Back

I am not a technical person so I want to know what I have got wrong about @eff's position. They seem right to me.

As I understand it, they think that the internet is built on a network of cables. To ensure that those cables do anything we have ISPs. Those ISPs route traffic over those cables. At the sending and receiving ends there are lots of computers providing a variety of services.

The #EFF think that the ISP should do no more and no less than send data from and to endpoints. This is #NetNeutrality.

Some people send horrible stuff over the net. The EFF think that they should be able to send it, but don't have a right to have it hosted anywhere. Mastodon, substack, Hetzner can all chose, and in the EFF's view should chose, to refuse to house your murderous troll farm.

This all seems right to me. A capitalist state will support rent seeking corporations and look to crush dissent. We need net neutrality to prevent Google et al from throttling access to their competitors, especially non commercial alternatives, and the state from censoring dissent. Sure protecting Nazis and murderous trolls right to route their packets doesn't guarantee either of those outcomes. The bastards will censor us and enshitify anyway. But cheering on the destruction of net neutrality only makes it easier for them to achieve their goals.

Tell me what I have got wrong