Maybe we have different definitions of open. For me that includes freedom of speech and net neutrality.
These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them.
These things don't exist unless you make laws to protect them.
Net neutrality? Maybe. You could argue that network provision is a natural monopoly and therefore needs regulation to keep it "fair".
Free speech? Absolutely not. There is no sensible way a law can make the internet freer (as in speech) than it is in the absence of law. Right now, any lack of free speech on the internet is directly due to laws. Please explain your reasoning.
Honestly, my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. And it's not the same thing. We only had it for a short period of time - the wealthy now have more speech again. Can you really have a democracy when speech isn't democratic?
Net neutrality: It's more complex than a monopolistic problem. I would suggest you look more into it.
Democratic "free speech" isn't free. Democracy implies the majority can vote to silence the minority.
The only speech that is truly free is anarchic, where no one can preclude anyone else from speech. That is why the internet, with its lack of hierarchy, is a particularly good vehicle for free speech.
I don't care much for IP, so we may disagree there. I think any system that relies on violent coercion to (try to) incentivize production is undesirable.
The net neutrality issue is largely due to government granted monopolies and subsidies during the internet revolution era of the dotcom days. Now you have to content with monoliths and a very high barrier to entry by competition.
The same constitution that is regularly ignored and shit on as part of standard practice?
The constitution doesn't mean anything if the government doesn't follow it.
We also don't need a government to tell us we have free speech on the internet; we have that by default. The only thing governments have the power to do on the internet is damage free speech (which they have done with great consistency).