Net neutrality of content?

[Nerd stuff, but with political interest]

I read this article in the Examiner about "conceding" key parts of the Web to "the left":

At various blogging conferences since, I have had the opportunity to observe many of these bright minds strategizing on how to best leverage the emerging world of blogs and other “social networking” services known as “Web 2.0” to advance their liberal political agenda and win elections.

Their common refrain: “We need to own the Internet the way the right owns talk radio.”

[...]

Don’t think it matters? Consider that, according to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.

But it’s not just Google’s media and financial muscle that benefits the left. Liberals run the leading blog search engine — Technorati. They run the leading blog software manufacturer — Six Apart. They invented two of the most important blogging technologies — Podcasting and RSS. The list goes on and on.

It may not matter who manufacturers your radio since all points on the dial are equally accessible and the choice is tiny compared to the number of Web sites, but on the Internet, where popularity is often directly proportional to technological acumen and popularity, once achieved, breeds more popularity, who builds what means everything.

Here's the thing: the above-mentioned companies have come out in favor of net neutrality regulations (here, here, here). Their ostensible motivation is to preserve equality of access for all creators of content.

In light of YouTube's actions, one must wonder if they really believe this. After all, Google/YouTube is a major part of the Internet's infrastructure at this point, from any user's perspective. They have over 50% share of Web searches, which is the primary entry point for most users. To appear or not appear on these sites will de facto determine who can reach your content for a wide swath of the Internet.

Let's watch to see how dearly they cling to this "neutrality" concept when it comes to their own piece of Internet real estate. After all, it's easy to advocate unlimited and non-discriminatory use of others' property. But one's own house? Come now...

-----

Sorry if this seems a bit cagey. I expect every firm to act in its own self-interest. For a company like Google, net neutrality is simply an Incumbency Protection Act. It is their way of ensuring that the market does not change too quickly or to their disadvantage.

Their primary sin is in attempting to use the state to advance that goal, in the form of neutrality laws that apply to other companies.

Their secondary sin is dishonesty. When a celebrity declares that "it's not about the money", it's probably about the money. When Google declares that "it's about equality", they are advocating enforced equality for others, while preserving advantages for themselves. Some animals are more equal than others, after all.

------

Back to the original point about lefty dominance in the infrastructure of the new media:

I must admit that I worry about these things from time to time, but my usual conclusion is that it doesn't matter too much so long as the market remains unregulated.

I could see a situation where it's a bit frustrating, as in the YouTube example linked at top. Of course lefties -- and righties, and anyone of quasi-religious certainty --will use whatever advantage they can when they know they are right.

But I am not outraged in any ideological sense for two reasons.

First, it's within the realm of defensible (read: legal) free speech when YouTube decides to censor content. You read that right. Free speech means that any entity decides what it will and won't say. YouTube is under no compulsion to carry or not carry any video, by whatever standards it chooses.

As a matter of credibility, however, of course they shouldn't censor video simply because it might offend. They hurt their brand and limit their audience. But they are entirely within their rights to make such mistakes.

The second reason I am not concerned is that money and votes still talk. Even with overwhelming dominance of liberal points of view in the major newsrooms, Republicans and Democrats each still hover around the 50% mark.

The Googles and YouTubes of the world can try to shut down certain voices, but they will do so at their own peril. If they were to make a habit of alienating half of their potential audience, they open up an opportunity for a competitor.

A free market has a way of working those things out. It's only when the market is not free (a la McCain-Feingold, eminent domain and net neutrality) that we should worry.

h/t Instapundit

Comments

[SolidSurfer TheSolidSurfer.com]

I'm very against net neutrality. The free market generally proves to be much more effective than regulation.

[Nick Byram]

When I read that article, I thought of two words: Fox News.

If Google and YouTube won't deal with us fairly, we must seek out / create search engines and video programs that will.

By the way, I used to live in San Jose, went to school at Berkeley, and like you am disgusted with the Commiecrat Left that has ruined this once great state. I shall link your blog.

It's hard to really get into blogging and hold a day job, isn't it? I can relate.