Everybody saw John Oliver’s amazing piece on net neutrality from last June, right? Even if you did see it, go watch it again. It’s only 13 minutes, and when I say it’s amazing, I mean amazing.
Because it’s not just a hilarious bit of journalism skewering a bastardized regulatory system about to screw us all. It produced two significant results.
First and foremost, this happened:
No, Mr. Wheeler. That’s not how you handle that. If a small child were to call you a doody head, would you argue that you are not in fact? Or would you just continue putting him to bed at a reasonable time? Because I’m betting at some point in your life, you’ve said the words, “And for the record, I am not a doody head.”
Second, and perhaps actually important, this also happened:
On Thursday, the FCC is now expected to pass what seemed unthinkable less than a year ago: reclassifying high-speed broadband service as a basic public utility - a common service akin to phone lines, water pipes, or the electrical grid, and therefore deemed a kind of protected and regulated public good - and precisely banning the kind of “fast lanes” the companies who control the nation’s Internet infrastructure have long fought for.
Woo hoo! Suck on that, Comcast.
But maybe you’re arguing that net neutrality would have passed regardless. Oliver did a very funny piece, but he couldn’t have possibly contributed to the argument, right? No, that’s valid. But maybe you’d like to explain to Professor Aram Sinnreich why you think he’s a liar:
“John Oliver absolutely helped turn the tide in the net-neutrality debate,” says Aram Sinnreich, professor at Rutgers University’s School of Communication and Information in New Brunswick, N.J. “The FCC got flooded with an unprecedented number of citizen contributions to the policy discussions afterwards, that probably wouldn’t have happened to that extent otherwise.”
Of course, there are plenty of people claiming that Oliver had nothing to do with it. Including on expert on the subject Mr… . What the shit? John Oliver?
“I think for a start, you’d need to question whether the ball has actually moved or not, and they may move it a little and then it may get moved very much back to where the ball was originally put by Congress, so no, I don’t take any credit for that at all. I think we just identified a problem, pointed at a means through which people could express their disgust with it, and then they did it. But I don’t think, I think you can read too much into our involvement there.”
No way, John. You don’t get to be smart and funny and hot and humble. Save some of the charming for the rest of us.
Source: Christian Science Monitor