The Youth DECLARATION OF DIGITAL RIGHTS

 From designitforus.org

We the young people who have been addicted, manipulated, and taken advantage of by Big Tech, produce this Declaration of Digital Rights.

DECLARATION OF DIGITAL RIGHTS

The following principles represent the ideals of our generation. Our development as children, adolescents, teens, and young adults is fundamentally intertwined with technology. As a result, we know intimately the benefits and downfalls of such tools we use daily. Our experience is expertise, and we believe it can help us capture a better future on and offline.

1. Right to privacy

Social media platforms collect endless amounts of data on us. Young people have the right to scroll without Big Tech listening to them on every corner of the internet and selling off that data to the highest bidder. Companies should be responsible for designing social media and AI products that consistently protect and preserve our personal data. Privacy must come before profit.

2. Right to safety

There are so many features that social media uses to keep us hooked. Some of those features have proven to be detrimental to young people’s mental health or put our safety at risk. Like seatbelts in cars, it is our right as consumers that companies build their products with us in mind. We demand they proactively keep us safe from their harmful products and business practices.

3. Right to not be experimented on

Social media and technology companies are constantly rolling out new features on their platforms and products. They use young people as test subjects. Young people are no longer the guinea pigs to be experimented on. Young people have a right to not be tested on by Big Tech without allowing us to provide informed consent.

4. Right to agency

Social media can be a beautiful place. It links us to people all over the world, brings us closer to community, and shapes our understanding of the world. But with power comes responsibility. Young people have the right to options provided by platforms that allow us to take back control over our digital lives so we can minimize the bad and maximize the good.

5. Right to user controls

Suggested posts in feed, new shop features, algorithms, endless scrolling, and never-ending push notifications. Whether you like them or hate them, young people have the right to switch the most harmful features on or off, whenever we choose.

6. Right to delete

As consumers of digital products, young people have a right to permanently delete our own content and leave social media platforms that are not working for us. Social media platforms should uphold that right, delete our information, and leave us alone. The right to our personal information is solely ours, not social media companies’.

7. Right to choice

One or more social media platforms may not be working for young people. Young people have the right to choose from an array of products, apps, or sites we want to use as alternatives, not just whatever the biggest Big Tech players choose for us.

8. Right to a seat at the table

Increasingly, it seems like decisions about young people’s digital lives are being made by stakeholders, lawmakers, and communities that don’t represent them. Young people have a right to a seat at the decision-maker’s table.

9. Right to connect

One of the most valuable parts of social media is the ability to connect with our friends and family, and build community. When Big Tech clogs up our feeds with targeted ads and body-comparison content, it’s antithetical to everything we want out of social media. We have a right to build vital relationships online that are not mutually exclusive with a forced acceptance that our identities are Big Tech’s revenue stream.

10. Right to transparency

Big Tech has thrived off of the presumption that they are above the law. They leverage their power as private companies to profit from our pain, by design, while shielding themselves in opacity. Like any other public goods, we as consumers have a right to fair and transparent products that are responsible to the user and the law, not the shareholders nor the CEOs. 

11. Right to accountability

Young people are stepping up to establish innovative legislative solutions that address our needs. Yet, at every turn, Big Tech blocks meaningful legislation to protect their own monetary interests. We demand that our government be accountable to their constituents, not the companies that pay to manipulate legislation.

12. Right to be protected from manipulation

Like never before, Big Tech has relentlessly leveraged innovation against the best interests of users, manipulating our data and weaponizing our well being against us. Instead of crafting design features meant to support healthy engagement, Big Tech companies have wielded their unchecked power to addict us and harm us while publicly saying otherwise. We have a right to be shielded from these insidious patterns of abuse.

Most Say Internet Has Been A Big Help During Pandemic

 

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They questioned 4,623 adults nationwide between April 12th and 18th, and the survey had a 2.2 point margin of error.

The respondents said the internet has been very important for them during the pandemic. But 68%, while appreciating the internet, says it is not a replacement for in-person contact.

31% of Americans Are Almost Constantly Online

 The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. It shows how important the internet has become in the lives of Americans. About 31% say they are online almost constantly, and another 48% say they go online several times a day -- for a total of 79%.  If you add in the 6% that go online at least once every day, you reach 85% that use the internet daily. Only 7% of the population say they never use the internet.

