Sunday, April 23, 2006
Net neutrality- one honkin' big myth
In case you've never noticed, I tend to give rather short takes on what are often very complicated subjects. I don't like "wordy" and I kinda have a feeling that there is a basic simplicity to any truth. Perhaps I don't always give full weight to every nuance of an issue but that is part of the filtering process. So, having said that, I will give my take on this issue.
Number 1 (with a bullet), I kinda get an uneasy feeling about lining up with likes of Instapundit and the Libertarians. I can relate to the Libertarians' philosophy but as a social structure (anti-structure or not) it falls short. My trouble with the Libertarian thinking rests somewhere within the old joke about them wanting to legalize drugs and prostitution but not wanting their daughters to be crackwhores. They kinda just haven't thought their philosophy all the way through. As for lining up with the Instapundit, well, I kinda just see his position on this as in keeping with his conservative nature; not willing to come to terms with a changing world. Also in keeping with his conservative thought, he doesn't want to do anything to screw with the economic model that has been so good to him.
As somewhat of a student of the history of journalism in this country, and a lover of the free flow of information and ideas, I have a great affection for what we call the free marketplace of ideas in this country. I know the press has had some miserable failures through the years (and very recently gave us some pointed lessons in their failings) but I have maintained this love for the American press. It operated in a marketplace of ideas and audiences. There seemed to be somewhat of an imperfect justice or validity to what folks were willing to pay for. And freedom of the press belonged to he who owned the press (don't worry, I get around later to dealing with the Jeff Jarvis Blog-Boosters take on that one). The interplay of various social and economic forces just seemed to fall into place to bring us this beautifully faulted freedom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big defender of capitalism or the ISP's (I'd like to take a big dump on Verizon). I also know that there are all kinds of and degrees of tyranny. Control may be sought of even the airways of the ether (the public's or not, one big fat economic sacred cow). But look here for some idea of the non-neutrality of the web. There is great deal of social and economic filtering already going on with the web: Just not so overt.
Now for this thing with the blogs: The freedom of owning a (free $$) press was given to anybody with an Internet connection and an ego. I'm not altogether sure that this form of "citizen media" has added greatly to the quality of discourse. I know that blogs are used by most readers to reinforce or assuage their own ego and therein resulted a certain tyranny of the mob. They were a significant contributing factor to the MSM taking a pass on the responsibility to question the government in the run-up to war; nor did the blogs provide an adequate alternative. I know that Sturgeon's Law will ensure that some will rise above the others but the price of the press/access has meant an undue equalization in the valuation of ideas. Think that's silly? Take a look at the web indices tomorrow.
I think it is inevitable that some aspects of web neutrality will be lost. I believe that maximizing return on an investment in infrastructure is as natural as the desires of the shareholders of Knight Ridder. Good luck with Web 2.0/kumbaya stuff when it comes to economics. In the end it will probably come down to something similar to cable and you'll just pay for the "channels". ¶ 4/23/2006 09:20:00 PM
Number 1 (with a bullet), I kinda get an uneasy feeling about lining up with likes of Instapundit and the Libertarians. I can relate to the Libertarians' philosophy but as a social structure (anti-structure or not) it falls short. My trouble with the Libertarian thinking rests somewhere within the old joke about them wanting to legalize drugs and prostitution but not wanting their daughters to be crackwhores. They kinda just haven't thought their philosophy all the way through. As for lining up with the Instapundit, well, I kinda just see his position on this as in keeping with his conservative nature; not willing to come to terms with a changing world. Also in keeping with his conservative thought, he doesn't want to do anything to screw with the economic model that has been so good to him.
As somewhat of a student of the history of journalism in this country, and a lover of the free flow of information and ideas, I have a great affection for what we call the free marketplace of ideas in this country. I know the press has had some miserable failures through the years (and very recently gave us some pointed lessons in their failings) but I have maintained this love for the American press. It operated in a marketplace of ideas and audiences. There seemed to be somewhat of an imperfect justice or validity to what folks were willing to pay for. And freedom of the press belonged to he who owned the press (don't worry, I get around later to dealing with the Jeff Jarvis Blog-Boosters take on that one). The interplay of various social and economic forces just seemed to fall into place to bring us this beautifully faulted freedom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big defender of capitalism or the ISP's (I'd like to take a big dump on Verizon). I also know that there are all kinds of and degrees of tyranny. Control may be sought of even the airways of the ether (the public's or not, one big fat economic sacred cow). But look here for some idea of the non-neutrality of the web. There is great deal of social and economic filtering already going on with the web: Just not so overt.
Now for this thing with the blogs: The freedom of owning a (free $$) press was given to anybody with an Internet connection and an ego. I'm not altogether sure that this form of "citizen media" has added greatly to the quality of discourse. I know that blogs are used by most readers to reinforce or assuage their own ego and therein resulted a certain tyranny of the mob. They were a significant contributing factor to the MSM taking a pass on the responsibility to question the government in the run-up to war; nor did the blogs provide an adequate alternative. I know that Sturgeon's Law will ensure that some will rise above the others but the price of the press/access has meant an undue equalization in the valuation of ideas. Think that's silly? Take a look at the web indices tomorrow.
I think it is inevitable that some aspects of web neutrality will be lost. I believe that maximizing return on an investment in infrastructure is as natural as the desires of the shareholders of Knight Ridder. Good luck with Web 2.0/kumbaya stuff when it comes to economics. In the end it will probably come down to something similar to cable and you'll just pay for the "channels". ¶ 4/23/2006 09:20:00 PM
