4 ms·
And the patriot act, and prohibition, and on and on. Not sure why pointing out unrelated positive or negative legislation affects the issue at hand. It's dising
by kodablah 8y ago
And the patriot act, and prohibition, and on and on. Not sure why pointing out unrelated positive or negative legislation affects the issue at hand. It's disingenuous to debate that way. Back to the issue at hand, I am specifically talking about heavy-handed oversight of the internet. The not-as-heavy-handed internet oversight we either already have or has been attempted is problematic and we should not double down on it. In the absence of a good solution to a problem that exists, we should not make a second problem. We might want it to work, but existing examples have shown us that what we want to work is not enough to make it so.
- shady-lady 8y agoWhat are your views on net neutrality?
- kodablah 8y agoA bit unrelated as it's more of a physical issue than a digital one, but I'll answer anyways. In general my position on digital public policy is to promote competition and transparency and I'm usually against restrictions and punitive-only measures. Wrt net neutrality, I'd support transparency requirements to increase awareness. With that step in place, if the monopolization of the physical space for wires is not overcome by a now-more-informed citizenry, other steps can be taken. Granted, I find forced monopolization vs monopolization by citizen choice to be very different. I always want citizen choice on digital services, even if that means consciously choosing one others might not like. I could write about this forever, I'll stop here.