Re: You can't save Internet Freedom by taking it away [was: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Lobbyists Trying to Destroy Internet Freedom?]

Fri, 19 May 2006 15:46:43 -0700

I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet).
Why don't you just say it, Charles? Why does it need to be implied parenthetically?

You are presenting a false dichotomy. 

We can have regulation and a tier-free internet, or we can give the communications cartel what they want. That is the choice you have given us. 

What if I said this:
I know that the communications companies have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the internet to create a tiered system). But, a belief in freedom should guarantee it for everyone, and not just artificial people.  (Regardless of whether we agree with them or like what they are doing.) 

Would it be any less true? Would it still reflect your values?

The false dichotomy presented in your argument, and in that astroturf flash movie, is not what this is about. It is a red herring. 

The freedom sought by this information toll road concept is not freedom to innovate. It is freedom to profit and to control. 

Innovation is going quite well, with open standards, thank you very much. Firefox rolled out nicely and brought IE to finally improve. Blogger, Wordpress, Mambo, Joomla, Plone, Nuke, Moveable Type, and Scoop all brought us innovation and we ran with it. Now the Googles and Yahoos see it, they are co-opting it. Making it better. Operating under open standards. Things hook up, they work. 

All that is on the table with this Information Tollroad concept, and we stand to lose it. 

If it becomes profitable to manipulate bandwidth to steer consumers to product, and is legal to do so, you can be sure that people will be ran right off the Information Superhighway. 

What about our Freedom, Charles? The freedom to be heard? The freedom to be informed? Aren't there any more rights worth fighting for that protect the freedom of real live breathing people? or does freedom only apply to property and profit these days?

ron


On May 19, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:

Hello,

On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Meade wrote:


On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nevertheless, it looks like Charles K. wins this round. The Bill of Rights restricts government power; Net Neutrality restricts the power of the People (who own and control the wires).

Says you. :-P

Going back and forth on definitions is interesting debate, but I'm still not willing to say "Net Neutrality is about government regulation of the Internet"

I'm still saying "No, its about Government protection of the Internet".

This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil?

That then gets back to my original point.... Which can be said with the saying...

The road to hell is payed with good intentions.
 
Or also said with what I believe is a (non-obvious or non-intuitive) equivalent saying...

The ends don't justify the means.

I know people have good intentions (in wanting governments to regulate the Internet to prevent a Tiered Internet).  But, a belief in freedom should guarantee it for everyone, and not just ourselves.  (Regardless of whether we agree with them or like what they are doing.)

My dilemma is that I believe forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong.  (You may or may not agree.  However, at the moment, for this argument, it's not relevant.  What is relevant is that I believe it.)  I believe this to be part of morality.

As I was growing up, one thing I noticed with some people who claimed they had morals was that they only seem to have it some of the time.  They only had them when things were NOT difficult.  They only had them when they were NOT tested.  They only had them when things were NOT tough.

But when it really came down to it, and when things got difficult, when they got tested, when things got tough, they ended up doing the things they said they'd never do.  (To me, that meant they had no morals.)

To me, it most important to have morals especially with things a difficult; especially when we are tested; and especially when times are tough.

To me, this is one of those tough and difficult times.

I do NOT want to see a Tiered Internet.  However, I must keep my morals.  And given I believe that forcibly taking away someone else's freedom is morally wrong.  Then I must also believe that regulating the Internet (even to prevent a Tiered Internet) is morally wrong too.

I can not do otherwise and still be a moral person.

I know this is not what people want to hear.  I know that this results in a scary situation.  And I know it doesn't seem fair.  (But who said life was fair?!)

To me, other methods must be used to prevent a Tiered Internet.  I was hoping to get a discussion going on what other things we could do.  (But it doesn't look like this conversation is going in that direction.)


See ya

Another interesting debate on definition would be "The People" ... I guess I'm not willing consider huge corporate conglomerates as "The People" ... and therefore refuse to consider Net Neutrality as a regulation of The People.

The standard distinction is drawn between public and private entities. You're using nonstandard terminology. What's wrong with the typical language?


--
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                 http://maketelevision.com/

SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to