Get Ready for the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Propaganda: Google Backs Off Net Neutrality

By way of Atrios, we discover that Google has moved away from its pro-net neutrality position:

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.
At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same — nobody is supposed to jump the line.

I’ve said this before: this is why we’re seeing all of the Fairness Doctrine bullshit. It’s purpose is to drive a wedge between the left wing and right wing groups that favor net neutrality. Let me spell it out:

  1. The Fairness Doctrine forces radio and TV to provide alternative viewpoints–and most progressives and liberals don’t want the Fairness Doctrine reimposed.
  2. ‘Forcing’ all content to be treated as equal is just like the Fairness Doctrine. If an internet provider wants to favor some material over others, why can’t it?
  3. No more net neutrality.

Is this a fucking stupid argument? Yes. But there are a lot of fucking stupid people out there–and the money helps lubricate the stupidity.
I’m telling you, this is exactly how this argument will play out.

This entry was posted in Bidness, Internet, Propaganda. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Get Ready for the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ Propaganda: Google Backs Off Net Neutrality

  1. Coturnix says:

    WSJ is wrong – go to the fray….

  2. Coturnix says:

    Check some of the responses (check all of the links within). WSJ was caught red-handed lying.

  3. Arikia says:

    The stupidity of the fairness doctrine mirrors the stupidity of the practice that is mandated in many publications that a writer should include information and viewpoints about “both sides” of an issue, as if every issue only has 2 sides and that there aren’t certain sides that are ludicrous and should not be humored as credible.
    But yes, the WSJ lied.

  4. A says:

    Well, the argument might well play out like Mike said,
    but in the meantime, dear readers of this blog, do something about it, like go to ( )
    and sign their petition!
    Perhaps, just perhaps, if enough well-informed people (such as readers of this blog) do complain loudly, Net Neutrality might survive.
    (Even with a new administration, one has to watch, and make sure one’s voice is heard, and not drowned out by corporate interests.)

  5. paul Krombholz says:

    I don’t seen why Google needs a faster line than anything else. Everything I have used Google for comes up fast enough for me. If I had faster service than DSL, everything would come faster, including Google, but, for me, Google has less of a need for speed than many other sites I utilize.

  6. Oyun says:

    ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
    In spite of my english trouale,I am trying to read and understand your writing.
    And ı am following frequently.I hope that you will be with us together with much more scharings.
    I hope that your success will go on

Comments are closed.