4 ms·

I’ve never heard a politician speak/write in such bullshit-free terms (i.e. plain English). I suppose that’s why he’s “minister for culture, communications and

I’ve never heard a politician speak/write in such bullshit-free terms (i.e. plain English). I suppose that’s why he’s “minister for culture, communications and creative industries”.

isleyaardvark 16y ago
I actually think he is deliberately unclear. That's based on previous statements he has made, plus the tendency of other politicians to give false definitions of net neutrality. You or I might think that this statement of his: "My view on net neutrality is pretty simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I want an open internet, with a few simple guarantees - that everyone should be able to access any legal content they want; that there should be no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry;" ...is a perfect quick description of net neutrality. But you'll notice he doesn't say that is net neutrality. He says things like "Supporting net neutrality means supporting unfettered access to the web for everyone. But there's a problem here." and "The self-appointed defenders of the internet... are now actually calling on governments to regulate in order to guarantee net neutrality, or at least their version of it." He's dissembling. Their version of NN is the version of NN. It's the same version he earlier said he supported. And this isn't the first time the minister for communications has had to try and clarify his statements: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-support-net-neutrality-maybe http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-s... I'm really amazed at the pure Orwellian doublespeak that goes on when politicians discuss NN. "I don't support net neutrality, I think instead we should [do exactly what net neutrality calls for]."
NickPollard 16y ago
I actually did a double-take when I got to the end and saw the byline (I hadn't noticed the one at the top). If I hadn't read it, I never would have thought it was written by a politician (and minister in the current government).
jdp23 16y ago
Bullshit-free is in the eye of the beholder. For example I didn't see him mention anywhere in his plain English that the approach he advocates leads to discrimination and favors large corporate interests against small businesses.

I’ve never heard a politician speak/write in such bullshit-free terms (i.e. plain English). I suppose that’s why he’s “minister for culture, communications and creative industries”.

isleyaardvark 16y ago

I actually think he is deliberately unclear. That's based on previous statements he has made, plus the tendency of other politicians to give false definitions of net neutrality. You or I might think that this statement of his: "My view on net neutrality is pretty simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I want an open internet, with a few simple guarantees - that everyone should be able to access any legal content they want; that there should be no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry;" ...is a perfect quick description of net neutrality. But you'll notice he doesn't say that is net neutrality. He says things like "Supporting net neutrality means supporting unfettered access to the web for everyone. But there's a problem here." and "The self-appointed defenders of the internet... are now actually calling on governments to regulate in order to guarantee net neutrality, or at least their version of it." He's dissembling. Their version of NN is the version of NN. It's the same version he earlier said he supported. And this isn't the first time the minister for communications has had to try and clarify his statements: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-support-net-neutrality-maybe http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-s... I'm really amazed at the pure Orwellian doublespeak that goes on when politicians discuss NN. "I don't support net neutrality, I think instead we should [do exactly what net neutrality calls for]."

NickPollard 16y ago

I actually did a double-take when I got to the end and saw the byline (I hadn't noticed the one at the top). If I hadn't read it, I never would have thought it was written by a politician (and minister in the current government).

jdp23 16y ago

Bullshit-free is in the eye of the beholder. For example I didn't see him mention anywhere in his plain English that the approach he advocates leads to discrimination and favors large corporate interests against small businesses.