On 11/30/2014 01:12 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)

At least for me, it is not: I have always been opposed to statements of
the form "All X is good/bad" because such statements are always, by
definition, overly simplistic and unrealistic.

"Net neutrality" sounds like a good idea at first glance because it
superficially resembles the ill-defined and subtle desirable objective
of "prevent the oligarchies that owns the communication media from
effectively controlling and/or affecting what can be accessed/done in
order to further their interests at the detriment of people".

"Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because -
as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything
uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content
providers".  /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as
Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.

-- Marc

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to