Stepping back for a second – David, you’re having the wrong argument with me. You seem to think I’m in favor of ISP blocking. This is what I found highly ironic.

What I am is agog at the alternate universe I seemed to have slipped into, which is vaguely like a SF story where one element is permuted (“President Gore said today he regrets the Saudi Arabia war has proven so destructive, while praising the efforts of America’s strongest ally in the region, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein …”).

Is anyone still reading? Would there be any point to my replying on the “settled law” aspect?

Do I favor changing the law? It wouldn’t require a change in the law: Since a regulatory decision already re-classified broadband as “deregulated,” a similar regulatory decision could re-classify it again to prohibit discrimination (requiring some wrangling with definitions and mutual exclusivity of terms like “telecommunications service” and “information service”). But, yes, I would favor rewriting the obsolete 1996 Telecommunications Act (and the outmoded and technologically siloed structure of the Communications Act overall).

Note I don’t claim there’s a direct payment, and in fact have criticized (admittedly usually privately) people who make such charges, which I regard as again too simplistic. But denying, let us say, the broad ecology, would be absurd.

As I know from having had this conversation with you several times over the past few years, there is nothing that I can say about my motives that you will believe (except perhaps to admit to being influenced in ways that I’m not being influenced). I make the free speech argument for NN because I am a liberal who wants the Net to remain open to all constitutionally protected speech. The only place I can think of where I made a NN argument and was paid was at a cable conf where I was booed. Nor have I been paid by any of the companies supporting NN, as far as I can recall. Nor do I have prospects of being paid.

But, then, I would say that :)

So, as in the past, I don’t see a way forward with this conversation about my motives. Do you? I think not, since you write “of course it’s going to be denied even if it were true.”

There are professions – trial lawyer, political lobbyist, PR flack, marketer, etc. – which I call “paid liar”. Asking people in these professions “Do you really believe what you just said, or are you only saying it because it’s your job?” is paradoxical, since their job is to lie (to a certain approximation – one can dance around the blunt characterization, but that’s the basic idea). This is merely a fact. Not everyone is dedicated to truth and justice.

Large amounts of corporate money at stake have an inverse correlation to truth and justice, another fact.

So, for people who make their living saying things which please people with large amounts of money, well, let’s say that’s a very different case than the generic “those who disagree with you”.

You are a very smart and sophisticated man. You have to be, in order to prosper in the environment you’re in.

I often wonder how people who survive and prosper in that environment, manage to do it, and how they think.

Thus, I try to figure out how to frame questions that can and might be answered.

0) Is David really making a free-speech argument? Yes
1) Does David know it’s long been law that ISPs can block “objectionable” content? No.
2) Does David care? Also No (again, approximately)
Which is very interesting from my perspective.

Now, the question “Is David making this free-speech argument because he’s trying to come up with a clever way to market NN?” – I’d love to know the answer, but of course it’s going to be denied even if it were true. Note – at this point, the strawman is to claim I believe “… and so he MUST be lying”. I didn’t say that.
Note also something like “I [heart] free speech” isn’t addressing that question either.

And you wouldn’t believe my explanation, not because you’d think I’m a liar myself, but rather that there’s too many aspects of it which would cause cognitive dissonance (for an analogy, imagine the terrible time the bona-fide victims of CIA mind-control experiments must have if they try to tell anyone about it).

And the irony of the irony is that of course I’d believe your explanation, because I don’t share your premises about the motivation of those with whom I disagree. I think you tell me the truth about your beliefs and about your reasons for those beliefs.

If I’ve got this wrong — I’m doing a LOT of filling in here — please feel free to set me straight. No offense intended.

I’m trying to frame my questions in a way which won’t anger you. They are about the reasoning and ecology of the surrounding politics. I’m sincerely interested in it because it continually flabbergasts me (which is probably more about my lack of understanding of politics than anything else).
I suppose the deep question is a paradox that can rarely be answered.
More minor questions here were about if you really were saying what you appeared to be saying (since a few years ago, it would have been a very disfavored stance).

The phrase “secret benefits” is kind of a strawman. I’d put it more at “economy of influence”.

For the irony, well, I don’t think you’d believe me if I fully explained it, though I’ve mentioned elements to you before :-(. I’d say “Hint: What was my highest accomplishment in net.policy?”, but these days, most people would probably think that was writing critical columns about Wikipedia, since that’s what I seem to be most well-known for now.

As for the access providers deciding _what_ they’ll carry: I’m fine with legislation that provides them safe harbor and for NOT allowing them to block constitutionally protected speech.

But, I believe I’m missing your point. I appreciate that you’re not arguing policy. But I’m not sure what sort of answer would be responsive to your desire to understand the politics of it. I’m missing something pretty obvious, which seems to be my speciality. Do you mean the political values that moves NN supporters?(E.g., “I love free speech above all else”) Or do you want to know what secret benefits NN supporters get for their position? (E.g., “I get paid by Google and don’t want to upset my relationship with them”). Or something else?

I also don’t see the unintended irony of my statement. I was (implicitly) hypothesizing that you had stuff on your site or in your instant messages that the ISPs found objectionable, whatever that content might be. What am I missing?

I’m not arguing the policy with you. I’m trying to figure out the politics. As I keep saying, it’s extremely weird to me.

I’m not offended, but your comment – “Would you be ok with Verizon blocking your site or your IM’s because they don’t like the content?” -
is highly ironic.

As for “my server my rules,” I do believe that access providers should be subject to laws and regulations.