Amazing how many people have gone from "allowing internet providers to transmit video content at higher speed than other kind of content would be the end of the internet" to "just let the tech companies de-platform whatever they happen to dislike lol" in less than five years.
(And as with most large-scale political shifts that involve people switching their positions but not which side they are on, I bet that most people of whom this is true are genuinely unaware that they used to believe something diametrically opposed to their current position.)
Yes, there are differences between ISPs and social networks. But:
1) The main argument for net neutrality was that any commercial entity prioritize some form of content would impede speech.
2) Social networks, when acting in concert, are functionally very similar to a monopoly.
1) The main argument for net neutrality was that any commercial entity prioritize some form of content would impede speech.
2) Social networks, when acting in concert, are functionally very similar to a monopoly.
There *might* be a coherent ways to square the circle. I am sure somebody out there advocates for both the old consensus on net neutrality and the new consensus on tech censorship in a coherent way.
But few have seriously grappled with the tension implicit in this huge shift.
But few have seriously grappled with the tension implicit in this huge shift.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
