4 ms·
From what I remember neutrality was poorly explained to the public by people with in a somewhat deceptive way trying to slam dunk sell the issue. So the average
by jsz0 4y ago
From what I remember neutrality was poorly explained to the public by people with in a somewhat deceptive way trying to slam dunk sell the issue. So the average person ended up thinking they were opposing unrelated things like vanilla peering agreements or even residential bandwidth caps. Many totally misunderstood the real issue and promptly looked like fools when they tried to talk about it. Perhaps this was all done on purpose to poison-pill the issue right out of the gate. Taking a page out of the CIA/FBI's playbooks.
- mardifoufs 4y agoI think it would be more accurate to say that the debate was completely muddied by big tech corporations who obviously had a very specific agenda that had little to do with the grievances that the average joe had with their ISP. Now, that agenda wasn't bad at all, but it was very hard to explain or to get people to care about it as-is. So what we got instead was a very... innacurate debate and a discussion that was centered around the (deserved) dislike for ISPs. Which obviously played in favor of big tech. I'm not saying there was a big conspiracy by big tech against the poor ISPs, just that there was obviously a heavy PR push that took advantage of the mood around ISPs (comcast very bad!) once the debate started. What was more of a business dispute turned into yet another "very important and urgent current event/crisis." Net neutrality is still important, though, but I'm not sure the general population would've been very empathetic towards what could be seen as massive tech corporations not wanting to pay for their utilization.
- corbulo 4y agoIt wasn't just poorly explained. The bills going through US Congress had almost nothing to do with it despite the branding.