That is a ridiculous distortion of the article.
Rufus Polson

When reading the article, the opening and the way the author initially portrayed the data did seem to at least try and be impartial. It was a short-lived position, though, as he concluded the article by asserting that “the people” actually love and enjoy Net Neutrality. A false proposition, one that is aimed at misleading the reader into believing that there are only a handful of individuals and some evil corporations that want to subvert net neutrality for their own monetary benefit and while the latter has some truth to it, the former is does not have any.

Let’s put it simply: most people don’t really know what net neutrality is. They read a summation somewhere, look and read what various pundits say, and tend to go with the opinion of the individual they agree with on most issues. They don’t actually have a deep knowledge of the issue. This means that the assertion made by the author that the position of the public should be considered beyond everything else is a flawed premise and his reasons for writing the article. Not to indicate how opportunists can change laws.

The author has an agenda and he’s not afraid to work for that agenda.

As for the opportunism itself: you can find them in all sides, even we accept the premise that Net Neutrality is a good and benevolent force to help the internet, opportunists will still use shady means to promote that agenda and work their hardest to make sure that their benefit is carried through. The other side will do the same. Let’s not delude ourselves into believing that only one side utilizes such tactics.

You also speak of corporations as though all of them exists on the side who tries to subvert Net Neutrality. This is a false assertion and you can find corporations on both sides. Each corporation will invest money to make sure their agenda is carried through. I don’t really care what corporation benefits or suffer from this discussion. The point is considering how it affects the people using the internet and what benefits and disadvantages are added.

Let’s talk about your flawed assertions, for a moment:

Your own argument on public opinion is terrible. It goes beyond merely bizarre and into deeply pernicious territory. The question of the utility of net neutrality is not a scientific but a political one, and the FCC is a governmental body operating in a democracy.

Don’t use the fallacious appeal to authority. The FCC can be right or wrong about any topic under the sun. Being a governmental body does not make them immune to being wrong. It just means that they should be beholden to the public who pay their wages.

You equate democracy with public opinion. As I’ve noted in my earlier comment to the author, opinions should not be the deciding factor in what is true or false. If you take public opinions from the equation, then the power of the opportunists vanishes, as the public has only the power to elect those that hold the power and can only demand that those elected use a thorough research to make sure the right decision is made.

Your position is precisely the position of fascism and technocracy: The people might be wrong, so coerce them, supposedly for their own good.

You just asserted that any form of democracy is a form of fascism and technocracy. Every so often you use your right to vote for the individuals who will consider issues and make decisions based on moral and political stances that made the people vote them into office. Should every decision be open to voting? Do you really believe that voting three or four times a day on various issues is the right way to implement ‘democracy?’

If you really want to prevent fascism and technocracy, you might consider that increasing the influence of the government in every aspect of your life is quite a self-defeating attitude. It’s giving the state all the power while leaving nothing for the individual.

The second part of what you wrote could easily be transformed into “The people might be right, so coerce them, supposedly for their own good.” Perhaps, opting to not coerce anyone might be the adequate solution here.

Finally, your claims about the centralizing nature of net neutrality are bare assertions with nothing backing them up — and this is unsurprising since they stand reality on its head. It is hard to back up claims which are the opposite of the facts.

In your entire post, you have only one question mark, mainly to construct a fallacious argument. If at any time you feel like actually discussing the topic, do let me know but your comment does not indicate you care about what I can or cannot cite as an argument against Net Neutrality.

Also, ‘facts,’ as you use them are meant to be a weapon against your detractors, not as a proof of the validity of your position. I can give you facts that support both sides of this argument. I doubt you could do the same and while you prattle on about me not showing citations, you don’t bother to show any of your own so your assertion of having all the facts rings a bit hollow.

To go back to first principles for a moment, net neutrality is the notion that if you gain access to the internet, it must allow you to reach everyone on it, large or small, without prejudice.

What if one company invest more on their infrastructure, pay for more servers worldwide, work to make their content more accessible, and considering how they construct their system to make it so, rather than another company that didn’t bother with any of it? By that definition, the company who thought more about their content its accessibility should be panelized.

Of course, this is ignoring the simplistic characterization of Net Neutrality. In essence, you are trying to make everything slow and clunky and remove competition from the equation.

This allows the new companies you speak of to access a level — neutral — playing field, not to mention allowing millions of sites to exist despite not being dedicated to making money — Wikipedia, for instance.

Using the word ‘neutral’ does not indicate that it is indeed neutral. Only that they chose a good name. Your example of Wikipedia is also flawed, considering their traffic, average load time, and the fact that it’s one of the more accessible sites on the internet.

Repealing net neutrality is desired by large ISPs, of which there are only a few in the United States, and which often gain local monopolies in particular areas.

Are we discussing Net Neutrality or monopolization? Those are two different topics. Do you want more ISPs? Reduce the number of regulations that a company needs to stand by. Stop monopolies and promote competition.

They desire it so that they can give preferential access to those who pay more and shut out those with opinions they dislike (such as, that ISPs should not be allowed to have private monopolies). This will of course create large barriers to the entry of the new firms you claim to like so.

Have you heard of Google? Well, they do like censoring opinions they dislike and also enjoy the benefits they receive from Net Neutrality and if you want an example of a corporation mentality, of which you asserted to dislike, then look no further than Google.

As for your claim that ISPs dislike Net Neutrality, well, that is irrelevant. The important part is where the individual gains or loses. You also talk about ‘might’ rather than ‘do.’ Again, if you monopolization is another issue altogether.

As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

I have the tendency to believe I am wrong about almost anything. Of course, seeing as you are just trying to use the poor-man ad hominem attack, then that point is moot. Of course, it’s easy to just imagine that every argument that your opposition make is founded in malicious intent and an effort to subvert your rights. If anything, your use of such tactics only indicates that I’m probably right after all.

If at any point you’ll be interested in actually talking about the issue, rather than go on a tirade of insults, do let me know.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.