Woz speaks out on ‘net neutrality,’ privacy, and Star Trek vs. Star Wars

“Steve Wozniak designed computers for fun in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The late Steve Jobs turned Wozniak’s projects into money, when the pair formed what is now Apple Inc. in 1976,” Margie Manning reports for The Tampa Bay Business Journal. “Wozniak traced the founding of the company and the lessons he’s learned along the way during an interview with University of South Florida Muma College of Business Dean Moez Limayem, at the kickoff event for the business school’s Thought Leaders Series.”

“Wozniak got the loudest applause from the nearly 5,000 people in the audience at the USF Sun Dome when he spoke out on net neutrality,” Manning reports. “‘This idea of net neutrality, it’s a fairness thing, anybody can publish equally. When the internet first came, that’s how we viewed it and how it was intended to be,’ Wozniak said. ‘Now it’s being converted, where countries control what you can and cannot access, and [internet service providers] say, you pay me some money, you get to come through. Big business has more control.'”

“There were lots of moments of levity in the hour-long interview, including Limayem’s opening volley of questions to get to know Wozniak better,” Manning reports. “Limayem: ‘Star Trek or Star Wars?’ Wozniak: ‘My son or my daughter? I can’t take a side.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Woz is very smart not to pick a fave when it comes to Star Trek vs. Star Wars!

SEE ALSO:
U.S. FCC reversal of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules expected to be published Thursday – February 20, 2018
NARUC regulators respond to scrapping of so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations by U.S. FCC – December 15, 2017
Republican senator calls on U.S. Congress to pass ‘net neutrality’ legislation – December 12, 2017
Millions of people post ‘net neutrality’ comments on FCC docket; many are fake – December 12, 2017
U.S. FCC rejects calls to delay vote to repeal so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – December 5, 2017
Dear Aunt Sadie, please step back from the so-called ‘net neutrality’ ledge – November 27, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Killing Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ will set the internet free – November 22, 2017
U.S. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: How the FCC can save the open internet – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans total repeal of Obama-era rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 21, 2017
U.S. FCC plans December vote to kill so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 16, 2017
Apple’s call for ‘strong’ net neutrality rules is a hint about the future of its business – September 1, 2017
Apple breaks their silence on ‘net neutrality,’ remains open to alternative sources of legal authority – August 31, 2017
Trump administration gives thumbs up to overturning FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 19, 2017
]Apple’s deafening silence on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – July 14, 2017
FCC kicks off effort to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – May 18, 2017
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 28, 2017
FCC Chief Ajit Pai develops plans to roll back so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – April 7, 2017
U.S. FCC chairman wields weed whacker, takes first steps against so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 3, 2017
How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump – January 26, 2017
New FCC chairman Ajit Pai vows to take a ‘weed whacker’ to so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 24, 2017
President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman – January 23, 2017
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “sharkaf” for the heads up.]

45 Comments

  1. In a world with real net neutrality, Facebook and Google would not censor Christians and Republicans simply for expressing their views. But then, net neutrality is not about an open internet. It is about establishing government control over the internet.

    1. I agree with you about the power of FB and Google but I don’t think these companies censor based on subject, but rather on popularity. Their algorithms are designed to acquire information to prompt you to stay in their walled gardens and click on as many ads as possible. They are ad agencies and data miners first and foremost.

      Thankfully many forums exist outside the large evil corporations. They were set up in the era before ISPs were handed by the current FCC chairman the right to tilt the playing field. I don’t know how you can claim not to be able to find these sites. The internet is overridden with politicos from all stripes. Your inability to find enough god, guns, and right wing propaganda online may be a personal issue. Might I recommend avoiding tech blogs and instead joining appropriate forums for your interests?

      To the issue at hand: the constitution guarantees the right of free speech — how is it right to set up paywalls to prevent it? Pai is blatantly giving corporations the power to block people’s access by unfair pricing, bundling, and other even more sinister practices. It’s quite hypocritical to boast about cutting the cord from your cable TV provider in retaliation for anti-consumer practices while at the same time cheering a corrupt administration for handing telecos MORE power with LESS oversight and LESS consumer protections.

