I agree but a lot of people (myself included) thought Google was large, rich, smart, respected and brazen enough to fight this fight so we were all thrilled when they dropped the gauntlet against the carriers.
At this point I'm just dying to find out what they saw on the horizon that made them come to a full stop.
Characterizing a compromise that gains them progress in one area in exchange for allowing the other party to stall in another area, characterizing that as "a full stop" is rather disingenuous.
What no one seems to be addressing or making a good case for in their criticisms is why allowing that stalling tactic is so very bad that it overshadows progress in locking in net neutrality protections in the wired realm.
Exactly. If Google with it's billions and market position is willing to bendover like this, what chance do smaller players have, even a consortium of them?
I think most would agree that those are failed democracies. Just because democracy does certain things in practice does not mean that those things are in line with the core principles of democracy, of which compromise is one.
Then color me against democracy, but I don't care if the democratic majority wants slavery: it's bad and should not be compromised on, the majority will just have to suck up.
I'm still hugely disappointed but maybe it was naive to think a corporate entity could ever have true principles.