> Everything is political, because everything affects people. You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe o

> Everything is political, because everything affects people. You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider "extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies. > [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...] Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic. People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it. All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides. Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular. > Quite a few people are claiming otherwise. Right.. https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png > [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out. You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument, because I think you are mistaking our debate with another. > > size-based exceptionalism > WTF are you talking about? If you could elaborate on what you weren't able to grasp I'd have the opportunity to explain it further. :)