Hacker News Reader

No kidding. Of course governments can and do abuse their power, but that is an entirely different argument. The only alternative to having laws, as far as I can tell, is having no laws, and faced with that option I think we should aim for the best laws possible.

View on HN

As Nazi Germany can always serve as example, the alternatives discussed here are not between having laws and not having laws. The alternatives are between laws that protect our individual rights and laws that violate them.

When government begins meddling in the affairs of content delivery, it is not only an innappropriate harmful intrusion, but leaves a door open for content itself to be regulated or up for public vote.

Agreed, let's not let government meddle in the affairs of content delivery. But let's not let anyone else, either, because government isn't the only entity capable of censorship. But who would enforce such a rule?

I have an idea - we could make a law that says "no one should meddle in the affairs of content delivery" - we could call it something catchy, like "Net Neutrality".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com