3 ms·

> That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. It's self-evident and you aren't providing evidence, you're arguing definitions

by darawk 8y ago

> That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. It's self-evident and you aren't providing evidence, you're arguing definitions. The internet is politically neutral. It is designed to carry data, without respect for its contents, point of origin, or destination. All participants in the network are treated equally, all forms of communication are treated equally. Now, you can say "neutrality is a political statement". And if you want to define it that way, then sure, it's political. But I think that's a fairly silly, meaningless definition.

wpietri 8y ago
If it's evident to you but not evident to me, then it's self-evidently not self-evident. The internet is not politically neutral. Carrying data without respect for contents, origin, or destination is a very political ideal. It's also an ideal that the internet has never met. Origin and destination have to have money to pay to connect, for example. And ISPs from the earliest days had acceptable use policies, so it was never "anything goes"; determining what was acceptable was very much a political process. I note that the Bitcoin community, who are even stronger on the "without respect for contents, origin, or destination" philosophy, are even more obviously political. In pretty much any Bitcoin discussion here you can find people who espouse extreme anarchocapitalist values. Many are quite clear that any state interference in their business is anathema. Again, highly political. What you're espousing is the sort of faux neutrality that the article is about.
- darawk 8y ago
  This boils down to you defining neutrality as political. There is nothing faux about the neutrality of the internet. BGP peering is neutral and free. ISPs charge a fee for access, sure, but that's a choice made at the endpoints, on an individual basis. What you are arguing is that neutrality is a political choice, and what I am arguing is that that is a bad definition of politics.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    No, it's you defining a political viewpoint as neutral. There are many possible notions of what "neutral" means. That you pick a specific, socially determined definition and treat it as the only possible one is a political action.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Erm, that's what I said? We're arguing definitions, not facts. You are defining neutrality as a political position. I am defining it as non-political. My point is that your definition is bad, because it is a non-definition. If neutrality is political, then 'political' is a word without a meaning, because it applies to any and all possible things.

by darawk 8y ago

wpietri 8y ago

If it's evident to you but not evident to me, then it's self-evidently not self-evident. The internet is not politically neutral. Carrying data without respect for contents, origin, or destination is a very political ideal. It's also an ideal that the internet has never met. Origin and destination have to have money to pay to connect, for example. And ISPs from the earliest days had acceptable use policies, so it was never "anything goes"; determining what was acceptable was very much a political process. I note that the Bitcoin community, who are even stronger on the "without respect for contents, origin, or destination" philosophy, are even more obviously political. In pretty much any Bitcoin discussion here you can find people who espouse extreme anarchocapitalist values. Many are quite clear that any state interference in their business is anathema. Again, highly political. What you're espousing is the sort of faux neutrality that the article is about.

darawk 8y ago
This boils down to you defining neutrality as political. There is nothing faux about the neutrality of the internet. BGP peering is neutral and free. ISPs charge a fee for access, sure, but that's a choice made at the endpoints, on an individual basis. What you are arguing is that neutrality is a political choice, and what I am arguing is that that is a bad definition of politics.
- wpietri 8y ago
  No, it's you defining a political viewpoint as neutral. There are many possible notions of what "neutral" means. That you pick a specific, socially determined definition and treat it as the only possible one is a political action.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Erm, that's what I said? We're arguing definitions, not facts. You are defining neutrality as a political position. I am defining it as non-political. My point is that your definition is bad, because it is a non-definition. If neutrality is political, then 'political' is a word without a meaning, because it applies to any and all possible things.