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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
