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