Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.). But speaking pure strategy, you'd think after Microsoft antitrust, USL/BSDi, etc., that large tech

Personally, I am for total net neutrality (wireless, etc.). But speaking pure strategy, you'd think after Microsoft antitrust, USL/BSDi, etc., that large tech companies would learn to avoid going anywhere near debates about the law. Legal debates are really important. In fact they are so important that they have a habit of leaving some of the largest centers of innovation in their wake. And each legal fight is different, for sure. But I don't think people exactly appreciate the opportunity cost associated with anything but the most clear positions on social/legal issues. Don't get me wrong: debate is important. Critical to our society and all that. But as a company, you can't ever afford to be kinda in a stance about something. Facebook, to their credit, come off as usually very decisive about their policy decision making (maybe it's that hacker, trial and error culture?), if wrong at first. I think Google's approach in China was pretty good. They were almost decisive for about five minutes. But then it got mired in this or that proxy -- and meanwhile you create this doubt in people's minds. The doubters gain traction -- and it even infects your own focus, etc. -- all the way down the org chart. And I don't know that I'm advocating disruptive, brash decision making. But you have to think of this whole technology and world environment as in a very fast-moving frame of reference. In which, anything that positions you in doubt and uncertainty grows with time until you clarify things. It's a fast moving set of integrals, running up area underneath at any given moment. Honesty is probably always the most important. But messed up frames of reference that seem like the right thing but actually tie up entire reserves of focus, etc., will quickly waylay even the best by the side of the road.