Biden Has Far More Internet "Hits" Than Other Candidates

The chart above is from Axios.com. It shows the social media internet actions generated for each of the Democratic candidates. Joe Biden is the recipient of more internet actions that any other candidate -- 2.2 million more than Elizabeth Warren and 2.3 million more than Bernie Sanders. Those were the only three candidate getting more than a million internet actions.

Methodology: This project measures the number of social media interactions generated on stories published about the 2020 candidates and issues. 

• Interactions are calculated from reactions, comments and shares on those stories on Facebook as well as the number of shares from more than 300,000 influential Twitter accounts and retweets and likes on those posts.
• Tracked published stories come from a defined universe of more than 450,000 domains.

Trump Has Convinced GOP That Search Engines Are Biased

Donald Trump's latest whining is about search engines on the internet. He says these search engines (such a Google) are rigged to favor liberals, and hide conservative views (especially his own).

It's just another part of his narcissistic paranoia. He can't accept that these search engines are not favorable to any political position. He's convinced that any search that turns up the many mistakes and vicious views he has put out must be rigged against him.

Sadly, he has convinced too many people to believe his ridiculous assertion -- especially Republicans. According to a new poll, about 67% of Republicans believe the search engines are biased to favor liberals. Only 29% of Independents, 13% of Democrats, and 36% of the general public believes that.

The chart is from a new Axios / SurveyMonkey Poll -- done between August 30th and September 3rd of a national sample of 2,698 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

An Important Safety Guide For Women (On & Off The Web)

I was asked by the ladies at vpnmentor.com to publish the following safety guide for women. I am happy to do so, because women in our society are attacked far too often (on the internet and elsewhere). It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading. I hope it helps.

Have you ever been harassed in the street? Received a crass message on a dating app? Had a coworker make a comment about your appearance that just didn’t sit right?

You’re not alone.

With the #MeToo movement, it’s easy to log onto Twitter or Facebook and see just how many women are victims of sexual harassment. Whether in person or online, women everywhere have experienced it in one way or another. And with all the new ways the internet has opened avenues of communication, online harassment is more prevalent than ever. 

According to a study by the Pew Research Center, most online abuse takes place on social media. Although men are also subject to online harassment – which includes name calling, derision, and physical threats – the study found that online, women are more than twice as likely as men to experience sexual harassment.  

In addition, more than half of women ages 18-29 report having been sent sexually explicit images without their consent. 

This number is only growing, and while 70% of women believe online harassment to be a major problem, not many know how to prevent it. 

Women are often targeted simply because they are women. Attacks are often sexualized or misogynistic, and rhetoric tends to focus on their bodies and sexual violence. This is both physically and emotionally damaging, and women are often intimidated into silence, preferring to disengage rather than put themselves at risk.

However, there are ways we can protect ourselves. 

This guide was written with the intention of empowering women to navigate the internet without fear. We discuss common occurrences in which women are subject to harassment in their daily lives – on social media, at work, while dating, and more – and give tips and advice on how women can take control. 

It is important for us to note that some of the advice given here encourages anonymity, rather than risking being targeted. While this may seem to run counter to the idea of encouraging self-expression, we believe that every woman should be empowered to make that choice for herself.

Our job is to give you the tools you need to do that. 

We hope this guide encourages women everywhere to defend and protect themselves, and to stand up to sexual harassment, both on and off the web.

Harassment on Social Media

The majority of online harassment takes place on social media, which makes sense given how much time most of us spend on these platforms. Broad social networks, often combined with anonymity, leads to a reality in which anything you post, tweet, or share opens you up to potential abuse. 

Below, we delve into the most popular social media platforms, and show you how to protect yourself from creeps, trolls, and stalkers.

Twitter

Due to its public nature, Twitter is one of the most notorious social media platforms when it comes to online harassment. And it’s not just celebrities and public figures who get abuse heaped on them. There are endless stories of regular people who have been attacked, often for simply speaking out about political or feminist issues.

In fact, Amnesty International released a report chastising Twitter for not appropriately addressing harassment of women. In the study, dozens of women are quoted about the abuse they experienced on Twitter, many citing unsatisfactory responses from the social media site after having reported the incidents. 

Often, the result is a silencing effect, in which women simply choose not to engage for fear of being harassed; many women end up censoring themselves or leaving the platform altogether.  And for some – particularly journalists and activists – this can be detrimental to their careers.  

