Hacker News Reader

Comment by subverter | Hacker News Reader

I don't think anyone here is going to argue that the internet shouldn't be open.

The real question behind that – and where we differ – is how the role of government fits into that.

If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.

On the other hand, if you distrust government and believe their own interests for power and control are always in play, then handing them even more control of the internet is absolutely not the solution.

Knowing what we know of the NSA's mass-surveilance and CIA's targeted hacking and surveillance for unclear-at-best purposes, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether government should be the one to keep the internet open?

View on HN

> If you believe government is inherently good and necessary to enable a "basic right" like the internet, then yes, of course, government should be the one to keep the internet open. This is Sam's view.

I don't believe that the government is inherently good, but at least the government is democratically elected. The CEOs at Comcast/Verizon are not. Allowing them to exert control over internet content while participating in a market that is inherently NOT FREE is a recipe for disaster and a closed internet.

While the NSA's mass-surveillance and the CIA's targeted hacking cannot be overlooked, these organisations are for all intents and purposes separate entities to the FCC. The FCC's view and ability to enforce net neutrality will never effect the NSA and CIA; I don't know what, if anything, would. And besides, ISP's have formed oligopolies for most regions. Do you trust them to keep the internet open?

Framing it as purely a question of trust in government and pointing out an example of our interests not being represented is not the entire surface of the argument. The government's stated purpose is inherently good (though they do not necessarily act in a manner consistently with that stated purpose). We have a limited degree of control over how we are governed, and we have ways to express dissatisfaction. None of that holds true for a corporation. Their stated purpose is to create value for shareholders, the voting power that stock gives you is a fraction of the power of your vote as a citizen, and in the case of a monopoly over an important good or service, you have ZERO ways to express dissatisfaction.

Knowing what we know of anti-competitive practices and the tragedy of the commons, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether corporations should be the one to keep the internet open?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com