Shame on everyone who complains about the recent federal government domain seizures (torrent, poker sites) but poo-poos this important and highly reasonable article. Shame on everyone who despises the Great Firewall and the Middle Eastern Internet off buttons we have heard about recently, but is unwilling to take a small step towards ensuring free speech on the Internet.
It isn't directly, but on the censorship/P2P continuum, it moves a step toward freedom. Using Internet you did not pay for helps voice dissent and helps whistleblowers. It just might be a first step towards the P2P/mesh decentralized utopian Internet of Doctorow is enamored.
"Whining"? … I think that is grossly unfair, but it's not a real accusation, is it?
I don't know where the ends of the censorship/P2P continum are however. I was wondering the other day if a crowd of people wanting to legalize pot started protesting in the streets of Washington and demanding that the government give in to the will of the people, and then Mexican drug lords sent some tanks up to support their efforts, is that freedom? It sounds when I read it like a red herring but I'm trying to get my head around any positive aspects to network anarchy. It seems anarchy in virtual space would have the same downside as anarchy in meat space. (cue jokes about the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia)
So for articles like the EFF one to be compelling they have to move the conversation forward. This one, for me at least, didn't rise to that standard. It seemed to get stuck in the complaint about how people who pay for online access have an easier time getting online than people who don't.
The people demanding drug reform would be fantastic, and the Mexican drug gangs is absurd on the face because if growing were legal here, they would have a hell of a lot less business. Not your point, I know.