Things came to a head in October 2017 when a series of high profile sexual assault allegations spawned the viral hashtag #MeToo. The hashtag – used by women to identify themselves as having experienced sexual harassment or assault – took over Twitter in a matter of hours, and made crystal clear just how prevalent these incidents are. 

Soon thereafter, actress Rose McGowen’s Twitter account was temporarily suspended after she tweeted a series of allegations against sexual predator Harvey Weinstein and several Hollywood bigwigs she claimed enabled him. The violation cited was that one of her tweets included a private phone number. 

But with so many abusive tweets against women not resulting in suspended accounts,  many women had had enough. The resulting anger spawned the hashtag #WomenBoycottTwitter, which called on women to boycott the platform for a day in solidarity. 

Twitter claims to have improved their system of addressing reports of harassment, but it’s still an issue, and there are still steps individual women can take to mitigate the chance of being targeted. 

Trump Reverses On Cyber-Security Collusion W/Russia

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Desperate to show that he did not give in to Putin in their meeting, but actually cemented better relations between the two countries, Donald Trump tweeted:

Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe.

It is amazing that Trump actually seemed to think this was a good idea -- an idea that Americans would appreciate. He never realized that, in such a proposal, he was being played by Putin -- even though that was obvious to everyone else.

Co-operating with the Russians to develop a Cyber Security unit would just make it easier for them to hack our elections in the future (because they would know what kind of safeguards were in place). It would be like allowing the fox to help develop a security system for the hen house.

The whole idea was ludicrous, and that was instantly obvious to even Trump's Republican allies. It's simply dumb beyond belief to allow the country guilty of hacking an election to help design security to protect future elections -- and it just illustrates that although Trump considers himself a genius, he's really not very smart.

Fortunately, he came to his senses once he realized that everyone (friend and enemy) thought his suggestion (Putin's suggestion?) was crazy -- and he tweeted a reversal of course just 13 hours after his first tweet.

The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't.

It still amazes me that Americans elected someone this dumb to be their president.

Mueller's "Collusion" Investigation Widens To Include Pro-Trump Websites And Social Media

(Trump photo is from Blasting News.)

Here is part of an article on the collusion investigation of Donald Trump. It was written by Julian Borger for The Guardian.

The spread of Russian-made fake news stories aimed at discrediting Hillary Clinton on social media is emerging as an important line of inquiry in multiple investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Investigators are looking into whether Trump supporters and far-right websites coordinated with Moscow over the release of fake news, including stories implicating Clinton in murder or paedophilia, or paid to boost those stories on Facebook.

The head of the Trump digital camp, Brad Parscale, has reportedly been summoned to appear before the House intelligence committee looking into Moscow’s interference in the 2016 US election. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee carrying out a parallel inquiry, has said that at least 1,000 “paid internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia” were pumping anti-Clinton fake news into social media sites during the campaign.

Warner said there was evidence that this campaign appeared to be focused on key voters in swing states, raising the question over whether there was coordination with US political operatives in directing the flow of bogus stories.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the justice department to oversee the investigation into the Russian role in the election, is thought to be looking into all these issues, as well as possible links between Russian fake news factories and far-right sites in the US.

It is a wide-ranging investigation that is examining the unusually large number of contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials during the campaign, as well as the possibility that the Kremlin has personal or financial leverage over members in the Trump camp, including the president himself according to his own remarks on Twitter.

The role of Russian generated fake news is a separate strand which has gained less attention up to now, but the part it played in depressing the Clinton vote in key states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the critical last days of the 2016 campaign could have helped change the course of recent American history.

A huge wave of fake news stories originating from eastern Europe began washing over the presidential election months earlier, at the height of the primary campaign. John Mattes, who was helping run the outline campaign for the Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders from San Diego, said it really took off in March 2016.

“In a 30-day period, dozens of full-blown sites appeared overnight, running full level productions posts. It screamed out to me that something strange was going on,” Mattes said. Much of the material was untraceable, but he tracked 40% of the new postings back to eastern Europe.

Four of the Facebook members posting virulent and false stories about Clinton (suggesting, for example, that she had profited personally by arming Islamic State extremists) had the same name, Oliver Mitov. They all had a very small number of Facebook friends, including one which all four had in common. When Mattes tried to friend them and contact them there was no reply.

