3 ms·
There's two reasons as far as I'm concerned: 1. The internet has very much democratised communication (or at least did around the time of the inception of the
by lucideer 9y ago
There's two reasons as far as I'm concerned:
1. The internet has very much democratised communication (or at least did around the time of the inception of the web) - this is the reason we have such campaigns for net neutrality. Government intervention into transmission of telegrams was tolerated because the medium was largely out of the direct control of most citizens. Having more control and insight gives a sense of ownership and a greater awareness of civil liberty around the bounds of use. Which I think is largely positive.
2. The efficiency of internet communication and automation thereof makes any intervention in communication channels much much more far reaching with comparatively little resources or effort. And therefore far far more dangerous.
- sbarre 9y ago> because the medium was largely out of the direct control of most citizens This is still the case with the Internet. Who do you think subsidized the construction of the physical Internet infrastructure? And most of the major pipes and cables are owned and operated by large megacorps that work closely with governments. It's not like citizens ran the fibre optic cables themselves and now the government wants to come in and take over.