I’ve blogged a few comments recently about non-freedom of information in the communication (verb) sense of information … in the public domain in connection with government, economy, science, business, etc. Not all information should be publicly communicated just because it can be. A moral issue affecting the quality of decision-making that affects us all.
Here is a piece in The Atlantic on the freedom of information … in the free-of-cost sense. Also a moral issue. A reaction to naive internet ideology that “Information wants to be free” and “attempts to constrain it are immoral”, because information also really needs to be expensive … ie valued, if it is to have any real quality. Will comment further. Thanks to Johan for the link on Facebook.
It is mostly about Apple vs Google vs Murdoch media pricing and licensing, but the moral ideology is central
“the core gospel of an open Web was upheld with such rigor that when one of its more prolific members, Time magazine’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt, published a scare-the-old-folks cover story in 1995, which carried the implication that some measure of online censorship might not be a bad thing, he and his apostasy were torn to pieces with breathtaking relentlessness. At the time, the episode was notable for being one of the first examples of the Web’s ability to fact-check, and keep in check, the mainstream media—it turned out that the study on whichTime’s exclusive report was based was inaccurate, and its results were wildly overstated. In retrospect, what seems notable is the fervor with which digital correctness—the idea that the unencumbered flow of everything must be defended—was being enforced.”
[Post Note – spooky that this article should turn up today too – The Internet Kill Switch.]