|
|
|
|
|
by bitwize
1336 days ago
|
|
Net neutrality is about regulating ISPs to prevent them from double-dipping by charging content providers for preferred access to their audience. It is not about giving reactionaries a platform they don't deserve. The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress. Transgressive, anything-goes edgelordism was the right answer in the 90s, when the people seeking to muzzle speech were the moral busybodies on the right. But we've learned some important lessons since then: that speech can oppress, it can harm, and it can even cast the world into a new fascism -- especially when such speech is given the swift wings of a global computer network. So when those oppressed and harmed by online speech speak up and demand that the network not carry the speech of those who seek to harm or even eradicate them -- our job is to put aside the libertarian platitudes that created the current hellscape, shut up, and listen to their experiences. |
|
What you're describing is just a single implication of net neutrality involving self-bias of ISPs.
>The net is not politically neutral; it arcs toward progress
Humble the assumptions you make on the direction of progress