3 ms·
I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment. In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be
by jeangenie 12y ago
I agree that the presence of that single qualifier casts an irrevocably ominous shadow over the entire sentiment.
In a purely-hypothetical dystopia it could be the basis of more invasive monitoring and control capabilities over network infrastructure.
- dragonwriter 12y agoNot really. Blocking of illegal content is possible -- and can be (and, at times, has been) encouraged and even mandated by government -- even without protection of legal content. So, while the qualifier might suggest that such practices would not be curtailed by the neutrality, they don't provide the basis for more invasive monitoring and control than the absence of neutrality does, because the basis of that more invasive monitory and control already exists in the illegality of certain content, whether or not there is neutrality for legal content.
- jeangenie 12y agoWhy would the statement need to provide any basis? It's merely a carefully worded expression of a decision that's already been made. You will find even recent history rife with examples.