FTC Wants To Tax Websites and Bloggers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How does a 5% tax on any electronic device (laptops, iPads, etc.) that allows you to access news stories via the internet sound to you? Where will the tax money go? As the Washington Times puts it…to the dead-tree version of the news.

In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories.
Click to expand...
 
Steve, I know sensationalist headlines tend to grab readers.. but you really need to research what you post before you spread FUD. The FTC does not want to tax anything. They were looking for suggestions on how to help the news media. All the idea, the taxes, the monthly fees, the limitations on fair use, are all industry ideas. They are not the ideas of the FTC. The FTC has actually opposed all of these ideas. They simply published the list of suggestions they received, but of course every right winger who doesn't bother to read the information jumps on this as a governmental takeover and management of news.

There are no new taxes, these are NOT FTC ideas. They are ideas from private companies and individuals, which the FTC rejected

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...for-saving-journalism-in-the-internet-age.ars

That is a fact checked article for those who actually want to read about whats happening.
 
I read the article and I remember also reading the other article which mentioned this earlier.

From the earlier article this proposal is just a "what if" proposal at this point. I read this article expecting more details but it is nothing but someone spewing about "big brother" and conspiracy ideas.

I read this article and there is still no new information other than what was said in an earlier article. (Even then, the earlier article had more information than this one.)

Short Version: It's just an article for the point of "getting hits to the site."
 
I would also like the add that the headline is inaccurate. That and in addition to the article linked itself but it gets away with it since it's an "editorial".
 
demingo - So your angry because people are discussing the ideas that the FTC put out for people to discuss? Also since these ideas on to be discussed on the 15th unless you just got back from visiting the future McFly I don't think the FTC has "rejected" these at all yet, so I think you might want to wait before you attack people for not reading the news.
 
This is one thing I can't see happening. I don't think there is many out there who will agree with this other then those who avoid technology like the plague.

You know, the lady who thought the end of analog meant the end of TV.
 
I do enjoy how the Ars Technica (who I normally like quite a bit) article basicly lists anything that is a new fee or tax as a "terrible" idea but anything that is a new way to spend government money is not such a bad idea. They must think that the money that the government spends never comes from people and companies.
 
Corporate America, Lobbyists and the government suck,
 
Derfman said:
I don't think there is many out there who will agree with this other then those who avoid technology like the plague.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how they market it. There are a ton of people who embrace technology who love government run media like PBS, NPR, and the BBC. The BBC website is quite popular and NPR always has a couple of the most popular podcasts on iTunes. Think of if it was positioned as taking money from Fox News to give money to NPR. All it needs is a catchy name like Net Neutrality.
 
rally9x said:
demingo - So your angry because people are discussing the ideas that the FTC put out for people to discuss? Also since these ideas on to be discussed on the 15th unless you just got back from visiting the future McFly I don't think the FTC has "rejected" these at all yet, so I think you might want to wait before you attack people for not reading the news.
Click to expand...

No I'm angry at the completely misleading headline title.

"FTC wants to tax websites and bloggers" is 100% false. The accurate headline would read, "FTC receives proposals from private sources suggesting taxation websites and bloggers"

There is a big big difference there buddy.
 
I'm sure I stand alone on the forums when I say this, but the Drudge Report is garbage.
 
darkpaw said:
Wow, that article.. excuse me editorial, was not even close to accurate. What the FTC released was a draft collectino of feedback from various organizations, not a policy proposal or any official views http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/journalism.shtm
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the hastily-prepared, cover-our-asses-because-what-we-really-want-is-going-to-piss-people-off backpedal. Much like having the youtube video of the cop knocking the guy off the bike, were it not for this being exposed it would be done. It's just a way to keep the "old media" buddies happy.
 
Spin spin spin.

Every competent American knows exactly what the FTC's intentions are, and so does Steve.

"They are just showing feedback and results from a third party."

Yeah, and the nazi's were just doing the same thing when they were pushing their hate-the-jew propaganda. Didn't change the outcome then... and it won't change the outcome now. Too bad more Americans don't have the intelligence to think for themselves.
 
As soon as I read "Drudge Report" and "must-read source for the news links of the day" I got a sudden, strong whiff of the stench of conspiracy theory bullshit.

I think the only place that article belongs is on the Drudge Report!
 
orkan said:
Spin spin spin.

Every competent American knows exactly what the FTC's intentions are, and so does Steve.

"They are just showing feedback and results from a third party."

