This conversation is closed.
Why is there so little talk about the fragility of net neutrality?
I searched TED.com with key words "net neutrality" and "open internet". I got a talk about how the internet helps some oppressive governments, the Edward Snowden talk and that's about it.
Everything else touches on the wonderful possibilities of the internet, which is perfectly fine and inspirational. But the imbalanced weight between optimism and historical perspective makes TED appear to be on a trajectory of naiveté.
Is there a widespread, ignorant notion that, since most of the internet content has so far been treated equal (as much as any biased human can create), that it will always remain equal?
It's becoming less and less deniable that the United States, a nation which ushered in democracy, has been stifled from within by a unique form of oligarchy, which is ironically spurred on by its own people. Examples like this can be found all throughout history about how a great social enlightenment was eventually twisted into a mutated tool to serve a select, elite enclave of power mongers who reside within it.
I hope someone out there, who has the time to form these historical connections into a 15 minute speech, will be invited by TED to provide some historical perspective on this most recent information enlightenment and how fragile it might actually be.
But I digress, perhaps there aren't historical ties that serve as signposts for the internet's future. Perhaps online connectivity and net neutrality are different beasts entirely, complete with never-before-encountered pitfalls?