You could argue the reason tech workers want to keep or tighten immigration controls is to keep wages high. There is greed on both sides, and overall tech workers are not the worse off either.

The only way to resolve this kind of conflict is to go back to first principle and ethics (see Michael Huemer [1] for example). Is it right to use force to prevent a peaceful foreigner to buy a house in the US and live there? Is it right to use force to prevent a peaceful foreigner to make a voluntary contract with a US employer?

One way to see that this is not right is to think about analogies in our daily lives and the answer is that we would not condone such force in civil society.

[1] http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/immigration.htm (Is There a Right to Immigrate?)

I recommend Bryan Caplan's Youtube talk on immigration [1]. This is a broader question than just changing quota of H1-Bs.
First, the moral case is for letting people move freely and not use force against such peaceful people.
Second, the practical and political case is what is the impact on local workers, the local culture and also fiscal considerations. The evidence shows that those effects are at most small, and the net overall effect is positive.
The worries about negative effects can be addressed with simple but humane rules (unlike current immigration restrictions). For example, ask for some minimum language skills, add an income tax on immigrants to help local workers who are impacted, and possibly voting restrictions for such guest workers. All of those would be much better than current system of quota, both for locals and for foreigners.

[1] https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGYk00Ufiqb4

Most online courses are voice with some whiteboarding or slides (coursera, opencourseware, khan academy). It should be relatively easy to produce low-bandwidth versions if you remove the video of the talking face.
Voice and slides don't need much bandwidth. Whiteboarding doesn't need much either, if it is properly encoded.

Of course, it works: you haven't spent money on products that you don't support. Those companies and products have done you no harm.
If by "doesn't work" you mean other people did not have the same behavior as you, that is not the game editor's problem. That is your problem. Maybe you should try to convince people to adopt your preferences.

What is it that Google is "victim" of, exactly?

"United States' military's gift"
DARPA certainly contributed to the development of internet and the web as we know it today, but it is an erroneous simplification to ignore the work leading to TCP/IP and the work after that. Singling out one step in the chain of investments, research and innovations is intellectually lazy.

"the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality."
No. They don't. But, they sure would like to, and will certainly pretend to.

That a sad thing with government, you can't trust it with the power to redefine its own power, as it will invariably be abused.

The article really means subsidies, which imply that the real incentives to switching don't actually quite make sense compared to the costs of switching. But Cerf thinks he knows best than other people involved, ignore or override the economics of the reality, and looks for ways to get his way without having to solve the costs problem or having to convince people. Convincing politicians to spend money that is not theirs (or Cerf's) is special interest lobbying,which only invites further special interest lobbying.

What's libertarian about government-provided fire protection services, exactly?
So the government service fails again, as the monopoly that it is (lower quality, higher prices), and that somehow indicts the free-market?

Unless something changed, nothing forces you or anybody to access the terms of the mechanical turk. Use it or don't.
Writing a review of the Turk is fine, but pulling in "employment lawyers" is completely pointless.

"Trade unions disagree, saying that anyone undertaking work deserves proper remuneration."
Of course, unions don't like competition; they will try to take advantage of government power to get some competitive advantages for its members. But if you listened to unions, we would also get ride of productivity tools and make free contributions to open source projects illegal.

".... claims from organizations like the RIAA that piracy [...] costs thousands of jobs. "
Such claims about job loses make no economic sense from the start anyways. If people pay less for something, they have more money to spend on other things. If the music busiess becomes unprofitable due to piracy, then the jobs will shift to more profitable activities, over time.

Please avoid deliberate sensionalist terms like "guns", shooting and weapons in this context. In any case, my body (including my eyes and my brain) are my property. The police has no right to force me to keep them shut, unless I violated someone else's rights. Same thing for my camera. Filming, just like watching, is doing nothing wrong by itself.

In a way, people seem to overestimate the impact of this bill. It is not like the healthcare in the US is part of the market anyways.
49% of the healthcare spending comes from government already.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043490639289022.html

Yeah. Once the FCC gets its foot in door of regulating the internet, it will start embracing its new role in defining a better web. Oh, but wait, isn't the FCC more of a "central authority" than any ISP?!

Please keep government out of the internet. We will all have a better internet for it. All the comments and opinions above are important. But they should be voiced as customers, who are free to patron the ISPs that do the best job of meeting their expectations. When you start to involve the government, to try and force ISPs to provide a certain service, you are pretty much guaranteed to get un-intented side-effects. For one, ISPs will ramp up their lobbying effort, as that is the new game (instead of competing on the best product), which will continue to corrupt government.
Welcome to crony capitalism.

The cost of things comes from how much consumers are willing to pay, not how much it costs to make. An illustration of this is that man go to much effort to find pearls because they are valuable. They are not valuable because of the effort. In terms of how much profits are justified, any profit is justified. If they were not justified (usually by risk and uncertainty), then more people would shift to this field and compete (thus lowering profits).