This is such an aggressively stupid comment—in case you’re unfamiliar with the internet, it’s changed over time—made even dumber by how smugly it asserts its ignorance.https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280 …
As with most regulations, it was at least partially reactive. First signs of a problem appeared in the mid-2000s. Comcast paid $16 million in a class action lawsuit back in 2009...
-
-
Cruz ignored every informed argument--barrier to entry for startups, local monopolistic rents, fragmentation--to take on some hysterical people who don't know what they're talking about, and then patted himself on the back. That's beneath a US Senator. Or at least should be.
-
Unfortunately it’s often the hysteria or low hanging rhetoric that have the most purchase in public debate (eg, people who love each other should be allowed to get married). So I think it’s worth responding to that.
-
That’s a fair point. I’d rather see hysteria met with reasoned argument, especially from elected officials, rather than smug condescension. But yes, I think you’re right that the hysteria’s prominent enough that there’s value in countering it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t see how the Comcast incident makes the net neutrality case. What it demonstrates is that preferred treatment was already illegal, right?
-
And from what I’ve heard it’s net neutrality that generally hurts start ups.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.