Many websites producing anti-Clinton fake news were based in Albania and Macedonia. A pro-Sanders Facebook page with nearly 90,000 followers was run by an Albanian IT expert who, when interviewed by the Huffington Post, appeared to speak very little English, although his page consistently published polished English prose.

Mattes, a former Senate investigator, did some digging into the sudden phenomenon of eastern European Sanders enthusiasts. He found a spike in activity on the anonymous browsing tool Tor in Macedonia that coincided with the launch of the fake news campaign, which he believes could represent Russian handlers contacting potential east European hosts to help them set up automated websites.

“This is a cost-effective hands-free method with no blowback to you if you are in St Petersburg creating this product,” Mattes said. He argued that if the pro-Sanders websites in east Europe had been primarily motivated by maximising clicks they would have moved on to another viral subject.

“What I found was that 95% of them has gone dark,” he said. “So my question is: what are they hiding and why did they run as soon as the investigation began?”

Mattes believes that the aim of the campaign was to damage Clinton, who Vladimir Putin saw as his arch foe, and then, after the primaries were over, to minimise the number of Sanders voters who switched their support to Clinton in the face-off against Trump.

21st Century Internet Use In The United States

This doesn't need much discussion from me. I just thought it was interesting. The Pew Research Center has been surveying Americans on whether they use the internet since 2000. The chart above shows how that usage has climbed from about 52% in 2000 to a current level of 84%. The usage seems to have leveled off, and has been at 84% for the last three years.

The chart below shows the usage by each demographic group. Generally, the usage rises as youth, wealth, and education.

Google Is Changing Its Page-Ranking System

It seems that Google is going to change how it ranks pages. Instead of just ranking pages by the number of links, it is also going to consider whether the page offers truthful or misleading information. The pages that offer lies, or other misleading information, will be pushed further down the page -- and the sites offering factual information will be moved up, making it easier for searchers to get to the truth. I think this is a good move. What do you think?

Here is how Frank Minero at Addicting Info describes the impending change:

Google is working on a new way of ranking web pages. Republicans, notorious for spreading lies to further their political agenda, are sure to hate Google’s new search. It ranks web pages based on facts. That’s right, it ranks web pages higher on the search engine result page based on how truthful they are!

The primary influencing factor in Google’s current search technology is the number of incoming links a website receives. Each incoming link counts as a vote for the website’s credibility. Google places websites with the most votes toward the top of the search results page.

This ranking system has its faults. One striking disadvantage is that it allows websites containing misinformation to reach the top of the results page. In this case, Google’s goal, to provide its user with the most accurate and relevant information, has failed.

According to New Scientist, the new ranking system would tap into an expansive library of facts called the Knowledge Vault. Web pages that spew misinformation, contrary to these generally accepted facts, appear further down on the search results page.

Imagine a Google search that delivers someone questioning Obama’s birthplace to web pages debunking birtherism, climate change deniers to factual scientific data and arguments, anti-vaxxers to web pages that offer credible information about vaccines. Web pages that misinform would be pushed to the bottom of Google search results as they are not based in fact. That’s the new search!

If and when the new search is released, the reaction from Republicans and their ministry of propaganda, Fox News, is sure to be priceless. Web pages selling manufactured talking points and conspiracy theories about Benghazi, Obama’s place of birth and the Affordable Care Act will plummet in Google. Factual information debunking right-wing lies will take its place. Right wing nut jobs will surely label Google as “liberal search” and develop their own ‘conservative approved’ search aka propaganda engine.

The implications are far-reaching. The new search wouldn’t only effect peddlers of political propaganda. Quacks like Dr. Oz will have trouble selling snake oil. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones will have a harder time connecting with the gullible. Any commercial, governmental or religious power attempting to manipulate the public through false information will be delivered a swift kick to the family jewels.

The new Google would save those who lack common sense the misfortune of happening upon, consuming, then regurgitating misinformation as fact. It would save the rest of us from having to hear about it… and who knows. A society more in tune with factual information might even be a more pleasant place to live.

Public Has Little Confidence In The News Media

The chart above is made from information in a recent Gallup Poll (conducted between June 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,027 adults, with a 4 point margin of error).

This should bother the news media. In a democracy they have one of the most important jobs -- keeping the people informed so they can make knowledgeable decisions. But people across the political spectrum think the media is failing in their mission. The conservatives give a slight edge to TV news, while liberals, moderates, and the general population gives a slight edge to newspapers.

