4.05.2010

Against "Net Neutrality"

Robert W. McChesney, the man quietly succeeding in, well, surreptitiously gliding net neutrality legislation down your throat, is the founder of an organization ironically titled "Free Press." McChesney vaguely leads the fight against "special interests" taking over the internet. I know it doesn't matter that McChesney is the former editor of the explicitly socialist magazine, Monthly Review, but... yes it fucking does, because socialists always discover that, to realize their utopian plans, they need the complicity (forced or voluntary) of the media.

Every bit of McChesney's "thinking" that I read seems obviously to have been hatched in one of those pot-induced sessions where up seems like down, because, if you think hard enough... see, man?

I know this isn't exactly the kind of transcendentalism I recently promised--and I'm not up for a long-ass argument about this stuff. I just want to go on record in early April of '10 siding with those who think that unregulation was what was so awesome about the internet.

Freedom. I value freedom. Even if that means that I live in a society where other people have more money than I do and can broadcast more loudly than I can. To have freedom, I need to be able to make choices; to have choices, I need to be able to choose good, evil, hatred, love, bigotry, Glenn Beck, and Maoist socialism.... all at the same bandwidth. AND, if there's an internet provider that doesn't want to let me access socialist bullshit or corporate propaganda, I think that's fine... but that's a longer story, isn't it?

UPDATE: Good.

3 comments:

Insignificant Wrangler said...

Do you even know what net neutrality is? Or are you just regurgitating (empty) rhetoric?

Casey said...

I've read quite a bit about it, and I think everything about it is a terrible idea, and for largely the same reasons that I think regulating any industry is ineffective, unethical, and ultimately counterproductive:

First of all, there's no existing problem. Corporate providers have every reason to give consumers what they want, and no reason to offer skewed access. Progressives never understand the way markets work, and so they're always thinking they see "problems" with what the market offers.

Progressives imagine a scenario in which Comcast would offer better service for their own "re-television" channel than they would for HULU or something. First, that isn't happening. Second, if it did, consumers would be up Comcast's ass. Third, if there weren't already incredibly boggy legislative hoops for any possible competitors to jump through in order to start a competing cable company, a competitor would destroy any company that tried to treat consumer-demand that way.

But... maybe that's empty rhetoric? Deliver me some Truth, brother. :)

Casey said...

[Oh, plus:] Do you really trust the government to regulate the way you want it to? Really? Even when the anti-Obama Hillbilly-Jesus guy gets elected in 2012?

Markets, man.

When you say, we need to support and develop networked computing ventures: cooperatives that unite the processing power of hundreds, if not thousands, of computers nationwide. I speak of projects such as Stanford University's Folding Home project (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-PS3), which has already made great strides in researching particle physics and hopes to tackle major medical issues. These projects require a neutral internet...

...you sound to me just like any special-interest lobby group begging the government for extra funding. You research turtle-reproduction rates? "We need to research that and fund it..." You think we need solar powered cars? "We need to research that and fund it."

Governments don't do this stuff effectively, Santos. They never do. You think there's a problem because the markets aren't producing opportunities for things like "networked computing ventures," but there's no demand for that. People want HULU, not networked computing ventures.

But, I'm just being consistent, I guess... no surprises here.