12 ms·

Because their goal is to disadvantage internet properties they don't own or tax and turn the internet into something more like cable TV?

• icarus_drowning 16y ago
  On the contrary, their goal is to make money for their shareholders. At this time, we are worried that they will do so by disadvantaging internet properties they don't own. But the answer to that doesn't by neccessity mean that some reasonable compromise is a bad thing.
  • Ardit20 16y ago
    Well the compromise is hardly reasonable. Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicians and votes them out, thus is immensely more powerful than Vrizon, thus why compromise at all?
  • icarus_drowning 16y ago
    I have consistently argued that, although I find these compromises entirely fair, that others are perfectly reasonable to challenge them on their merits. In general, most of the criticisms that I have read start with the assumption that any compromise is a bad thing, rather than addressing the specifics of this proposal. Such thinking is an entirely unfair, and in many instances begs the question. (Google's compromises are evil because only evil companies compromise on this issue, because compromise is evil). Far better critics (see the EFF's rational and reasonable critique of the policy proposal) are being drowned out by the extremists, and, as a result, I suspect they are going to marginalize themselves and (tragically) their more reasonable peers.