But the truth is that most Americans think both the TV news and newspapers are doing a poor job, and only about one out of every five Americans has confidence in the news media. I agree with the 80% or so who have little confidence in the media, because I think that media has to a large extent abandoned investigative journalism in favor of presenting corporate propaganda (which is not surprising since most of the mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations).

TV news presents an illusion of being fair -- by bringing a Republican and a Democrat on to throw accusations and lies at each other (without doing any fact-checking of what they say). They also ignore the opinions and positions of other parties (such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party) and Independents -- as though the policies of the Democrats and Republicans are the only ones worth considering. While the media should be informing Americans, they are instead acting as gatekeepers (so only corporate-approved ideas are reported).

It is a shame that there is so much disrespect for the media -- but they have brought it on themselves by refusing to carry out the sacred mission they have been entrusted with.

NOTE -- The public doesn't have much confidence in internet news either (19%).

Green Party Decries The FCC's Vote Against Net Neutrality

The following message was posted yesterday by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today voted to begin the process of formally setting new net neutrality rules for web traffic which allows cable companies to provide prioritized data flows for those who pay, relegating other content providers to second rate speeds.

Green Shadow Cabinet Attorney General, Kevin Zeese, and Health Secretary, Margaret Flowers, have been camping outside the FCC since May 8, creating thePeople's Firewall for Net Neutrality (watch video), in order to draw attention to the issue. Take action to support the People's Firewall.

Watch protesters take action at the FCC today - here. Covered on CSPAN - here.

Kevin Zeese today said:

"The next four months are critical to the future of the Internet. Will it remain, free and open with equal access for all?"

"Our key success over the last week was getting the FCC commissioners to included in their rulemaking procress public comments on whether the Internet should be reclassified as a common carrier, a public utility, like a telephone.  

This is the only way to ensure net neutrality. Comcast considers it the nuclear bomb because it allows regulation in the public interest. The FCC is resisting this, but because of the work of the movement we now have it on the table. People need to work across issues to make sure we win this battle as it is essential to all of our work. We pushed the door open, now we all have to go through and overwhelm Comcast et al." Zeese said.

Amids millions of dollars in lobbying efforts by big cable and internet companies, the decision today is just the beginning of the battle to stop regulations which take the internet out of the hands of the people, and deliver it into big corporate control.

The cable companies have focussed their efforts on behind the scenes lobbying, largely refusing interviews. It's the standard strategy for when corporations want an issue to slide through quiety. This means that they know that public opinion is against net neutrality, and it makes our task clear - get the word out!

"This effects all of us. It goes to our 1st Amendment right of freedom of expression. The Internet is an important tool for activists, and we can't lose that, or we lose our voice and a vital way we communicate with each other." ~ Dr Margaret Flowers.

Many internet users don't know what's going on, and it's up to all of us to educate your friends, family and community - online and offline. For background on Net Neutrality, read the article written by Kevin Zeese the day the People's Firewall Protest started - here and follow some of the many links within.

Bill Moyers & co report on the action - here.

The Guardian reports on today's vote and reaction - here.

Green Party Calls For Action To Protect Internet Equality

The following call to action was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese on April 25th.

In what the New York Times describes as “a net neutrality turnaround” the Obama administration’s new FCC chairman is proposing rules that will create an Internet for the wealthy. The new plan to create a pay to play Internet came to light Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.

Under the plan wealthy corporations will be able to purchase faster service, while those that cannot do so will have slower service. Rather than an open Internet for all the US will be moving to a class-based Internet. Of course, this will mean that when Netflix and other corporations purchase faster Internet, the consumers who use their service will be paying more to watch movies and download information. As a result, more money will be funneled from working Americans to wealthy telecom giants.

We recently wrote that the United States has lost its democratic legitimacy and now was a plutocratic oligarchy. This is what plutocracy looks like – policies designed for the wealthy, so they can make more money from the rest of us.

According to the Times:

“The new rules, according to the people briefed on them, will allow a company like Comcast or Verizon to negotiate separately with each content company – like Netflix, Amazon, Disney or Google – and charge different companies different amounts for priority service.

“That, of course, could increase costs for content companies, which would then have an incentive to pass on those costs to consumers as part of their subscription prices.”

