nature of the debate: net neutrality

ars technica shows its stuff in a report on Verizon’s suing the FCC – this time it is the use of ridicule (cover illustration) and dripping sarcasm (“The company loves the open Internet, it says, just so long as no one can, well, enforce that openness.”) and guilt by association (“The lead attorney on the case is Helgi Walker of major DC tech law firm
Wiley Rein”)

Nate makes it very clear that his bias is for net neutrality and that his support for it is not on rational grounds. Ridicule and logical fallacies rather than civil discussion are primary indications that intellectual integrity is taking a back seat.

What is interesting is that some of the more vocal technical types have this socialistic bent towards top down control of the I’net and believe that the I’net has been corrupted by big evil corporations ripping off the little guy. You’d think people with a technological bent would be a bit more open for reason and reality and biased towards bottom up controls.

Update: Here’s a comparison and contrast in the nature of the debate: Neil Stevens writes Verizon sues FCC over Net Neutrality

and another – see TechCrunch as another example of the irrational technologist.

Comments are closed.