I am Brazilian too.
In order to conciliate the right to speech in the Internet with such constitutional twists (no anonymity) the government is proposing a Internet regulation document where ISP or other Internet "space" providers (like Google in this case) are responsible to take down offending material under request. If I understand it well they must:
1) Take down the content
2) Inform the poster (if possible)
3) If the poster stands up for what he said, the provider must put the content back up and the poster is assuming all libel (here the anonymity is gone).
If the ISP follows this rule it gets safe harbor. So yes, we are getting our own version of DMCA take down notices (even worse since it is not only related to copyrighted material).
Well... the same document guarantees net neutrality...
The telecoms aren't by decent entrepreneurs today and thus don't play by the same rules.
They, in fact, make their own rules with lobby power... including the ones to remove your ability to say what you just said. Or really. being pro-corporations, you would be fine. I could be blocked for my views. Some day you may be against corporations for something else and could be blocked. Extreme, yes, but without restoring the regulation that has gotten us to the point we are at (ahem.... WITH NET NEUTRALITY), this has become a possibility.
Are you really arguing that not having referees at a sports game is better because it frees players to kill each other? That's not a game, that's something else entirely. Rules are there to keep things sane. Not over regulate, which you seem to be confusing with my view. There are just enough rules in chess to keep things structured but not over burden. Net Neutrality was not a burden and we got many many great things out of it. This doesn't seem to be a part of your value equation but is a part of mine and many other geeks out there.
Your argument doesn't address the reality that net neutrality creates jobs at least in the instance of that large telecom merger a few years ago. You don't need studies to show what affect it had. People lost their jobs, and customers got slower service due to the lack of build out. Your argument also doesn't address the overwhelming political power held by telecom oligopolies or their "donations".
To me, the only incentive to not having net neutrality is more money for the telecoms. Do you have evidence otherwise? Or do you just have some corporate study to back your understanding? Personal experience also counts.
Oh, and since TFA seems primarily concerned with the child abuse scandal (obviously this is a despicable thing that has happened), it might also be worth mentioning that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith.
And he just happened to worry about the internet's effect on individuals in the middle of a massive worldwide child abuse scandal that he has his dick caught in?
If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account.
And possibly the pope, too. Remember his likely involvement.
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
Why do atheists give a damn? The embarrassment of the church rates somewhat below pictures of Britney's cooch on my scale. The systematic rape of children is much higher, but given the crap the church of england pulled on orphans in the 50s, I can't say I'm surprised. Cut from the same wood, etc.
No allies, eh? So that leaves exactly two places we could attack:
Antarctica, which is, of course, no one's ally or enemy, and isn't even neutral, not being a country at all. (Same goes for outer space, but I don't think ICBMs can get to the moon.)
The conservatives are right, Obama is going to destroy America! Or Antarctica! One of the two! Or maybe the moon! (Didn't he already bomb the moon? I forget how that war turned out, but I bet we didn't bother to send soldiers helmets for their space suits.)
Wait, duh, we've been looking at this all wrong. We've been assuming he will attack land. No, he's planning an attack on international waters!
He's a liberal, they're always for saving the environment, so he's going to bomb the big floating garbage continent out there.
We've always been at war with Ocean. We've never been at war with Luna.
Small business would have to start paying to play on the internet. This would cost small businesses a lot of money to pay for internet tolls. That's money that could be creating jobs if there were net neutrality. Forcing telecoms to build out their infrastructure would actually create jobs. It wasn't until the net neutrality contractual obligation of a large telecom merger ran out that they stopped building infrastructure and fired the masses of people working on the build out.
Also crazy is the cost of anti-competitive behavior, the cost of innovative ideas being squashed because they didn't fit the business model of the telecoms, and enabling corporations to be the enforcers of freedom of speech is just plain unconstitutional and is just an abrogation of the responsibility of Congress and Whitehouse.
I'd rather pay slightly higher prices to enable innovation, freedom of speech, equality of information, and decrease the power of the oligopolies.
Call me crazy but the intangibles tip that balance for me. There is more to life than money like freedom and liberty.
Of course this report isn't going to discuss these things... it was funded by large corporations. They don't value anything but money.
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli