[knowtheory]

What the WSJ is trying to do here, and what you're doing by carrying their water is incredibly insidious.

You can claim that there would have been a global communications infrastructure anyway, but that ignores the vitally important question of what assumptions that network would rely upon, and who would push its growth, and to what (or whose) ends.

There's a Deep Space Nine episode which touches on an alternative to the universe we live in where global communications terminals in 2024 are locked down and require a license to publish to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Tense_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Spa... ). What stopped that from being our internet, instead of the internet we have now?

I certainly do not take for granted the government's role in shaping what our network looks like.

[tjic]

> what you're doing by carrying their water is incredibly insidious.

You lost points for assuming the worst possible motivation of my actions.

"Carry their water"? Meaning "To do someone's bidding; to serve someone's interests."

PLEASE!

First, this is tremendously insulting; it's not saying "you're wrong", but "I distrust you so much as a human being that I don't even trust that the words coming out of your mouth are your own - I ASSUME that you're on someone else's payroll".

Second, if you project this sort of thing on anyone who disagrees with you, you're committing a harm against yourself - you're assuming that you're on the force of good and light and those who disagree with your are not just wrong but are EVIL.

How likely are you to EVER correct an erroneous opinion of yours if you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is evil?

I've changed my opinions on tons of things (to ones that I think are more correct than my old ones), and a central tool to do that is not immediately assuming that the other side is made up of liars and stooges.

I've got an actual opinion, based on actual reading.

It happens to agree with something the WSJ says.

Go jump in a pond.

[knowtheory]

I was concerned that you might misconstrue my post, and for that I am sorry, I should have made my point clearer.

I am not making aspersions about your motives. I am perfectly willing to believe that you are sincere.

I might even be convinced that the author of the WSJ opinion piece is sincere (I at least lean towards the likelihood that he's probably using evidence like the proverbial drunk uses lampposts, i.e. for support rather than illumination). That does not change the insidiousness of his piece, or your defense of his piece.

I have serious problems with revisionism (the WSJ piece) or efforts to downplay its seriousness (your post).