      Without true net neutrality, the internet will become an even worse pay-to-play landscape. That has been Pai’s motive forever, to maximize profit for gatekeepers. I wonder who appointed this corrupt corporate butt boy?

      Regardless of administration, the big bad government is so poorly budgeted, they can’t sustain meaningful domestic policing at all. All focus is on external terrorists. They have been allowing domestic terrorists to conduct regular mass shootings because they don’t actually have the resources to do significant preemptive work. The feds and the states haven’t a fraction of the internet spy power that private corporations and criminal rings have. Not even close. Stop with the conspiracy bs and look at what is happening every day. The FBI is slow and late on every domestic terrorist issue. They can’t even follow up on the reports that are handed to them.

      The balance is hard. Perhaps no amount of resources devoted to identifying future crime will be effective. While you seem unaware, internet is full of extremists and hate, neo nazis, gun extremists, zenophobes, radical isolationists, and so forth. If you’re whining because you can’t outbid the wacko fringe to get your voice heard about the rest, you will receive no sympathy from most people here. It sounds like you want to gerrymander the rules to suit your views instead of having a level playing field. That is fundamentally wrong. The cesspool has been created, but it’s constitutionally protected. When you attempt to give corporations the power to clean it up, then you will only hear what the non-democratic corporations want you to hear.

      1. There is massive documentation of Facebook and YouTube (Google) censoring conservatives and “demonetizing” their content, which is “separate and unequal” aka, worse than apartheid.

        1. “Worse than apartheid.”

          You have lost your moorings. Anyone who would speak such blasphemy doesn’t have a clue how evil apartheid was. Never having lived under a police state, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

          Kent, does a forum like MDN have the right to moderate or police its forums? Why or why not? The people who are crying about censorship are almost always the ones who violate stated policy. Since you have no proof to show that these stated policies are in any way politically motivated, your argument fails. You ought to do some investigation of your own rather than just parroting the whines of extremist trolls. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/twitter-suspends-thousands-of-accounts-for-bot-behavior-some-cry-censorship/

          FB, Goog, or Twitter receive no support from me. But we all know that bad eggs exist and need to be yanked from the elevated platforms that these for-profit companies have been allowed to create. You don’t tolerate abuse in your home, why do you defend abusers? You hate government regulation, but now you whine when undemocratic corporations make their own rules.

          Kent, it seems to me that you’ve found a way to get your voice out on the internet. Twitter still hosts political propaganda that you can agree with. Go there instead of here if that’s what you want.

    2. Not seeing Facebook or Google censor Christians or Republicans, but I hear a lot of them bitching about it. Kind of like they bitch about a “Liberal” media- which does not exist.

      Plenty of Corporate Media, but ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC are not liberal. They are corporate. Same in print with WaPo, NYT and USA Today/Gannett.

            1. No, Kent, we understand completely. You feel that FaceBook and Twitter are promoting messages with which you disagree, so you want the Federal Government to order them to carry your message equally with more mainstream views. By federalizing all the social media, you will promote freedom from government oppression. We understand. We just don’t agree that it is consistent with the First Amendment.

        1. Kent says, “You are an idiot”.

          If I said that to Kent’s face in his home, would Kent allow me to stay?

          But Kent feels free to act this way on a public forum and cannot understand why sites choose to moderate their forums.

          Kent, a but more circumspection would be wise on your part. Nobody likes an insulting hypocrite.

            1. You are free to speak your mind. But it in so doing you have advertised what a small mind you have, kent. None of your opinions will ever rise on social popularity rankings when you treat others with such unwarranted contempt. That is as polite as i can address you. Now go back to the cave from which you slithered.

      1. “Kind of like they bitch about a “Liberal” media- which does not exist. Plenty of Corporate Media, but ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC are not liberal. They are corporate. Same in print with WaPo, NYT and USA Today/Gannett.”

        Your most clueless comment to date, sorry my friend.

        ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC are INDEED — the most liberal media companies on planet Earth in HISTORY. Same holds true for WaPo, NYT and USA Today/Gannett.

        USA TODAY stands out as the most liberal in print, head and shoulders above the rest. Are you are familiar with their corporate diversity directives and reporting participation in making political correctness mainstream and a household word in the early 1990s that continue until this day?

        If you are saying corporate owned, channeling Bernie Sanders, then they are all conservative media outlets, right? Or is it non-biased? Just asking.

        Reason I am asking is because the MSM collective did NOT breathlessly report 24/7 a recent bombshell story that 94% of President Trump’s coverage in his first year was negative. A RECORD for a president in his first year! That’s not what I would exactly call HONEST reporting.

        The same MSM did not report the latest poll numbers that clearly show President Trump’s approval numbers are HIGHER than Obama at this point in office. Add in the economy, employment numbers, unemployment, stock market records, and in and on.

        Bottom line: Forget everything about the MSM, except when it comes to their liberal biased reporting.

        As John Lennon sang decades ago, “hope one day you will join us” …

        1. GeoB,

          There is a little-known fact: bad news gets negative press coverage. The MSM almost never runs feel-good stories about natural disasters or wars, for example. So, when something or somebody gets negative coverage, it just might be that the news about them is mostly bad. That is certainly more reasonable than shooting the messenger.

          It is hard to spin the fact that the Trump Administration has had more turnover in the first year than any other in history as positive. The indictments (and guilty pleas) of several people linked to the President isn’t good news for Mr. Trump and can’t be easily covered as such. Ongoing criminal investigations tend to bring negative coverage for the parties being investigated. The tax bill and a Supreme Court appointment have had plenty of positive coverage, but that hardly makes up for the absence after 13 months of any other adopted legislation to report favorably.

          Most Americans find it baffling that their President spends more time attacking American law enforcement than Russian criminals, so that’s what the media report. It is hard to get positive coverage in the MSM for remarks that appear to praise Nazis as good people, that treat women as no more than sex objects, or that incite ethnic divisions. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

          Facebook, Twitter, and the MSM have a higher circulation than Breitbart, InfoWars, and The Daily Stormer because they provide more readers with information that those readers regard as credible. I don’t think the public is going to support the efforts of people like you and Kent to empower a Federal Ministry of Truth to force journalists to shape their coverage to support their fringe opinions.

        2. They did not channel Bernie Sanders- they endorsed Hillary Clinton before the Iowa Caucuses. I worked on the Sanders Campaign as a volunteer.

          Polling showed Bernie would easily beat the entire Republican field and that Hillary would struggle with all of them. If they were “liberal” they would have pushed Bernie.

          Hillary is corporate to the core- not Progressive by any means. Liberal and Progressive are not the same.

          I have worked with and for Conservative candidates- starting with Ronald Reagan in 1980. Mr Carter was a good man, but had lost any credibility to govern the country and had to go.

          Reagan would not be welcome in today’s Trumptastic Party- Paul Ryan barely is.

          1. My channeling comment was meant in the general sense that Bernie was a constant critic of corporate America, nothing more.

            I do agree with you regarding Hillary and the deck stacked election process. And yes, I much preferred true to his convictions Bernie over phony Hillary.

            That side stuff out of the way, I am at a loss that you don’t see how biased and embarrassing the media has become after the Trump election victory. Surveys for decades have shown the media has a liberal bias, but now it is off the charts. Sorry you just don’t see it …

            1. The media has a bias, it is just not liberal.
              Corporate Democratic- yes. Liberal- no.

              There is a jihad going on within the Democratic Party right now where Clinton loyalists are trying to throw anyone who did not tow the line in 2016 out of any leadership positions. Note the total lack of coverage by the commercial media. Exactly like they did not cover the extensive electioneering designed to rig the Primaries for Hillary- about a Quarter Million voters were thrown off the rolls weeks before the New York Primary in Brooklyn alone. Not a peep when it happened right under their noses.

