It's a side that you don't hear from the supporters (most Dems/Lefties/"Progressives"), who tend to characterize opposition as being in the pocket of Big Telco and Big Media, and who love to talk about "protecting the free flow of information on the internet".
Let's take a good look at what they DON'T talk about.
Noteworthy:
"In theory, net-neutrality regulation would ban Internet operators from treating some bits of online traffic or communications more favorably than others, whether for economic or political purposes. Proponents of net neutrality use the same kind of fantastic rhetoric to describe it that they once used for the Fairness Doctrine: it’s a way to “save the Internet” from “media barons,” they say, who’re apparently hell-bent on controlling all our thoughts and activities.
As City Journal’s Brian Anderson notes, 'It’s thus not hard to imagine a network neutrality law as the first step toward a Web fairness doctrine, with government trying to micromanage traffic flows to secure "equal treatment" of opposing viewpoints (read: making sure all those noisy right-wingers get put back in their place).'"
"This twisted theory of the First Amendment cannot support net-neutrality regulation. The First Amendment was intended to protect us from tyrannical, coercive government power, not the silly mistakes of private companies. And a new Fairness Doctrine for the Internet would have the same chilling effect on the vibrant exchange of ideas—especially conservative ones—that the old Fairness Doctrine for broadcast TV and radio did."
Interestingly enough, there's some sort of convergence going on in Greensboro this weekend for people who use the internet and its technology. The concept of "net neutrality" may be a subject of discussion, but I seriously doubt if the aspect of "net neutrality" discussed in this post will get any exposure there.
No comments:
Post a Comment