There is something I have not heard brought up in the Net Neutrality arguments. Im sure it has been mentioned and I just havent seen it, but in the argument about content delivery, marketplace manipulation, etc, I havent heard anybody discuss the fact that the removal of Net Neutrality further compromises the integrity of money and politics. A decade ago a Democratic candidate for president managed to wage a huge Internet campaign, both in terms of messaging and fundraising. His name was Howard Dean. Part of the success of this, was that the content that Howard Dean created and used was not tied to the requirements that he had to pay extra for his specific messaging and I didnt have to pay to see it specifically. We already know that money rules politics, and the rulings that bestowed personhood on corporations, allowing them to use money under the protection of individual speech have further pushed the available set of candidates to either monied individuals or those beholden to monied interests. The removal of Net Neutrality further commits our ability to campaign and run for office for all individuals. We will be further locked into the content that providers with their own agendas wish us to see, and further distanced from populist candidates and other politicians. I always thought one of the funny things about removal Net Neutrality was that across the board, its despised by the people. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Athiests, Deists, all, majority-wise, support Net Neutrality. However, the people in government know that ending Net Neutrality further ensures their dynasties and the dynasties of people of like thought.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:21:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015