terms) over the next 2 years

This is an important factor that many adult webmasters should take into evaluation when they vote.

mccain wants to put restrictions on the internate and regulate it

obama wants the net to be free

obama = better for porn

Obama is strongly for net neutrality. He spoke at Google a little while back and said it would be one of his first things he does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE

McCain is against it. He is also for regulating social networking sites to an extreme. You would be required to report any CP and some forms of "obscenity". If not, you go to jail and get fined. Makes it easy to put your competitor out of biz pretty quick. And to shut down almost any adult site under the guise of obscenity.

http://news.cnet.com/SenatorIllegali...3-6142332.html

And lets not forget that McCain wants strict constructionist judges while Obama wants more liberal ones. Strict constructionist ones are the ones that believe that porn is not safe under the First Amendment.

From a sheer internet standpoint, especially in adult, Obama crushes McCain. But some people have other reasons for voting.

We dont know but you never know what will happen. Like John Ashcroft's job one was going after adult porn then 911 happened. But when you consider telecommunication companies are giving Mccain free cell towers on his ranch, they are hedging their bets.

you mean people who vote with their emotions & not with their brain?

yea you can leave me off that list I'm all business

although, i question Obama when it comes to overseas business issues

huh??????

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/was...e_cell_to.html

I dunno what he means, but the telcoms are pushing hard to do away with net neutrality and they are in McCain's pocket. In short McCain is bad for business.

I bet we got a good green light for 4 years at least with Obama. Maybe some protections and health regulations ( Which I think is Direly needed ) are in order for Actor's and Actresses but thats about it when it comes to Obama. At least thats what I think.

Obama supports net nuetrality and it's the biggest reason why the google ceos have endorsed him.

Telecommunication companies who want Net neutrality to be no more,put portable cell towers on his ranch free of charge to help him out. To me and many others its one hand washing the other.

I'd like to know more too but if it's any consolation I think Google's CEO and the likes of Larry Flynt are backing Obama. What's good for them tends to be good for our industry.

Obama will support net regulations after he goes into office, believe it.

McCain doesn't even know how to send an email or what google is. He is out of touch with the internet generation. And like many point out, net neutrality is vital to our business. Obama knows what the internet is and why doing away with net neutrality goes against everything the internet is.

No he wont. he has allready stated how important net neutraility is for a fair internet.

Mccain wants the big coorporations to have control of what sites you can visit. it will not be the internet any more when your site comes up not available because your not in big biz pockets.

Can anyone tell me what new laws McCain would impliment to effect net neutrality?

yea thats what im trying to figure out

This is just one example...there is plenty examples if you use the SE's.

Yesterday, if you listened closely, you could hear the sound of John McCain selling off the internet to his campaign backers, the cable and telecom interests. After being shocked by a 3-2 vote punishing Comcast for illegal behavior at the FCC, cable interests are freaking out and using every tool at their disposal to reinstitute discipline among wavering Republicans.
The cable and telecom pushback started with former telecom lobbyist and current FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who is desperate to become Chairman of the FCC under a McCain administration, launching a salvo against internet freedom, claiming that net neutrality would lead to censorship of the internet and requirements that bloggers and sites like Google offer 'equal time' to different views. This incoherence was quickly picked up by the Drudge Report, all to be timed with the coming release of McCain's technology policy, which is slated to come out this week or next. McDowell, who of the five FCC Commissioners is by far the most favorable to cable, did this at the Heritage Foundation. He even warned his side that there are more dissident conservatives like Kevin Martin getting ready to come out for net neutrality, a clear sign they know they are losing this fight and need to reframe their strategy.

McDowell denounced net neutrality under the guise that it's intertwined with the Fairness Doctrine, which he says Obama will reimpose. McDowell wouldn't actually explicitly say that net neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are the same thing, means, because he knows he'd get laughed out of the room, but he implied it. Here's his statement.

Matt Stoller :: McCain Prepares to Hand the Internet Over to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T
"Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called 'Fairness Doctrine,' which won't be called that - it'll be called something else," McDowell said. "So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"
Google is one of the strongest proponents of net neutrality, and there's no way in hell that company would support a policy that placed content regulations on their business. But who is actually censoring our communications networks? Verizon, for one, which refused to allow a text message from NARAL to be sent to their members, citing its 'unsavory' and controversial nature. AT&T, for another, which censored a web-casted Pearl Jam concert when the lead singer shouted out anti-Bush statements. And Comcast, which not only was caught illegally blocking file sharing by its customers, but has a history of blocking political ads on its cable service that criticize politicians company executives have given money to.

And lo and behold, these are the same companies that are seeking a McCain Presidency, as Amanda Terkel notes in her piece on McCain's tech policy.