In the future, if a new start-up – the future Twitter or Facebook – begins it will have a very hard time competing with those who are established Interne companies because the slower service of the start-ups will make them less consumer friendly. As a result we can expect less creativity on the Internet.  As Stacy Higginbotham wrote:

“The plans took the hallmark of network neutrality — the notion that ISP shouldn’t discriminate between the traffic flowing over their networks — and turned it on its head.”

The proposal is being shared with other members of the Commission today. There will then be amendments suggested to garner majority support and the plan is to vote on the proposal on May 15,

Take action now. To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov
Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov

To call and contact commissioner’s offices, call 1-888-225-5322.

In addition, call your elected representatives.  Tell them if net neutrality is ended, you will hold them accountable by withholding your vote. Both parties hope to control the senate after the mid-term elections, so you have more power than usual to let them know they are losing your vote if they fail to take action to stop the FCC proposal. The number for Congress is 202-224-3121.

Finally sign this petition:

Dear Commissioners

I am writing to oppose rules that will allow for discrimination on the Internet - where the wealthy can purchase faster Internet service and everyone else continues to have slower service. 

We do not want telecom giants and wealthy Internet companies to determine the future of the Internet. We want new ideas to flourish on the Internet and not be blocked because they do not have sufficient funds to purchase fast service and compete.

We do not want the Internet turned into another vehicle that allows money to flow from working Americans to the wealthiest -- where they purchase fast service then charge consumers more money for rapid Internet service. 

The proposal being considered would kill rather than protect Net Neutrality and allow rampant discrimination online. The Internet should be viewed as a public good and should be operated consistent with our rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Turning the Internet into a pay to play scheme is unacceptable.

We demand an open Internet and real net neutrality.

Chairman Wheeler knows this proposal is going to be unpopular and in response to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times is denying there has been a “turnaround.” But, his statement is carefully worded and would allow exactly was has been reported.

How Did We Get To Class-Based Internet?

This move to end net neutrality should be placed at the door of President Obama and the US Senate. Obama appointed a former industry head to become chair of the FCC and the Senate unanimously confirmed him.

In April 2008 during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama took the side of the people saying: “The most important thing we can probably do is to preserve the diversity that's emerging through the Internet...something called net neutrality. I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality.” While he campaigned as a populist he has governed as a plutocrat – on this issue and so many others.

When Tom Wheeler was nominated by President Obama to become the Chairman of the FCC many in the internet freedom community expressed deep concerns.  For decades Wheeler had represented the telecom industry in Washington, DC. From 1979 to 1984, Wheeler headed the National Cable Television Association, now named the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  He then worked in the telecom industry for 8 years followed by taking over as head of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Assn. in 1992, leaving in 2005.  Wheeler went on to become a major Obama fundraiser and adviser.  In fact on his bio page at the FCC this is expressed as "He is the only person to be selected to both the Cable Television Hall of Fame and The Wireless Hall of Fame, a fact President Obama joked made him 'The Bo Jackson of Telecom.'" Appointing Wheeler was akin to putting the industry in charge of the future of the Internet.  

Now Wheeler is set to propose what the industry has wanted, an end to net neutrality, that will allow them to charge us more for service and created financial barriers that will prevent new services from challenging their domination of the Internet.

If you want an open Internet, take action today. We can stop this – but we must act now.

Please contact the people above and forward this to everyone you know.

A Majority Of Older Americans Are Now On The Internet

Maybe it's because I am a Baby Boomer myself, but I found these figures on internet use by older Americans fairly interesting. It seems that you can teach an old dog new tricks, because a significant majority of Americans over 65 years-old (59%) now use the internet (and 71% of those using the internet do so daily). That's pretty good for a group of people who were well into their adult years before home computers were even available to the public.

But while a majority of those seniors are online (using e-mail and searching the internet), only about a quarter of those over 65 use social network sites (Google+, Facebook, etc.), while about 90% of younger Americans do so.

I also found it interesting that there are three factors that influence whether a senior will use the internet or not. Note that those who are the youngest seniors, those with the most education, and those with the highest incomes, have the highest rate of internet use -- while the opposite is true of the oldest seniors, the least educated, and those with the lowest incomes.

