3 ms·

Woah. Haven't read the Wall St. journal in a while. Had no idea it had become so fact-free and one sided. That basically read like a Fox News bulletin *Just no

Woah. Haven't read the Wall St. journal in a while. Had no idea it had become so fact-free and one sided. That basically read like a Fox News bulletin *Just noticed it was on the opinion page, thankfully. But still.

killjoywashere 8y ago
It is owned by Murdoch.
- VSerge 8y ago
  The columnist is actually a Fox news commentator.
lopmotr 8y ago
Do the other news sources you use explain the disadvantages of net neutrality or alternatives that could provide better results? If they present it in only positive light, then they're one-sided too, you just don't notice because it' the side you're already on. Even calling government regulation of the internet "neutrality" is biased.
- orev 8y ago
  Any societal debate is actually a long term conversation that plays out over months and years, and in this case decades. It is incumbent on all parties to at least respect the history of the debate and not just make up their own rules and facts on any given day. Any news or other organization that do not present it in a positive light are just blantantly ignoring that history, and disrespecting the people and citizens who actually adhere to the principles of reason and evicdence. It flies in the face of everything we are supposed to stand for.
  - lopmotr 8y ago
    I thought one of America's principles was having a free market. Net neutrality goes against that, no matter how many years of building support it's gained. What if a better solution would be something like New Zealand has where the owners of the physical cables to end customers are required to make them available to competitors so that the ISPs are numerous and competitive but all sharing the same cables. That eliminates the need for net neutrality. However, it does kind of just push the competition problem back to the cables themselves but that seems to be a simpler problem and the government has stepped in and said "let's give everyone fiber to the door".

killjoywashere 8y ago

It is owned by Murdoch.

VSerge 8y ago
The columnist is actually a Fox news commentator.

lopmotr 8y ago

Do the other news sources you use explain the disadvantages of net neutrality or alternatives that could provide better results? If they present it in only positive light, then they're one-sided too, you just don't notice because it' the side you're already on. Even calling government regulation of the internet "neutrality" is biased.

orev 8y ago
Any societal debate is actually a long term conversation that plays out over months and years, and in this case decades. It is incumbent on all parties to at least respect the history of the debate and not just make up their own rules and facts on any given day. Any news or other organization that do not present it in a positive light are just blantantly ignoring that history, and disrespecting the people and citizens who actually adhere to the principles of reason and evicdence. It flies in the face of everything we are supposed to stand for.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  I thought one of America's principles was having a free market. Net neutrality goes against that, no matter how many years of building support it's gained. What if a better solution would be something like New Zealand has where the owners of the physical cables to end customers are required to make them available to competitors so that the ISPs are numerous and competitive but all sharing the same cables. That eliminates the need for net neutrality. However, it does kind of just push the competition problem back to the cables themselves but that seems to be a simpler problem and the government has stepped in and said "let's give everyone fiber to the door".