Just to be clear: I'm in favor of net neutrality. I want everything to be easily available on the Web. I don't want to pay "tolls" for access to anything. I don't know who, other than a short-sighted greedy business person, who would want otherwise.
But I've just seen two illogical defenses of net neutrality on Keith Olbermann's Countdown. First, Josh Silver of the Free Press told Olbermann that net neutrality is crucial because, otherwise, the Internet will come under the control of big corporations, and look what big corporations did to banking, and oil (BP oil spill) in America.
Wrong on both counts. Information is not the same as money (banking). As every Intro to Comm and Media Studies student should know (mine do, because I teach this), there's a world of difference between between money and information. If you take my money, I have less money. If you take my information, I at very least still have that information, and may indeed end up with more information, as I get feedback from your use of my information. The equation of oil and information is even more absurd. Although leaks of information can cause damage, just as often they can be valuable in a democracy, as in the case of the Pentagon papers (and draw your own conclusions about the Wiki-leaks). In contrasts, oil leaks only do damage.
Next, Senator Al Franken opined that, although the First Amendment has thus far attempted to protect us from government control of information, the issue of net neutrality will test the First Amendment on how well it can protect us from corporate control of information.
Really? The history of the world is filled with tragic examples of what happens when government controls information. Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union are the big examples in the 20th century. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison correctly saw that government control of information is antithetical to democracy. Ability to know about the government was precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect, or prevent the goverment from blocking.
Appropriately, there is nothing in the First Amendment about corporations - Congress is the entity restricted from abridging freedoms of speech and press. And that makes sense, given that corporate control of information and news has never led to totalitarian societies, as government control did in Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union.
A little logic, and some knowledge of history, would be helpful when considering these issues. Empowering the FCC to exercise government control over the Internet is precisely the way we do not want to go in our democracy. Thus far in the world, freedom of information and therefore freedom itself has been given a lot more to fear from governments than corporations.
6 comments:
Are you then with Alan Grayson on this? or what do you favor as a way to protect net neutrality?
Thanks for the analysis. I've suspected there has been something shrill and misleading in the rhetoric over this issue, and your piece provides a concise bit of perspective on the question from someone whose free speech credentials are impeccable.
I'm closer to Alan Grayson on this than just about any other Democrat, in that I agree with him that the FCC is not the way to protect net neutrality.
And I have no problem with Congress looking at this issue. But whatever actions they propose, they should be directed towards the economic side (such as anti-monopoly) not the information side, and even the economic actions should tred lightly, and use carrots or encouragements (perhaps tax incentives for net neutrality) not sticks.
The key, as I emphasized in my blog post, is not allowing pursuit of net neutrality to give the government any control over the Internet (other than standard police powers over online criminals, which it already has).
I've been a supporter of the Net Neutrality movement and the Free Press organization since 2006. But lately, I've had doubts, myself, about whether getting the FCC involved is a good idea. Especially since every time we give the government an inch it takes a mile.
But at the same time, I see less and less difference each day between governments and multinational megacorporations. If only the Founders had created a wall of separation between corporation and state along with the separation of church and state.
But still, governments tend to have a lot more guns than corporations do, so in the end, government power should be held most in check.
Hmmmm, maybe it's time I stop supporting that whole FCC internet thing.
The coercive power of government is exactly the point - the government can lock you up, even kill you. They have the legal right to do that. No corporation has anything like that power. That's why government control of information is far more dangerous than corporate control. And it never makes sense to bring in a snake to stop a rat.
Paul, mostly, I agree with you... but I do think that government has a role to play, although, like you, I'd be afraid of that role. Here's the problem that I have: There have been plenty of scenarios envisioned where the rich corporations are able to exert their influence into Government, and beyond, and almost by proxy, if not directly, actually rule. Is this unlikely in the future? I don't fear this scenario, I foresee it.
Plenty of authors have written about it, and considering some of the other conditions prevailing today, it's not that implausible. So, theoretically, the Corporation will then impose its will on the FCC for the good of the people. Just as say the Insurance Company might on the unhealthy, or as the Pharmaceutical Company might on a Hospital, or the Defense Company might on the Pentagon. The examples of the scary future are plenty.
The corporation run amok are many from this near future - why not Net Neutrality? That is why I don't trust Google or Verizon or anyone. And I would rather have THIS White House do something about it, rather than a pro-Business (supposedly) Republican White House.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Enjoy your stuff, as always.
PS.
Have you watched "Rubicon" on AMC yet?
Good as always to have your comments here, MP.
Yes, I'm watching and enjoying Rubicon - in fact, I'm going to watch the new episode right now ... I may start reviewing it soon.
On net neutrality: I don't trust corporations either. But history shows we should trust governments even less when it comes to interfering with the free flow of information.
Post a Comment