The current campaign cycle is also shaping up to be lucrative. U.S. Telecom Association president and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr., Sprint CEO Daniel R. Hesse, and Verizon chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg have each raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for McCain's campaign. AT&T executive vice president for federal relations Timothy McKone has raised at least $500,000.
Add to that list the Alison H. McSlarrow and Kyle E. McSlarrow, both of whom work for cable and telecom interests and both of whom have raised more than $50k for McCain.

What's really going on is that this week or next, McCain is going to release his technology policy, and he's looking for cover from business allies, as his policy was written by the telecom lobbyists running his campaign and libertarian Michael Powell, who used his FCC position to garner lucrative business opportunities within the tech and telecom worlds. McCain will talk - just as Bush did in 2004 when he called for universal broadband by 2007 - about how every American needs broadband, but his plan - just like Bush's - will do nothing to achieve it. What his plan will do is eviscerate consumer protections on the internet, allowing for censorship by private interests like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T who have already demonstrated that they have and will engage in censorship of political speech for business and political reasons.

That's what is going on here, and FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is the point person in the propaganda campaign. Now, the question is not substantive, it's whether this campaign will work to persuade people that up is down, that black is white. I don't think it will. Organized interests understand, and elite actors understand, that Comcast is full of lying scumbags trying to restrict the behavior of their users. That's why Republican Kevin Martin realized he had to punish Comcast. And the base of this campaign is solidly pro-net neutrality; the issue is the most important protection for Silicon Valley, a powerful political constituency.

More to the point, the question next year will pivot away from arcane discussions about issues like net neutrality and towards something the public does understand, through an alliance called, appropriately enough, Internet for Everyone.

This is something we're ready to fight on. Obama isn't going to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, which is content regulation on talk radio, because he's smart and the Fairness Doctrine is fundamentally about government regulation of a public commons unfairly given over to private actors. Rather, what Obama will seek is to give the public airwaves back to the public, now that we have the technology to allow anyone to broadcast digital signals without interfering with anyone else, like wifi. There will be broad fights over media consolidation and ownership structures, universal broadband, and the future of news, mobile phones, the mobile economy, copyright, movies, and the way we communicate and define ourselves.

Obama is firmly with us on most of this. McCain? Well he just wants to use this stuff to get campaign contributions, and his allies at Comcast, Verzion, and AT&T want to use it to censor an internet they are intent on controlling.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7493

He wouldn't implement anything. He would just veto any bill with net neutrality in it. Net neutrality is fairly important to all of us.

In one of his earlier debates... with Hillary I think... He was asked if he would work to rid the internet of porn.. He said, though he is personally against porn in any form, he wouldn't go after it because it would be against the constitutional provisions of free speech.

Ok, again, what Laws will McCain impose that will effect net neutrality? Or, conversely, what laws will Obama impose that will effect net neutrality?

Answer should be NONE since laws are written by congress. Appointments to the FCC would only effect their enforcement of EXISTING laws, not create any new ones. If you're a oponent of NET NEUTRALITY you should focus on the US CONGRESS. But a president CAN stop one with a veto.

As for the reference above to Obama and his stance against the 'Fairness Doctrine', I'm not so sure the statement is true. If Obama wins two weeks from tomorrow, and the Dems carry more seats and gain a clear majority in the House and Senate, will Obama VETO a bill that includes the fairness doctrine when it gets to his desk? Pelosi & Reid have already expressed willingness to push the bill through.

Is Obama more likely to veto this bill or is McCain? The RIGHT in America is fearful that the Fairness Doctrine would virtually eliminate conservative talk radio. This would occur since the fairness doctrine would require that stations give equal time to both points of view, and therefor would have to run a liberal program back to back with a conservative program. Their claim is that since there are NO successful liberal talk programs that stations would be forced to drop conservative programs since there is no liberal program they can pair with their conservative counterparts. If this is true, wouldn't McCain be more likely to VETO a bill which contains the fairness doctrine?

How could that be applied to the adult industry? Well it will depend on who is in charge at the time. But what if it was determined that to be fair you have to offer as much ANTI-ADULT content as ADULT content on every one of your sites? Perhaps it's not a big deal, since its rather easy to add the content to the pages side by side. But how much would the guilt based content effect sales?

oh stop please stop.

Look at their ages, that alone should give you some indication. Obama knows and understands it and how to use it.... McCain is old and doesn't have a damn clue one about it. I would much more trust someone who knows and understands it than someone who does not..... McCain is so old, he probably still uses a damn CB Radio to talk to his friends, or tin cans. rotfl

There are no laws he can put in place since there isn't net neutrality. He has however made it clear he would veto any legislation that puts it in place. That is not good for anyone in this industry as it is important to have net neutrality in place.

And the fairness doctrine only applies for those with broadcast licenses, something none of us have to worry about. You should read up on what it is before commenting on it.

Are you sure about that statement?
...................
Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell said in August that a potential reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine could be ?intertwined? with the debate over network neutrality. McDowell warned that an effort to reimpose the defunct broadcasting doctrine could sync up with efforts to regulate network management, resulting in ?government dictating content policy? on the Web.
...................
This twisted theory of the First Amendment cannot support net-neutrality regulation. The First Amendment was intended to protect us from tyrannical, coercive government power, not the silly mistakes of private companies.
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/20...neinternet.pdf
...................

