Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Net neutrality? (english version)

Internet regulation as a public service has returned to the fore, but it does not seem that the current state undergoes modifications; it is a tension between two modes of economy, with their respective principles, and one does not manage to overcome the other. The problem would be in the popularity of the service, that drives the new economy, of electronic base but equally determined by the consumption; so that regulation of the service as private rather than public, would eliminate a large sector of consumers. That explains that conglomerates that depend on this consumption base, such as Google or Amazon, fight the treatment of the service as strictly private; since that would grant greater authority to direct suppliers, and decrease the public, discriminating with the escalation of prices.
Curiously, the arguments here are above all moral, although they point to practical problems; as is the case for the access to information and consequently sprayed, which would be controllable by the various interests at stake, especially politicians. This argument is spurious, because the information has always been manipulated; and not only because of the dark government agencies that supposedly threaten all individual freedom —as if they held real power— but by the same private agencies that originate them, with their interpretation of the facts.
Of course, anyone who wants knows that the government only manages the interests of the elites who support them; and worse, that these are economic, extending their influence across the political spectrum, which is thus subordinated, no matter the discourse. In that sense, paradoxical as it may seem, the deregulation of the Internet would have a beneficial effect both politically and economically; since it would slow down the development, allowing the horizontal extension of the economic structures, now totally subordinated to the big conglomerates. Really, technological accessibility is only a fantasy bubble, which chains people to frantic consumption through the exaltation of the ego; which makes them weaker and manipulable at individual level, resulting in their greater subordination to immediate and mediocre interests such as the feeling of success.
Still, this natural (economic) restriction of media power would return to the press the initial preponderance in news moderation; that although not more reliable —it never was— would return to have a professional character, and probably more careful, given the experience that took her previous arrogance. In any case, none of this is likely to happen, because the weight of commercial conglomerates is stronger than that of the companies that supply the service; but with what this factor of the purchasing power is lost as an incorruptible regulator of social development, keeping us in the mediocrity of the sensation of success ... which is what makes the service so popular.

No comments:

Post a Comment