Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has behaved like a moonbat in the past, and his public vocabulary leaves a lot to be desired, but he sure got it right when he said that Obama’s Internet power grab via the lawless FCC will “f*** everything up,” and that it “scares the sh**” out of him.
Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, hardly a bastion of conservatism, is waking up enough to share that fear:
For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
The federal government limit its own power? What year do these people think it is, 1789? The purpose of any federal government controlled by progressives is to expand its power.
Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
According to the FCC’s own “Fact Sheet,” the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers.
Q: What does “harm” mean? A: Whatever federal bureauweenies want it to mean in any given situation. Vague laws (or in this case, vague Executive Branch decrees) are the building blocks of tyranny.
A little late, the EFF figures out the game:
As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
As with all things Hopey and Changey, the key term is oligarchical collectivism. You don’t need to actually be in the government to be part of the oligarchy; you just need a seat at the table. These seats are far out of the price range of the little people, who will be immediately hurt as reclassifying the Internet as a utility increases costs to consumers.
Orwell summed up oligarchical collectivism as “a boot stamping on a human face.” Why would anyone be in favor of this? In part because they think it is their boot, and someone else’s face. They don’t realize that in the end, even if you identify with the oligarchy, it is always someone else’s boot and your face.
Congrats to the EFF for belatedly beginning to figure it out. But then even Google, the quintessential aggressively leftist bastion of the Obamunist establishment, has gotten a clue:
[The FCC’s Internet power grab on behalf of Obama] even drew warnings from Google Inc., which told the White House privately it was making a mistake when President Barack Obama called in November for the approach the FCC adopted on Thursday.
That’s right, Google. Even if you get eaten last by the statist crocodile, you still get eaten, just like the rest of us.