Yeah, and the nazi's were just doing the same thing when they were pushing their hate-the-jew propaganda. Didn't change the outcome then... and it won't change the outcome now. Too bad more Americans don't have the intelligence to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Really? comparing the FTC to the Nazi party? Don't you think you're going a bit far trying to reach for a point?

If you look through the FTC website you can actually read the proposals and who proposed them.
 
Thank goodness I read the comments to get the real story. This sounded too horrible to be true.
 
Its strange to me that anything that sheds a bad light on the current administration is labeled a "conspiracy theory" regardless of any truth behind the story.

It is a well known fact that the president and his subordinates are circumventing congress and the checks and balances of the government by using the various agencies to enact "regulation" that does not require votes or approval by the citizens of this country.

I suppose when they take the "feedback" of this "third party" and tax us more because it was the "fiscally responsible thing to do" you guys will be surprised huh? I won't be.

You like the idea of "net neutrality" then too huh? After all, they aren't talking about censoring free speech right?

Steve has it right. Some of you need to wake up.
 
so we can have freedom of speech, but not for free right?

tax man..... working for no one but me.
 
Coprorate America, Lobbyists, Government and Drudge Report suck
 
Misleading headline? Yep.

FTC not actually considering raising taxes/fees? No one could seriously believe that. Seriously.
 
LOL. It;s the modem tax all over again and the same knee jerk clueless rants from uneducated posters about it. ZOMG! The Secret Muslim Communist Black Helicopter New World Order is going to tax my pr0n pipe! WTFBBQ!!!1!!!ONE!!!111

RTFA at FCC.GOV you newbs. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/journalism.shtm

And Steve? I expect shit like this from Gizmodo. Not [H].
 
ianken said:
LOL. It;s the modem tax all over again and the same knee jerk clueless rants from uneducated posters about it. ZOMG! The Secret Muslim Communist Black Helicopter New World Order is going to tax my pr0n pipe! WTFBBQ!!!1!!!ONE!!!111

RTFA at FCC.GOV you newbs. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/journalism.shtm

And Steve? I expect shit like this from Gizmodo. Not [H].
Click to expand...

Exactly...

The worst part, is you can actually read every suggestion, see who its from, and research their political and professional backgrounds if you so wished. But I guess that's too much work for Fox News.
 
ianken said:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/journalism.shtm[/url
Click to expand...

The question posed: “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”

Does it need to? I wonder if the government asked the same question about the ice salesmen during the emergence of the refrigerator/freezer...
 
FTC does not want to do this, as has been said. This news story is false, misleading, and insane.
 
ianken said:
We're paying the lowest personal income taxes in 60 years. WTF are you whining about? My return this year was fucking epic.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't own a business.

This year, I'm passing a lot of extra expense on to my customers. We'll see what kind of tune you are singing in a few years.
 
Whether or not the FTC wants to do this, the idea sure sounds familiar. IMF anyone?
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
The question posed: “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”

Does it need to? I wonder if the government asked the same question about the ice salesmen during the emergence of the refrigerator/freezer...
Click to expand...

Your analogy is a bit off.

The ice cream salesman might be out of business but ice cream is still around.

The medium may change, but the product is still around.

The concern with journalism is that as the majority get their news from the net and sources like twitter, investigative reporting, the kind that takes real money to back, may die.

While a blogger can post about today's event, he may or may not have the funds to do a 6 month investigation into something.
 
demingo said:
Your analogy is a bit off.

The ice cream salesman might be out of business but ice cream is still around.

The medium may change, but the product is still around.
Click to expand...

The paper journalist might be going out of business but journalism is still around.

The medium may change, but the product is still around.

I should have stated the larger issue. If the people don't want/need traditional journalism, then so be it.
 
It's well known that the Obama regime is upset that the mainstream media has lost its monopoly on information dissemination. Maybe the specifics of this particular editorial are accurate, maybe they aren't, but it's a fact that they are looking for ways to prop up the mainstream media since it isn't surviving competition very well. Looks like a desperate attempt by an increasingly unpopular president to hold onto control. What else can we expect from a regime that steals our own tax dollars from us to spend on "outreach" to convince everyone that socialized health care won't end in disaster?
 
anonmoniker said:
they are looking for ways to prop up the mainstream media since it isn't surviving competition very well.
Click to expand...

Funny, Fox News doesn't seem to be hurting. Point in fact, they are breaking their ratings records all the time. It seems that people can tell the truth when they hear it. Maybe if some other networks and newspapers would try it REGARDLESS of their agenda, they might not be feeling such a financial pinch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top