Tag: Internet

Categories
general freedom media and media people responsibility

Less Innocent Times?

Dan Balz, Term Limits, coffee, internet, media, web, trust

Many years ago, waiting for coffee at a vendor in front of the Washington Post building and across the street from my U.S. Term Limits office, I often exchanged friendly banter with the Post’s Dan Balz.

Coffee in hand last Sunday, I read Balz’s column, “A scholar asks, ‘Can democracy survive the Internet?’”

“In more innocent times, the rise of the Internet was seen by many people as a boon to democracy,” Balz began, adding that “the Web broadened the flow of information, introduced new voices into the political debates, empowered citizens and even provided a powerful fundraising tool for some lesser-known candidates such as Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.”

Obama, Sanders . . . all to the good!

“Now, in what are clearly less innocent times, the Internet is viewed as a far less benign force,” he continues, next to a picture of President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed.  “It can be a haven for spreading fake news and rewarding the harshest and most divisive of political rhetoric.”

Mr. Balz’s time continuum is faulty. The “innocent times” when Bernie Sanders used the Internet to raise money were the same “clearly less innocent” times when voters elected President Trump.

“Neither the legacy media nor the established political parties,” Balz bemoans, “exercise the power they once had as referees.”

Nathaniel Persily, the scholar cited by our legacy-media columnist, shares Balz’s anti-Trump bias. But he makes an important point, writing that the Trump campaign “could only be successful because established institutions — especially the mainstream media and political party organizations — had already lost most of their power.”

People voted against the less-than-innocent political (and media) establishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Illustration based on original artwork by PRO With Associates

 

Categories
Common Sense crime and punishment folly general freedom media and media people too much government

At Least We’re Not Turkey

Merve Büyüksaraç

Whenever I feel discouraged by the steady drumbeat of domestic assaults on liberty — from Obamacare to parents being accused of “child neglect” for letting their kids return from a playground by themselves — I try to remind myself:

Things Could Be Worse.

World history provides plenty of support for this dictum, but so does a glance at the newspaper. Like the story of how a single satiric Instagram post “could end up sending a former Miss Turkey to jail.”

An Istanbul prosecutor has been threatening to imprison Merve Büyüksaraç for up to two years for the heinous deed of insulting an official. Last summer she excerpted a satirical piece called “The Master’s Poem” that originally appeared in the magazine Uykusuz. Uykusuz has a habit of mocking Turkish politicians, including President Erdoğan.

“I shared it because it was funny to me,” she says. “I did not intend to insult Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.” Regardless of her motive, her post should not have put her at legal risk.

Buyuksarac is popular on social media — 15,000 followers on Instagram, double that on Twitter — a presence that makes her a target. The Turkish government doesn’t care whether she is an ardent dissident. They obviously just want to intimidate others with a readership who are inclined to ruffle the feathers of the powerful even a little.

So yes, things could be worse. Lots worse. They could also be a lot better. That’s what we have to fight for.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
folly general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Non-neutral Net Neutrality

Worried about its costs, Netflix has asked millions of customers to support so-called “net neutrality” policies to curtail the freedom of action of broadband companies like Comcast. Netflix, a huge suck of bandwidth, doesn’t want to have to make deals with ISPs like Comcast to deliver service to its customers.

One goal of “net neutrality” is to prevent Internet providers from affecting Internet access via such nefarious practices as charging different rates for different levels of service (a ubiquitous form of “discrimination” without which markets cannot function). Mises Institute writer Ryan McMaken wants to know what problem the new regulations are supposed to solve: “Who is being denied access to the web?”

Since the Internet first became generally available, it has become only more widespread, service only faster.

Any problems caused by existing government barriers to entry should be solved by dismantling those barriers. But according to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the voluminous new regulations go in the opposite direction, giving the agency “power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

The FCC has voted to proceed with the regulations. The result will likely throttle the quality of broadband service.

Netflix and other advocates of the regime have also foot-shootingly increased the chances of intrusive new regulations of their own net-based businesses.

Any sweeping assault on our liberty is hardly “neutral.” Regulations like those proposed always favor some over others, the essence of partiality. What we need from government is not “neutrality” with respect to our freedom, but consistent upholding of our right to it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
video

Video: Instead of Internet Neutrality

Big moves and much talk about net neutrality in recent days. If your head is swimming, maybe try these two videos from Reason TV:

Categories
folly meme

Net Neutrality Lunacy

“The very same government that couldn’t even build a functional website and leaked massive amounts of personal data while doing it just took over the entire Internet.

And people everywhere are telling me that places like Amazon (a company that can deliver almost anything to my door within 24 hours with the click of a button) are making the Internet less free.

Raving, barking lunatics.”

—Justin M. Stoddard

Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the image below to open large version that you can download.

netNeutralityLunaticsb

Categories
free trade & free markets

A Ride on the Private Side

If you’d like to catch a flight without the usual delays and post-911 regulation-inflicted hassles, used to be you had to own your own plane, charter one, or buy a time share in one.

Now you can use a smartphone app to book a seat on a private jet — just as you use an app to book an Uber driver outside the confines of the hyper-regulated taxi industry. Sure, private-jet seats are still pricey. But the New York Times reports that lower-end bookings are comparable in price to that of first-class seats on Delta or American.

Private JetNew services find spots for you on planes en route to pick somebody up that would otherwise be empty, or let you subscribe to blocks of time for use on a variety of jets. Result? More and more passengers are able to ride private jets thanks to startups like JetSmarter and Magellan Jets.

Those of us who lack the means to exploit this option-expanding development should still welcome it as a step in the right direction, away from burdensome regulatory regimes that slow us all down. I doubt we’ll get rid of the regulatory bog at the airport any time soon. After all, we’re still stuck with the government-subsidized USPS postal monopoly despite the competition in package delivery provided by UPS and FedEx.

But without the pressure and example of such relatively unencumbered alternatives, our situation would be worse; our prospects, dimmer.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.