rebecca2p01: Making Money on Internet

I sincerely hope followers of the Network Neutrality (NN) debate were wearing their seatbelts last week. The pro-NN Media Marxists’ rapid lurch in position on the issue would otherwise have ensured full chiropractor employment for a pronounced period of time.

What led to this The-Ends-Justify-Any-Means-Necessary backflip is the Cablevision-Fox dustup over fees Cablevision pays Fox to retransmit the latter’s programming. The two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, the contract elapsed and Fox pulled its channels from the Cablevision lineup.

Fox then went a step further, temporarily making some of its online content unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.

Let us be clear what happened here. The Content Provider (Fox) had prevented the Internet Service Provider (Cablevision) from access to its online content.

And after all, it is Fox’s property. They paid a LOT of money for its creation, development and deployment – they can do with it whatever they wish. They can offer it to whomever, or not offer it to anyone at all. If they want to withhold some or all of it from some or all people, that is their prerogative – especially when they are not being paid for it.

It is here that the pro-Net Neutrality crowd jumped the intellectual shark. Well, again. They asserted that Fox – by not giving away their property online – was in violation of the Media Marxists’ warped definition of NN.

And that Fox’s “violation” served as further “justification” for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Net Neutrality – and the radical, extra-lawful Internet power grab they have been demanding the FCC make so as to commandeer the authority necessary to enact and enforce it.

(An investment-devastating move which the FCC may very well execute as soon as November 30th.)

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement:

For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet.

And Art Brodsky, Director of Communications for Public Knowledge, wrote:

Fox committed what should be considered one of the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company….

In this case, of course, it’s the content provider that was doing the blocking…. (B)ut it shouldn’t matter who is keeping consumers away from the lawful content….

If one values the open Internet, however, there should be rules against that sort of thing, whether the blocking is done by the ISP or by a content provider….

Yes, it would be nice if someone (like the FCC) could step in and tell Fox that it is unacceptable to block Internet content.

For years these Leftists have been vociferously insisting that the enemies of NN are the evil Internet Service Providers – who would allegedly block access to online fare. And thusly Net Neutrality was required to stop them from so doing.

But by attempting to frame the Cablevision-Fox dispute in NN terms – by demanding that Fox give away its content to everyone – the pro-NN gaggle clearly demonstrates that this fight is not (just) about ACCESS to Internet content – it is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL of Internet content.

They seek to neutralize the Internet – by having the government control its content.

Of course, they have all along stridently asserted that Net Neutrality is not about this.

Right-wing media have falsely claimed that the net neutrality principle supported by the Obama administration is an attempt by the government to control Internet content. In fact, net neutrality does not mean government control of content on the Internet; rather, net neutrality ensures equal and open access for consumers and producers of content and applications…

But their demands of Fox clearly demonstrate that it is.

Yesterday, it was about access to content. Today, it’s the government demanding content providers give away the products they produce.

Tomorrow, it will be the government demanding content providers pull from the Web the products they produce. Shutting you up by insisting you shut it down.

After all, government control is government control. Once they have it, they have it all the way.

How pathetically sad it is that the ACLU – the alleged champion of the First Amendment – has so readily sacrificed it on the altar of Leftist ideology. And done so in such an intellectually vacuous fashion – the First Amendment protects us from GOVERNMENT censorship, not the actions of private companies or individuals.

To say that force feeding the nation Net Neutrality is a First Amendment imperative is both factually and morally bankrupt.

So, why did this particular ad hit a nerve with the online audience, and what was Target really going for?

I think that the internet DIY set reacted to making fun of a costume that fits their ethos perfectly. Last halloween, for example, one DIY dad became a YouTube hit when he posted an awesome homemade Iron Man costume he made for his kid. Is Target's message really that the kid would have been better off wearing a storebought version? If so, citizens of the internet (and makers in particular) are right to be a little ticked off.

As for the non-DIYers, I think that what made them upset was the way Target tried to manipulate kids by playing the dual role of the bully who makes fun of your costume and the cool parent who just wants to help you fit in, unlike your weird, lame, Iron-Man-suit-building mom.

That doesn't work, though, because the parents who will be paying for the costumes are the ones who teach their kids that bullying and peer pressure are wrong, and that creativity is good. The bigger, more popular kid who mocks your costume is the bad guy in every cartoon and after-school special. Why would any kid root for him? And why would parents root against their own nostalgia for (sometimes embarrassing) homemade Halloween outfits? (And if this ad was made to be seen by kids, it sure was shot poorly.)

That leads me to a distasteful theory about who Target was, well, targeting with this commercial. It's not aimed at internet geeks with the time, money and technical skills to make amazing Iron Man costumes for their kids. They aren't going to go to Target for a costume anyway. It's aimed at parents who don't have that time, money or expertise, and who don't want their kids to be singled out as weird or poor. Did Target pick a black family for the ad because they think African-American parents fit that profile? That would be the grossest type of marketing, but I think it's possible.

It doesn't matter if you can't make (or afford to make) your kid a costume, though: the ad still fails because the homemade costume it shows is cool. That mom did a great job with it, and clearly put in some time and effort, so there's nothing for her kid to be embarrassed about. If Target wanted to invoke shame and peer-pressure to make parents feel self-conscious about their income or costume-making skills, they should have at least shown a costume that was actually bad.

eric seiger

Lindy guarantees it, or did he? - Sabres Edge - Blogs - The ...

The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.

Lujiazui Breakfast: News And Views About China Stocks (Nov. 5 ...

Investors and traders in China's main financial district are talking about the following before the start of trade today: A belief that the latest round of quantitative easing will boost commodity prices higher helped to lead global ...

World news coverage evaporating in the UK | openDemocracy

International news, in case you hadn't realised, is disappearing across the UK media. The trends are documented in 'Shrinking World' - an authoritative and compelling report on the demise of foreign news reporting in the UK, ...

eric seiger