    3. Yep. On FB, post a story about cats or dogs and it get’s pushed to the top and everyone sees it.
      Post a story about the FBI screwing up and breaking the law and it is buried, no-one sees it or a few see it. Has happened too many times to be just accidental.
      Just like the millions of fake Twitter accounts that are used to manipulate “what’s trending” on Twat-world.

      1. It gets pushed to the top because the company’s algorithms have learned that stories about dogs and cats get more readers than stories about the FBI. More readers = more eyeballs for advertisers. Facebook is there to (1) please its advertisers, and (2) please its customers.

        It is not there to educate the public about issues that a fairly small minority of them regard as important. That’s why all the broadcast documentaries run on PBS, not a commercial TV network that has to satisfy a mass audience.

        Of course, that is the simplest theory that adequately explains the evidence (Occam’s Razor), so it will be immediately rejected by those who prefer complicated conspiracy theories.

    4. Special Snowflake conservatives make me ill. Here I was thinking it was a liberal thing, but apparently there are weak people of all stripes that would rather use the government to “help them” than just to make do with their own skills.

      Sad really.

        1. You have shared three key indicators of someone who is psychotic. You have an irrational feeling of being shunned by others. You don’t have any empathy for others. You have no sense of scale or scope, making apartheid an equal offense to your feelings of persecution. In addition to all that, you display none of the Christian values you claim to defend. Seek professional help immediately before you do harm to yourself or others.

    5. You appear to be bearing a major cross on your shoulder, kent. I don’t know why you feel so persecuted, or why you are concerned about FB and Google, in particular. But I think that you scare me a little.

          1. To clarify, the reason I’m saying that you are a fascist, kent, is because you seem to be advocating that companies (private actors) should not be beholden to the desires of their customers to not have bullshit bigot wacko crap shoved in their faces. Those companies know that (at least for now), most people don’t want to see right-wing nonsense all the time, so it is de-prioritized, except for wackos who REALLY want to read about things that tear down people based on bigotry.

            I guess that means that you get to see plenty, so why the complaint? Sad that FB/Google aren’t helping you proselytize?

            1. Gotcha on Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:02 am
              Your comment is awaiting moderation.
              In a world with real net neutrality, MDN would not block my IP address because I post differing viewpoints to the resident alt right knuckle draggers. They – MDN, would not censor my comments and let blatant liars promote worthless memes unchallenged. They would be even handed rather than seeking to control the message by wholesale moderation.
              Your paranoia slip is showing.

              See what I mean? Nothing controversial or insulting or hateful.
              **Resorts to public Wi-fi.**

  2. “This idea of net neutrality, it’s a fairness thing, anybody can publish equally….”

    wrong.

    Net Neutrality rules only affected ISP’s and not social media platforms like Assbook and Twitter or any streaming clients like Netflix.

    1. Please cite to which net neutrality rule you refer. The one butt boy Pai has devoted his corrupt career to eliminate to enhance the profitability of ISPs and the ability of ISPs to choke out publishers they don’t like?

            1. Wow. Botvinnik demonstrates assholitude all the time, with every pathetic post.

              Mike for the win.

              Bottvinnik, parroting whatever talking points he was given, doesn’t know what regulation he is talking about. He doesn’t know or care because he thinks all regulations are inherently politically motivated against him. Must be very painful to have all your troll accounts deleted in one day.

            2. Uh, you’ve been an asshole every second you’ve been here. You bitch about government intrusion in your life, and you bitch about evil internet companies, and you claim you need a VPN to protect your precious identity, then you claim others should register on websites to receive zero added value. Got it. F off.

      1. Who makes “more money”? Since that is your big worry. Let’s see who makes more – Comcast or FaceBook? AT&T or Google? Let’s regulate the ones with the higher market caps.

    2. social media platforms have to connect to the internet and so do social media platform users. It doesn’t work without the internet, which brings ISPs into play, which leads back to the net neutrality discussion.

      See? It isn’t that hard. Try using a little logic and a little less inane and profane ranting, and you might learn something.

      DF

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.