The Tea Party believes that Net Neutrality is an "affront to free speech," and believes that the government regulation of the internet against things such as the Google-Verizon deal will lead to things such as internet censorship, when the very definition of Net Neutrality is exactly the opposite.
Thoughts?
Name:
Anonymous2010-08-14 11:52
government regulation of the internet ... will lead to things such as internet censorship
That's one of those "taken to its logical conclusion" things, not grounded in reality but not entirely inaccurate. Direct government regulation of the Internet must necessarily include some form of censoring but that is why I would rather companies perform it if they must or choose: at least if each company chooses whether or not to and what to and what not to regulate and censor, I have variety as a consumer and can still choose to some extent. If the government "must" do it, my choices become less flexible.
I still see Net Neutrality mainly as a solution looking for a problem, however, so my opinion on this matter is obviously biased against. Would government regulation stop rampant spam and phishing? probably not but, if it does, it will be at a un-returnable cost. Would government regulation stop viruses and companies withholding critical patching and security updates? no, there would be no way to do that as no system can be made incorruptible and, as for the latter, do they?
I ask that question as virus definitions for two scanner programs are updating and a HP program is alerting me to two driver updates I have been procrastinating to download.