DISQUS

mwendy · 1 year ago

Tim Wu says it here: "Control over media and communications, the argument goes, translates too readily into political power and influence over speech."

Flip the players, yet the "evil" remains.

I'd prefer an environment that relies more on the moral imperative of private property rights over vague "public interest" baselines. The latter cannot be policed fairly, adequately or abated.
East Coast Elitist · 12 months ago

I don't think that Tim Wu and you write about the same story. You focus here on governmental content regulation (why else the McCain exemple?) - which means a public censorship problem.

Tim Wu on the other hand doesn't support censorship at all (not a single word about this in his article), but is concerned about the dangers for free speech by high media concentration and the power of ISP to filter content for business purposes.

Thus, a fancy-sounding article about a non-subject.
East Coast Elitist · 12 months ago

I don't think that Tim Wu and you write about the same story. You focus here on governmental content regulation (why else the McCain exemple?) - which means a public censorship problem.

Tim Wu on the other hand doesn't support censorship at all (not a single word about this in his article), but is concerned about the dangers for free speech by high media concentration and the power of ISP to filter content for business purposes.

Thus, a fancy-sounding article about a non-subject.