3 ms·

In the case of net neutrality, it's an exchange of freedoms - giving the individual greater freedom at the cost of freedom for companies.

• steveklabnik 17y ago
  But companies are owned and run by individuals, so you're interfering with an individual's ability to run his company as he sees fit. I'm not saying I don't agree with Net Neutrality, because I do, I'm just torn about _why_ I agree with it.
  • gloob 17y ago
    But companies are owned and run by individuals, so you're interfering with an individual's ability to run his company as he sees fit. But governments are run by individuals, so saying that they aren't allowed to pass such-and-such a regulation means interfering with the individual's ability to run their government the way they see fit. The notion of "absolute freedom" suffers a stack overflow if you actually try and think about it. Any action whatsoever, not merely government regulation, reduces the freedom of some people and increases it for others.
    • steveklabnik 17y ago
      > The notion of "absolute freedom" suffers a stack overflow if you actually try and think about it. Any action whatsoever, not merely government regulation, reduces the freedom of some people and increases it for others. Yep. But this isn't neccessarily about 'absolute,' it's about "minimal as possible," at least in my eyes. As I said to someone below, I prefer to fix problems after the fact, rather than before, but I feel like this will almost certainly be a problem, so why not just cut to the chase?