Congress is clueless about the internet
Congress is clueless. Seriously, they’re idiots. They’re old guys scared of new technology and they frantically trying to regain control. Fortunately they were too stupid to realize how popular the internet would be. If they had noticed how popular and powerful it was they’d probably have created laws restricting it’s use and power in the late 80’s before anyone cared about free speech online.
But I’m not writing this to complain about congress. I know they are trying to abolish net neutrality. I know that Alberto Gonzalez, our favorite attorney general, is trying to get ISPs to keep every user’s internet usage history…indefinitely. I’m sure they’ll start pushing harder on Google to turn over search records. The NSA will continue monitoring who sends email to who and who visits which websites.
But I’m not that worried. I know congress is clueless. The current representatives in each house will not become less clueless. They aren’t going to get out of bed with the telecom industry. They aren’t going to turn their backs to people that helped get them elected.
So why am I not worried?
Because soon the next generation of elected officials are going to be people my age, people who grew up with the internet, people who instant message their friends. In the next 10, 20, and 30 years the people that are elected to office are going to be people who “get” the internet, people who understand why net neutrality is important.
Laws aren’t irreversible. In 25 years the justices on the supreme court will understand the internet - they can say that laws enacted today are unconstitutional. The people who grew up logging into Facebook and checking email will be more powerful.
The next guy in charge of the RIAA might understand why downloaded music isn’t such a bad thing. The new bands releasing tracks on the internet won’t be afraid of people getting their music for free. The MPAA will realize that the internet can help them - it’s not just some evil technology that screws them out of millions of dollars.
I’m not suggesting that the battles over net neutrality and privacy be given up, they’re important. I’m saying losing a battle isn’t the end of the world. It would be easier if congress simply understood that they’re making mistakes, but that seems unlikely. it’s important to make sure that people are heard, but these battles are the end of the world. They’re just the end of the world for a little bit.
6 responses so far ↓
20 Sep 2006 at 8:13 pm
[…] And I’m glad I didn’t, because Ben Bleikamp did it far better than I could have with this post: So why am I not worried? […]
20 Sep 2006 at 9:28 pm
I don’t know if you say my post on how Voting Sucks but I largely agree. With people our age trying to get things done it sucks that the people in charge aren’t capable of understanding, let alone accomplishing certain things. Like I said, the ‘old guard’ will phase out in 10-20 years and then I’ll get into politics.
22 Sep 2006 at 12:05 am
What law passed, could’ve used a bit of background on this one
23 Sep 2006 at 2:36 am
[…] Congress is clueless about the internet [via The Blog Herald] […]
24 Sep 2006 at 4:19 pm
No law has passed yet, there are just lots of goofy laws that they want to pass.
17 Dec 2006 at 11:40 pm
Save the Internet (http://www.savetheinternet.com/) is definitely a good resource to understand net neutrality. I can’t imagine the internet evolving into something radically different than what we have now - MySpace, Flickr, blogs and all that skitter - but I also see why a controlled network can be a good thing.
The way I see it, a controlled network can be a solution independent of the internet. Don’t restrict (or attempt to do so anyway) the net, create a different protocol (based on the whole content taxation thing the big telecom guys like) where things are monitored, official.
Why is this neccessary? To the new user, information can be overwhelming, and there’s a lot of it out there that’s simply wrong or misguided. It isn’t difficult for anyone to sound authoratitive on a subject - and I agree it’s actually great to explore, learn, learn, share, challenge - somethings are just dangerous. Challenging a doctor’s prescription for some quick fix posted on some blog. Doctors I know have lamented. While they encourage their patients to look up and read about their conditions, and to challenge established beliefs with new research and findings, it’s simply annoying when they drop their antibiotics because anonymous25×1 told them it causes skin problems and rashes (because she happened to be on a not-so-appropriate diet). Sure, they should know which blogs are credible and which aren’t, but we can’t assume they do.
So, a channel with reliable information (and when there’s price-based competition, there’s entities competing on accuracy just to maintain their audience) might not be an entirely bad idea. Just a terrible one to replace the internet with.
… *stops and wonders where he is*
I got here searching “I love economics” in Google - I have my Economics test tomorrow - to find this post (which is fun), which links to this one.
Nice blog, and enjoyed this post. Hadn’t looked at it this way, and it makes sense (and is encouraging) lol
Cheers
Leave a Comment