DISQUS

Steve R. · 1 month ago

Misleading Orwellian language is also used by those opposing net-neutrality. The shrill demands for non-regulation seem never to be balanced by real offers of open transparency. The ISPs hide behind abstract terms, such as "traffic management". The pleading whine is: please don't tell us engineers how to manage packet traffic flows. Sounds reasonable until you ask what is really going on. The reality, is that the companies want the unfettered ability to inspect packets and if we don't like those packets for whatever arbitrary reason, into the garbage they go. When caught its wink wink, we promise not to do it again until caught once again. Then another round of disingenuous "apologies".

Anecdotally, the collapse of our financial system was the result too much freedom from regulation. I don't like unreasonable regulation either, but we need to realize that regulation can provide a level competitive playing field. After all, why are there referees and umpires at sporting events?

Here's a good Orwellian approach to network neutrality: RIAA: We Support Net Neutrality, Just As Long As It Includes The Ability For ISPs To Block File Sharing

PS: The spokespeople for Microsoft and Intuit seen to be exclusively graduates of schools teaching Newspeak.

Ryan Radia · 1 month ago

Regulation that enforces voluntary arrangements is pro-freedom, pro-market. Regulation that bans arrangements that would otherwise occur absent coercive intervention is anti-freedom, anti-market, and worst of all, anti-human welfare.

Peter · 1 month ago

"Inviting the government to regulate online content [...]"

How does the principle of NN regulate the content? How is a network that treats no packet as different from any other packet "regulating content"?

Remixer96 · 1 month ago

Berin,

Please don't take the TLF down the path of name-calling and hyperbole. I find the perspective here absolutely invaluable because of its reason, not because of its heat-level.

Accusing the other side of using glittering generalities while leaning on Orwell and the threat of "cyber-socialism" yourself is both unpersuasive and insulting. Stick to the analysis and leave the labels at home.

Berin Szoka · 1 month ago

I appreciate your sensitivity to name-calling, but if asserting that "The Internet" is a basic right isn't cyber-socialism, what is? The implications of that assertion for policy-making are profound: once a new "human right" is asserted, that right will, of course, trump the mere "interests" of those who build the platforms involved—whether that infrastructure exist in the physical world (broadband "pipes & tubes") or in the cloud (services and applications).

A glittering generality is a bright, shiny happy, vague abstraction that commands positive emotional appeal because of its innocuous blandness. To be sure, one could unfairly throw out negative labels, like "cyber-socialism" (although, again, I don't think I'm being unfair), are not "glittering generalities."

Remixer96 · 1 month ago

First, the engagement is always appreciated Berin.

I'll grant you the distinction between glittering generalities and negative terms like cyber-socialism. I was trying to highlight their similar hyperbolic (and polarized) nature rather than their positive or negative tone.

To your point, I would argue that asserting the Internet as a basic right doesn't lead to cyber-socialism any more than asserting water as a basic right leads aqua-socialism. A regulated environment perhaps, but not necessarily communally owned means of production. Profits do still exist in utilities, even if their maneuverability is significantly restricted.

I don't disagree with Adam's and your point that claiming rights like these leads to government intervention with no clear end in sight. Especially at higher and higher network levels, the implications are something that certainly merit consideration. I'm not a fan of positive rights in general, which makes me wary of any argument that starts with them.

However, I still think characterizing that future government intervention as "unlimited control" or socialism without significant support does more harm than good.

Libby Jacobson · 1 month ago

Fantastic post, Berin!
I would suggest that anybody who actually buys the argument that government intervention (meddling) into private affairs is a good means of *preserving freedom* ought to read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" (that book turned me more libertarian than anything else I've read).
Also... is there a Godwin's Law regarding mentions of Orwell, 1984, or "Big Brother?" It seems like there ought to be...