I've heard this before from leftists in the context of capital punishment.
The man didn’t even want to call ‘net neutrality’ as ‘net neutrality’. He wanted to call it ‘broadband discrimination’.
Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?
Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.
You were the one talking about nationalization. All he's talking about is legal punishments for illegal activities. Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.
He’s not your enemy where it matters most.
Fairness doctrine. That's where it matters most, that's where he's my enemy. That's what actually affects freedom of speech rather than just regulating interstate commerce. He has also campaigned against China's censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?
——————Basic concept: Net neutrality forbids broadband discrimination. Simple enough?——————
It is when you understand marxism and their need to cloak tyranny in the garb of freedom.
Outside of that, nope. It’s convoluted.
-————Wu didn’t talk about nationalizing an industry.
You were the one talking about nationalization.—————
No, I commented on how Wu was talking about nationalizing source code. But nobody talked about nationalizing industry. Words matter.
-————Heaven forbid the government punish wrongdoers.-—————
Heaven forbid the government become an even bigger thief.
—————He has also campaigned against China’s censorship of the Internet. Should I automatically think opposing such censorship is a bad thing because Wu does?-————
The question is: “Why is he opposing China’s censorship”.
I don’t know of Wu is rich or not, but if he’s not rich then you can’t follow them money with Wu.
Your only choice is to follow the ideology. Where does it lead you? We know he’s not a constitutionalist.