It's not histrionic, but I think it misses a lot of the actual arguments for net neutrality.mister.shoes wrote: ↑November 28th, 2017, 4:58 pmOK, this is a legitimately clear-eyed take on the entire NN situation: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutra ... erful_done
His argument is based on a competitive market for internet services. Except 3 out of 5 of Americans have no choice in their ISP. And 9 out of 10 have 2 or fewer choices. It doesn't work to say that ISPs won't restrict speech because consumers will choose another option when consumers don't actually have another option.
His other argument that the current regulations aren't actually changing providers' behavior doesn't really mesh with the fact that those providers have spent over half a billion dollars trying to overturn the regulations. If the regulations aren't affecting their behavior, why are they putting on the full court press to end them?
Finally, while I don't doubt the intentions of this Ben Thompson fellow, I really do doubt the intentions of Ajit Pai, the Verizon employee, who has on multiple occasions complained about any government money being used by universities to research hate speech, "the spread of false and misleading ideas," or to assist in the preservation of open debate.