Not that some of these sources aren't partisan... but none the less, its not as cut an dry Obama - McCain as you think. Democrats in the State of CA already tried to bring discussionon a special tax to the Adult industry. So to say that one side is better for adult -vs- the other is not entirely true.

The Fairness Doctrine only applies to licensed broadcasters. I am 100% certain on this and it's written in every document about the fairness doctrine.

There is a huge difference in net neutrality and the fairness doctrine. Net neutrality has more to do with open ended competition than anything. The ability for Google to not be blocked by all the major ISPs in favor of their own search engine. So that AT&T doesn't block Vonage and eliminate competition. The CATO Institute is a Libertarian group and while I respect their opinion, it's akin to taking the side that we should allow monopolies in this country. It is just not good for the vast majority of the American people.

I don't agree with the Fairness Doctrine either. But I think it's a completely different issue than Net Neutrality. There isn't as much a need for the Fairness Doctrine these days as we limit the amount of media one person/company can own (I believe it's 30%). When the Fairness Doctrine was created, there was a fear that 2 or 3 people would completely dominate the frequencies and control public opinion. That is not as much an issue today.

Of course there isn't a party that is perfect for the industry. But there is a big difference in a statewide tax on an industry and the complete annihilation of it. A couple conservative judges can completely ban any form of pornography.

And whatever your ideologies are in regards to net neutrality, there is no doubt that not having it in the long term hurts us signifigantly. The question posed by pr0 was which candidate was better for the internet and adult, the answer is clearly Obama. This is matched by every major technology publication and group. It's the reason why almost every major web property heavily supports him.

While there may be other reasons to vote for candidates, if your primary issue is your business online, then Obama is the only choice.

A tax takes away the gray that's actually not a bad thing.Not the same as wanting to throw us all in jail. Learn your history for gods sake

BINGO! I watched that portion--he also mentioned that there was violence in the movies and TV, and that it's a parent's responsibility to monitor their kids access to negative Internet sites, TV, and movies.

:-)))))

He's the only one who has talked about parent's responsibility. The other side just blames liberals and atheists for all the problems in the world.

While this isn't exactly a net neutrality issue, Obama did reverse his position on the FISA bill amendment and ended up voting for it after saying he wouldn't. Like most controversial issues with politicians these days, he defended his reversal as being due to "national security concerns" but the telecoms benefited and the privacy of normal Americans took another big hit. I'm sure with the right "national security concerns" coming in to play, Obama could easily be persuaded to reverse his position on net neutrality/censorship related issues as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446734650049199.html

Your fucking a genius arn't you? Democrat platforms are in general not as business friendly.

Dude, seriously your genious

The schools provide a big problem, not the parents... They are at school more then they are at home. The schools fuck the kids up.

I think it goes both ways. We have a lot of kids in school who just don't care, lash out, and have no parents to discipline at home. I remember getting reamed out by my parents when I got bad grades or got in trouble in school. Nowadays, parents treat school like daycare and don't care what happens. It needs to be a mutual relationship with parents and the school.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/te...#open-internet

Umm...... People, Net Neutrality is bad, ummk... It's something we don't want.

I think McCain straight up doesn't know wtf it is. And Obama got tricked by the name, but has pulled back on the idea, prob after he got some education...

Sounds like some of you need to read up on wtf it is too.

Plan on bailing in that time?

How is it bad?

I don't know what you're drinking but I would suggest that you change your brand.

pocketkangaroo and GregE,
Currently, Net Neutrality is a "principle"... and at a basic idea, it's great. Until the U.S. law makers have a go at it.

They want to make it a law/rule/regulation, which will allow networks to regulate the quality of service (speed & access) they "choose" to give you. Without changing the price (that's the benefit they say)

So, if a Christian ISP said they didn't like porn, they could block it and you would be fucked.

It also means the chance that different qualities of service, could regulate who you could talk/chat or contact online. So if I have a higher end personal package and someone has a regulated package, we may not be able to communicate without the lower end person paying a fee.

We already have laws on the books that regulate ISP's on how much they can/can't charge, if they can or can't limit access. The FCC adopted the 4 basic principles of net neutrality, not a law.. we already have those, to do what this does, and we don't need more twists to screw us over.

Several twisted versions of the law, all set to regulate us, have been shot down over the last several years.

Worth repeating.

What you just did was defend net neutrality. A Christian ISP couldn't block access under net neutrality. An ISP wouldn't be able to build tiered access with net neutrality. Currently the rules are sketchy and the FCC probably doesn't have the ability to stop this from happening.

I think you may have the things backwards.

The words that come out of this mouth are not the same as the agendas he will promote.

See vid:


What they say dont mean shit.