Net Neutrality pop up on site.

[Mr Allen]

Topic.

This started for me yesterday, a "RED ALERT FOR NET NEUTRALITY" pop up in the bottom right corner of the screen, it only happens on here.

Has the site been hacked?

 

[AGXStarseed]

No - this is something the Admins have done.
Autism Forums Supports Net Neutrality

 

[Progster]

(my post copied from another thread, but relevant here)

I now get that this is for a cause related to US legistation, but when I first opened it, it scared me, and it took me several attempts before I was able to open the site. I had no warning - I am not in the US and am not aware of this legal issue so the banner meant nothing to me, all I was aware of was this bright blood red banner not letting me close it, taking up the WHOLE of my screen - forcing me to interact with it. I had no idea what is was and for all I knew my computer had been hijacked by a virus, and I just panicked. I was scared to click on anything, because I am aware of the dangers of interacting with unknown software. NOT exactly autism friendly. Is there no subtler way of doing this???? Do we have to get this huge, intrusive, annoying, scary banner???

 

[Kirsty]

Yeah, I had this. There was a bit at the bottom with grey writing saying no, not interested or whatever. I just clicked on that and it went away. As long as you don’t click else where, it’ll be fine. It scared the wits out of me too!

 

[ksheehan88]

Yep, panicked me too!

 

[LucyPurrs]

Yes, FYI it does relate to issue in the US where congress wants to end net neutrality and this is an effort to stop that. But if it's scaring people, maybe there's a better way to put something up- @Brent can you help?

 

[WildCat]

This might help explain things better, and please correct me if I'm wrong here:

Red Alert for Net Neutrality

There's a script on that website that, if added to a web page, will display a widget prompting users to take action for net neutrality. No viruses or anything malicious far as I could tell, so nothing to worry about.

 

[Voltaic]

I think the situation in the states calls for actions such as these. I support the fact that the admins are taking a stance, but of course it could have been done 'better,' though I don't know what better would have been.

 

[Suzanne]

Yes, just clicked and it went away and when I come back and it happens again, will just click.

It becomes an issue if it refuses to go away.

 

[Crossbreed]

It also shows up on Christian Forums. Is there an advantage to doing both, or is one enough?

 

[Progster]

So essentially what they're trying to do in the U.S. — taking away these net neutrality rules — means that the internet is going to look a lot more like your cable package which is exactly why we're turning to the internet: to get away from those cable packages.

So it means that you're going to start to see things like bundles the same way that we have sports packages and movie packages on TV. We'll start to see things like social media packages or news packages on the internet which means that you could be charged more for any individual piece. And there's going to be extraordinary fees to unlock the entire internet the way that we already have access to it now.

This sucks. I hope this never happens.

 

[wight]

OK, so here is a basic summary of the issue from NPR.

FCC Plans Net Neutrality Rollback For June 11; Senate Democrats Plan A Key Challenge

If you don't care to read the link, or are outside the US, a summary:
This is a US issue.
The FCC issued a ruling that net neutrality would end June 11.
FCC is the government agency in charge of all communications mediums.
US Federal Congress can overturn the FCC ruling and force it/them to continue net neutrality
The red pop-up thing is "notify your congressman" that you want them to support continuing net neutrality.
If you are outside the US, or have already done it, you can click the text at the bottom that says some thing like "no interested/doesn't affect me"
Expect this popup to start showing up in many places that are not controlled by corporation. (e.g. Wikipedia, other forums, store websites, google)

 

[Judge]

It's just the big companies that are trying to protect their own business interests. They are ones that used to own cable and they're not making money off of you anymore. So they're trying to make money off of the internet now instead."

Worse still to consider they are publicly traded corporations where the possibility of a minority of shareholders with controlling interest can potentially manipulate a majority of shareholders and all their customers regarding plans and content that remain blatantly $elf-$erving apart from reflecting all sorts of biases you may approve or disapprove of.

Imagine such programming mentalities not willing to provide access to Autism based forums simply because they aren't a strong enough financial draw to money-making sponsors. Where considerations of advertising revenue impact not only a website's desirability, but how desirable it may or may not be to the Internet Service Providers themselves. Worse still could be where competitor products and services might suddenly become unavailable based on the provider's corporate business affiliations. Oops. So sorry!

From what I see so far, Senate Republicans are only looking at the dollar signs of such a proposition to the communications industry as a whole. Not how devastating this could be from the perspective of content and usability for the public at large. Yet even shareholders could eventually be vulnerable in the event their investment chooses the wrong "cherry-picked" web programming which results in losses of profits.

All amounting to a peculiar form of censorship based on corporate capitalists attempting to consolidate their profit centers through the control of content. Especially when one's geography and technical resources often depends on what corporate communications provider they must deal with not necessarily by choice.

Not supporting net neutrality reflects yet another means to transfer more wealth to fewer people apart from potentially limiting the amazing range of online content we all have at the present time.

 

[Mia]

This might be of interest to some, if the bill passes. I'm considering it myself.

Calls, Texts, and File Sharing, Without the Internet or a Cell Network
Now You Can Build Your Own Private Mesh Network With Phones and Radios
The Best Wi-Fi Mesh-Networking Kits for Most People

 

[Theta.G]

My eyes >.<

It got cut out but at the bottom:
"No i don't want to take action". weak attempt at guilt tripping.
What if i already did take action and just don't want my photo sensitive eyes to be assaulted?What if i don't want a migraine to be triggered by this annoying advance? Why change it to a forced full screen.
Add "Already took action **** off" button please.

Since it is now a forced full screen, you don't need such an annoying color scheme. A forced full screen already gets everyones attention. Strange how this is overlooked in an aspie forum where others are likely sensitive to such visuals.

 

[Ezra]

The pop up is very off putting. Possibly scares new people away.

 

[RetiredDinner]

It really is quite off putting. On my phone, it was nearly impossible to click it away in order to browse the site, it kept sending me there.

 

[Progster]

I think I managed to block it, it was driving me crazy. I hate pop-ups.

It is definitely going to put new members off.

It is certainly not suitable for an autism friendly site. It isn't suitable for this site and the admin shouldn't have put it there.

 

[Streetwise]

add to the fact that it's pointless for the other 99% of the world,it's only relevant if you live in the USA !
net neutrality is also an issue for the European union but probably not for other countries !but you have to contact your MEP!

 

[Bella Pines]

I hate corporations. Any glimmer of freedom and some rich old man steps in and tries to control it.