These figures come from a Pew Research Center survey done between July 18th and September 30th of 2013. The survey questioned 1,526 people over 65, and has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

The Internet Turns 25 Years Old Amid Huge Success

In less than two weeks, the internet will turn 25 years old -- to say say it has been a success would be an understatement. It is now used by a huge majority of Americans (and in other countries as well). Here's how the Pew Research Center recounts the birth of the internet:

Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote a paper on March 12, 1989 proposing an “information management” system that became the conceptual and architectural structure for the Web.  He eventually released the code for his system—for free—to the world on Christmas Day in 1990. It became a milestone in easing the way for ordinary people to access documents and interact over a network of computers called the internet—a system that linked computers and that had been around for years. The Web became especially appealing after Web browsers were perfected in the early 1990s to facilitate graphical displays of pages on those linked computers.

In 1995, only about 14% of the population in the United States were users of the internet. Today internet usage has exploded to include 87% of the population -- a phenomenal growth. And as the chart below shows, there is no group in our society that does not have a majority using the internet in 2014.

It is interesting that some demographic differences have a fairly wide gap in internet use, while others don't. It turns out that where a person lives (urban, suburban, rural) doesn't affect internet usage, and neither does race or ethnicity and sex. But other factors do matter. Those making over $75,000 a year have a much larger internet usage than those making under $30,000 a year (a difference of about 22 points). College graduates also have a significantly higher internet usage than those with a high school diploma or less (a 21 point difference).

But the biggest difference comes in the different age groups. Those 65 and over, a group that grew up before the internet was invented, has significantly less internet usage than the between 18 and 29 years old group (the first group to grow up with the internet being a reality). There is a 40 point difference between these two groups.

This Pew Research Center survey was done between January 9th and 12th of this year of 1,006 nationwide adults, and has a margin of error of about 3.5 points.

The GOP Effort To Kill Obamacare Is Nothing Short Of Evil

While Republicans might not like it, the graphic above is true. The Republicans don't have an alternative to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They have tried for months to come up with something, but have been unable to get enough of their members to agree on anything -- which means their only plan is to do away with Obamacare (and the problems with our health care system that it will solve).

I think they are finally beginning to realize they will not be able to repeal Obamacare. Even if they could get a repeal through the Congress (which they can't), it would be vetoed by the president. And by 2016, there will be so many people who have purchased better and cheaper health insurance through Obamacare, that repealing it will be tantamount to committing political suicide (even if they were able to gain control of the Senate and White House).

This leaves them with nothing but underhanded methods to try and stop Obamacare -- and do it before it gets most Americans on board. I told you a few days ago about the right-wing efforts to stop Obamacare by trying to keep the website for it from working. The Homeland Security Department has verified at least 16 different cyber attacks on the health care website. The most effective so far has been a DDoS (denial of service) attack -- where right-wingers are spreading a program which will overload the website, not allowing people wanting to purchase insurance to be able to access the site.

But that's not all they are doing. California Republicans have created a fake site to mimic the government website and fool consumers. Their fake Obamacare website contains lies and propaganda to try and convince consumers that they shouldn't sign up for health insurance -- that it will cost them too much, won't work, and would be a giant step toward socialism. Of course, none of that is true.

The Obamacare website is being fixed, and many are beginning to sign up. And people are starting to save money, by finding better and cheaper insurance through the website -- and many who really think they can't afford it are finding that the government subsidy will make the insurance affordable (or even free). As for it being socialistic, that is the biggest lie of all, since the health care exchange just helps consumers to buy insurance from private insurance companies (and that's pure capitalism).

But their pernicious effort to to keep people from buying health insurance is working with some people (those willing to put themselves in jeopardy to prove an ideological point). These people may think they are saving the country from socialism, or saving themselves some money, by paying a fine instead of purchasing health insurance -- but neither is true. They have just been convinced by the Republican lies to put themselves and their families in danger -- and when a serious illness does strike (as it will to everyone sooner or later), they will find themselves either unable to access the needed care or find themselves having to declare bankruptcy because of huge medical bills.

Personally, I think it is the epitome of evil for Republicans to be urging people not to buy decent and affordable health insurance. They are convincing these foolish people to put their health and financial security at risk -- proving once again that the Republicans are mean-spirited and hard-hearted, and care about no one but themselves (and their rich friends).

The chart above was made from information contained in a recent Gallup Poll (done between November 20th and December 2nd of 655 uninsured Americans nationwide, with a 5 point margin of error).