Blocking sites because they're "not on the service plan" is likely to be much more acceptable in western countries than explicit censorship, as in Iran or China. It's authoritarianism dressed up as commercialism. In the post-Wikileaks era my bet is that governments will either encourage, or at least not do anything to hinder, the erection of walled gardens which make it more difficult for the average internet user to get access to unauthorised sources of content. The next decade could see a return to the Compuserve-like internet services which existed in the 1990s.
Oh come on, do you really think that governments are so shook up over WikiLeaks that they might encourage ISPs to turn the internet into a series of walled gardens? For that matter, do you really think that they're that evil? Obviously they're not happy about WikiLeaks, and I'm not saying that governments or ISPs are perfect, but some perspective is badly needed here.
What you've written screams hyperbole and is veering dangerously into conspiracy theory territory. Net neutrality is a real issue, but it's got nothing to do with WikiLeaks. Governments aren't as dastardly or hell-bent on destroying your freedoms as you (and many others on HN) seem to think. It's actually quite disconcerting that so many on HN think this way -- hackers (in the good sense) could have a lot of influence on the future of democratic nations, but this kind of anti-government slant has the ability to really hurt our credibility and keep us on the sidelines.
Despite your sneers, the governments of the World, and especially the U.S. government, have shown a strong bias towards information control, and walled gardens are controllable. The Internet as a whole is not. Wikileaks is merely a small example of governmental distaste for informational freedom/transparency.
Just as the majority of hackers are decent people, so are the majority of people in government. But just as there are black hats among hackers, there are black hats in government. Just as it would be imprudent to ignore the potential threat of black hats on computer security, it would be imprudent to ignore the potential threat of black hats on freedom.
Governance in the 21st century, whether it be at the level of governments or corporations or other large scale institutions, is about managing flows of information. Wikileaks merely provides an example of cases where such management failed catastrophically. I think it's not too much of a stretch into the murky world of conspiracies to suggest that governing organisations may wish to retain control of their information flows, and take steps in accordance with these concerns.
governing organisations may wish... to take steps... to retain control of their information flows
I think the point of the parent is that this attitude is defeatist and will therefore be somewhat self-fulfilling.
Instead, we hackers need to assert ourselves more fully in our own democracies to avoid the sort of thing your comment seems to assume is a fait accompli.
I find it disconcerting that your appeal-to-emotion rebuttel addressing the walled garden premise has garnered so many up votes. The second paragraph is nothing more than an insult to the ideology opposite yours.
I've got nothing against people having an ideology opposite to mine, though we're not talking about polar opposites here -- we probably both agree about the importance of net neutrality.
What I do have a problem with is people holding beliefs based on little to no actual evidence. I understand the appeal of trying to slot this into your worldview, but it's totally unsubstantiated. All evidence suggests that neutrality is threatened by major corporations lobbying the government to allow them to make more money, not the government lobbying major corporations to turn the internet into a walled garden.
There's plenty of evidence that our government wants to restrict the flow of information. For example: When people in Iran were tweeting during demonstrations, it was hailed as the savior of democracy: people getting together and using tools to rally against their oppressors. When Twitter is used at protests here, at home, they get arrested, and called terrorists.
That has nothing to do with the assertion that governments are encouraging private companies to restrict internet freedom. No number of examples of police forces overstepping their bounds is proof of an authoritarian conspiracy to censor the internet in the federal government.
I'd be surprised if it came from a Wikileaks angle. Most (government) arguments I've seen against NN have been from the angle that it's corporations right to create plans like this and to block it infringes their freedoms.
There is more at stake. Imagine if shazaam radio got the contract and thus 40 bucks a month lets you listen to unlim shazaam (+ their 2 dollar fee). Whereas a competitor like pandora is not in any way blocked, you just have to pay 10 bucks a month to metropcs and then a whooping 1.3 bucks a month for pandora service. Guess who will win out in the war for the user. Shazaam can suck ass compared to pandora, but other than the fanbois, there will be mostly shazaam subscribers.
Wikileaks is not even in the picture here. This is pure 1st amendment issue. A provider can provide a completely unfair advantage in the "open" market to another company over their competitors. Imagine if television networks could chose to only show republican campaign messages, and ignore all democrat ones. Its the same issue.
