I understand your point and will address it, but I think you chose a bad example. I don't think anyone thinks that government on any level should enforce a marriage (as in, forcing two people to stay wed). On the other hand, Pai thinks that some of these things should be regulated, just not by the FCC or the federal government.
The problem is, there isn't another place for the regulation to happen. The FTC simply does not have the expertise or resources and the internet needs broad conforming rules to perform well, so a state-by-state solution would prove disastrous.
I actively welcome and even seek out conversations in opposition to net neutrality. I do this because, to me, an echo chamber becomes claustrophobic extremely quickly.
But, despite all this searching, I have yet to find a meaningful argument in opposition. They are either vague or filled with misassumptions. I have yet to find someone (with a correct understanding of the concept) to argue that it actually helps consumers. Their argument always stems from the fear of over-regulation or a historical lack of net neutrality regulation that still allowed the internet to flourish (which is a nonsensical argument). They never challenge the technical rules themselves.
This interview (along with almost anything else coming from Pai) falls under this meaningless argument in opposition.
He obviously is intelligent if he has made it this far, but taking everything he says, I can't regard him as more than an idiot.
He says contradictory things. He says he supports an idea but doesn't support the act of enforcing it. His apparent ideology is in direct conflict with his actions. He either fundamentally misunderstands the situation, is majorly corrupt, or is simply malicious (which I doubt).
While the existence of net neutrality-breaking ISPs could have caused any of these companies to fail in their infancy, their current position in the market allows them to largely benefit from this environment.
They may have added costs, but to them, that may be worth it if it artificially filters out possible future competition.
I don't know if it is their responsibility or not, but I don't think it will be effective.
I see the only effective fight against fake news, biased news, sensational news, or whatever you want to call it is education. And I lumped all those different types of news together not because I believe they are the same or even believed true by the same group of people. I grouped them together because each of them poses a threat to our country and each can be treated by effective education.
Many people who know content is filtered by an institution will discredit any info coming from that institution (and for possibly good reasons). To get people to generate trust in our institutions and their reported info, they need to be the one to make the conscious choice to consume or not consume that info. Coddling the info before it gets to people doesn’t create an empowered or educated society.
I was in a class where the required book was written by the professor. However, fortunately, the book was really fantastic and better than any other book I have seen. Plus it was like $15.
I think he wrote the book so that students didn't have to spend money on a huge textbook containing information they don't need. This book had everything you needed for the class and not much more.
Thanks for making me realise why I stopped liking poached eggs. I was just using old eggs.
And I have heard similar things about the supply chain in the US. However, I have had a fresh egg that was no more than 24 hours old (I think younger) and I didn't really notice a difference. Then again, I think it was scrambled, so I don't know if you can tell anyways.
The problem is, there isn't another place for the regulation to happen. The FTC simply does not have the expertise or resources and the internet needs broad conforming rules to perform well, so a state-by-state solution would prove disastrous.