Here, please allow me to translate.
When I use the word “sexy” and you use the word “sexy” it does NOT guarantee that we are talking about the same thing!
When technical geeks, such as myself (and you - looking are your posts) say “net neutrality” we understand that in a TECHNICAL definition, it means free flow of packets over all networks.
However, when it comes to liberals, just as they do so often, they have co-opted the phrase and are using it to mean “equal access to counter points-of-view,” which makes the net “neutral.” One of the very people that have espoused “net neutrality” said that requiring opposing views of ideas on ALL websites would be a very good implementation of “net neutrality.”
When I read the Civil Rights Laws of 1964, no where do I see “affirmative action” and quotas listed; however, it was these very laws which created these as “unintended(?) consequences” and so too will “net neutrality!”
Here, please allow me to translate.
When I use the word “sexy” and you use the word “sexy” it does NOT guarantee that we are talking about the same thing!
Well, thank you for translating. That makes much more sense ... :-)
And that's true, just using that phrase, "Net Neutrality" doesn't guarantee that we are talking about the same thing. I find that even true here in Free Republic with "Net Neutrality". Many use that phrase, right here on Free Republic" to mean -- "Hate Speech" and "Fairness Doctrine".
So, yes..., I know exactly what you're saying is true.
When technical geeks, such as myself (and you - looking are your posts) say “net neutrality” we understand that in a TECHNICAL definition, it means free flow of packets over all networks.
And "that" -- is exactly what I would support, too -- and I would not support controls for "Hate Speech" and neither would I support the "Fairness Doctrine".
However, when it comes to liberals, just as they do so often, they have co-opted the phrase and are using it to mean “equal access to counter points-of-view,” which makes the net “neutral.” One of the very people that have espoused “net neutrality” said that requiring opposing views of ideas on ALL websites would be a very good implementation of “net neutrality.”
Yes, I can believe that there are those liberals who will co-opt that phrase of "Net Neutrality" to mean something completely different than it is. Now, the way I look at that kind of thing being done -- is -- either they are doing that on purpose and trying to confuse the issue -- or -- they are actually ignorant of what it means themselves.
If they are ignorant of what it means, themselves, then they need to be educated and informed to use what they actually mean -- like controls for "Hate Speech" or implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine". Then we can be talking about the "actual substance" of their proposal, instead of getting confused by using the wrong phrases.
On the other hand, if they are doing it on purpose and they actually do know what "Net Neutrality" means and they are merely trying to "piggy-back" the idea of "Hate Speech" and the "Fairness Doctrine" on top of "Net Neutrality" (which has nothing to do with the other two) -- then they need to be "called out" on their "obfuscation" and FUD that they are disseminating.
I would hope that Free Republic members could keep the terminology straight themselves... and not get into needless arguments about "Hate Speech" and the "Fairness Doctrine" -- thinking that this is what "Net Neutrality" means ... :-)
When I read the Civil Rights Laws of 1964, no where do I see “affirmative action” and quotas listed; however, it was these very laws which created these as “unintended(?) consequences” and so too will “net neutrality!”
Call it something else -- then -- something that everyone can use and understand what it means. Call it ..
"Free flow of packets"
I mean, it really doesn't matter "what you call it" -- as long as everyone understands that it means that you don't block or inhibit or limit the flow of packets of data on the Internet, no matter what the protocol is and no matter where it's coming from and/or where it's going.
That's all I care about.
The problem is -- though -- that the "terminology" of "Net Neutrality" (in meaning that very thing as I've described) has had a very long history of that term meaning "that very thing".
To have some "Johnny-come-lately" step in and want to change the defition -- it's easier to "set them straight" on the meaning -- than to change the entire history of the terminology of "Net Neutrality".
In other words, it would be like liberals coming in and saying that they are now "conservative" -- so instead of us maintaining what certain defintions of "conservative" mean -- we were told that we had to change the "terminology" of "conservative" to some other term, because "liberals were co-opting the word, conservative" for themselves..." ... LOL ...
I just say, "set them straight" on what the terminology means... I know what is mean by putting controls on "Hate Speech". I know what is meant by implementing the "Fairness Doctrine" and I also know what is meant by keeping "Net Neutrality" in place, like it has been from the beginning of the Internet.