I would like Ann Ravel and her regulators to view this net neutrality video and consider this YouTube media creator, is he an brilliant young Australian political artist? Perhaps more free speech is a better way forward Ann. Truth and facts can prevail on a world stage by keeping media monopolies from taking all. Bust up media monopolies Ann. Raise up more Robert Foster's of this world. Tear down industries seeking control of our minds and souls. The G-20 meet now and plan in Australia. What do they plan for 2015. A new renaissance with meat and potatoes - or increased depopulation of humanity - water-boards, drones, wars, disease, increased efforts to meat out death. Comapre the two videos in this post. Robert Foster on YouTube and Ann Ravel on YouTube - both benefit without disclosure or permission for their messages because of the free voice, free speech internet. How can regulation of every political related media production and/or news report on the internet benefit citizens? Only the companies who can comply are with a voice. Barriers to entry is what the business schools teach. They refer to keeping out competition and it is a part of their strategy to regulate to their own advantage against new or weaker competition. Ann would benefit media monopolies by expansion of internet regulation, which sounds more republican than democratic back in the Bush Dynasty. FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel has begun her planned censorship and demise of free speech and net neutrality in America on the internet. Regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos is her goal for governance, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. Her regulator brain reached premature conclusion prior to doing a diligent investigation. Proof is in her statement, “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said. What facts and evidence support her conclusions. Her unethical science called for a vote without diligent investigations and discussion.What a surprise. Ann Revel is a regulator. Are there any conflicts of interest for her. Is she being self serving, expanding powers to do more of what is they do too much already, and which they do poorly now? What is hidden? Why does she push for more control on the internet? Is she afraid of what independent free minds may discover? Humans are not her property. She serves citizens but her thinking is backward. Government is best when it serves the body politic. Controlling and manipulating citizens, using government regulators, is an abuse that is historically proven. Perhaps American NSA is seeking an increase in media power through increased internet regulation. Propaganda in media is not cured by regulators. Ann Ravel speaks on the news. Does she need to provide financial and other disclosures every time she has a part in any broadcast? The vote today was 3-3 on whether a negative anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules by not reporting finances or disclosures on their ads. The ads were free videos on YouTube, not paid advertising. The plot to undo the free press and internet neutrality are moving forward led by the Ravel gestapo, who plan meetings next year to regulate the internet. She charged that groups placing paid TV ads use the FEC exemption to disseminate similar messages on the internet, regulation free. Goodman asks Ravel if she may misconceive the exemption. If the same message on TV also is posted online, then it is regulated? The Internet exemption applies only to videos posted for free, solely on the Internet. Sequestering citizens voices that they express on the internet is the bottom line. Paid advertisers will gain advantage over talented and motivated citizens. Who funds the Ravel campaigns? Not media or advertising companies we hope. Audit her. Revel said this, “Since its inception this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV,” Ravel argued. Is this a fact. Is this an opinion without facts. I see your interview on the news, because of YouTube. A rush to destroy free speech paints a picture of totalitarian pawns. Let's re-think this stink Ann M. Ravel.
