After reading this insane rant against some antagonist I'm not sure exists...
I feel much saner... all of the sudden.
Why are both sides of an argument, that matters to almost no one, done with such exaggerated anger? Yet the issue, when explained properly, seems to show that it is a non issue, due to the fact it is too late to do anything about it, one way or another. Net neutrality has never actually existed, and if it did, it was only because the men (and women, in case there were any there at the time, just to be P.C.) who ran the companies that actually own the net were too old to know how to properly exploit its potential to make them more money while giving customers what they want, and that everyone who used the net took this as a conscious act of leaving them alone (which I'm not sure anyone really ever thought, since no one really thought about it).
Noticing the lack of neutrality is like noticing the sun is up during the day. The lack of there ever truly having been a neutral net makes defining what net neutrality is very difficult, or just wishful thinking, like wanting unicorns to be real again. Instead approaching the issue with the "There's never going to be any goddamn unicorns again you unitards" attitude, sometimes having to repeat oneself using logic and reason will eventually teach the uninformed the truth. Especially in a situation where every month there's a new wave of newbies to the topic, who instead of hearing rational argument, hear people shouting at them that they're stupid the first time they say something that is inaccurate, or even before they have the chance to even learn about it. Who likes going into a room only to immediately have someone point at them and tell them it's people like you who make me so frustrated. The ONLY reason anyone believes the net "should be neutral" is because it sounds good, like having a sunny day every day. But rain can be beneficial too, when it comes to the entire economy that is the internet.
Sometimes simplifying things too much leaves everyone outside of the informed argument that it should be, and creates opposition where there should be none. And since there's a new misinformed person every day, judging by the crazed frustration of the anti-conspiracy-nut-nuts, the job should be left to those with more patience and the willingness to just repeat the facts and teach the history, and not to those who have obviously run out of the patience needed to help inform those that need it.
There are no businesses that are neutral, as they all, at the very least, need to try to keep themselves in business, even at the cost of changing how they do business. And that is as neutral as it can ever be because it is also a part of human nature, so while it can be tempered, it will always be this way. The real problem the neutrality topic fails to address, or is avoiding, is that businesses can be very antagonistic towards their customers, usually unintentionally, or because the business has been taken over by complete assholes who hate everyone who isn't like them, which is pretty much everyone. But to throw into it the replacement of an error message with adds, while a little late anyway as all the ISP's where I have lived the last 2 years have been doing this already, is like comparing hunting with genocide. I honestly have yet to see the ISP's get into this neutrality debate in any serious way, so it seems to be mostly average people who are making all the fuss, or it may even be just the fringe loudmouths who believe what they say should be heard by everyone whether they want to or not, like the TV news channels seem to be nowadays. But I realize, pausing to think is very difficult for the modern person, and it's easier to pick sides in a fight that isn't real.
Of course, if the article is an example of how crazy a small issue can become when it is blown out of any reality based proportion, I missed the punchline, and the sarcasm, and deeply apologize.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
