Peeling the onion that is Net Neutrality
I think it is pretty hard for most people to know what isn’t showing up, or why our searches give us the hits they do, and in what order. Coupled with the expectation that if something doesn’t exist on the ‘net (or more accurately, isn’t easily findable) we think it doesn’t exist period. I think this combination of ignorance and apathy about media consolidation will make it possible for AT&T (or any powerful business and their lobbyists) to change the way Internet information flows. Orlowski refers to the "online culture that thrives on conspiracy theories and paranoia" as one reason that our collective attention can be so easily manipulated.
The media is owned by a handful of giant corporations, none of whom must look too kindly on relatively anarchistic technologies like the Internet that enable people to step outside the choices those companies offer. It doesn't earn them any money when (like we discussed a few weeks back) we decide to turn off the TV and its 18 minutes of commercials per hour to look at our fellow yay-hoos horsing around in front of their own cameras.
That’s what business is about, making money, whether it’s by delivering an audience to advertisers or by charging for access to commercial-free content. It is completely unsurprising that AT&T, Google, etc. would do whatever they can to make the most money.
I was relieved to read Orlowski's quote of Martin Geddes: "There is no "neutral" space devoid of favouring the interests of particular market players. The contradiction is inherent." This seems to be the puzzle in more heads than just my own...in every situation (political, business, informational) there are winners and losers, and it's not always possible to figure out who those winners and losers really are.