Intolerance around net neutrality does not augur well for diversity of thought

The recent attacks on Google and Verizon over their temerity to seek a reasonable compromise around what many view as a complex issue, struck me as further evidence that the concept of democracy that I grew up with is in trouble. In trouble in part due to the ease with which the Internet allows the like-minded to reinforce mutual ideology to the exclusion of other perspectives. That has to be a bit ironic given the wonderful promise of an open Internet is to promote freedom, choice and diversity.

Maybe my fear is just intellectual hyperventillation, but increasingly I worry that compromise and dialogue are being sacrificed to ever more partisan perspectives in all elements of society from our Parliament to the coffee shop.

It hit me today that the intellectual differences between those vocal Internet activists that can only accept a single vision of the Net and the Tea Party, that came out today attacking net neutrality, are not so great. Their political religion may be miles apart but both groups seem to feed on mutual intolerance for those that hold different views. And if that is right, then maybe both the Tea Party and some of the net neutrality zealots share kinship with the Iranian bullies that stone women who succumb to love in an atmosphere where hate governs. An atmosphere of hate derived from extreme orthodoxy that does not tolerate deviance in thought or action.

I have always believed that the golden age of democracy that spawned so many social programs occurred when people were able to debate, to accept that maybe the other side had a point and that it was ok to give up and compromise if there was a chance compromise might create something better, not perfect, but better,for society.
Now if I had to pick a vision to side with, I would want to help the net neutrality gang, because their heart seems in the right place, (and their overarching vision reinforces many of my own) :-).An an open network to facilitate a free flow of information is a very cool idea. But surely that is a goal that does not need to be fuelled by anger and intransigence given how many people would sign up to that principle.

However if that's the case, then don't the neutrality activists have a greater responsibility to stop sniping from the gallery and reach out to the other side to make this better world they seek, a reality. To me that requires finding ways to compromise with those you may not agree with. That's how to make things happen and make the world work in some degree of harmony. Google and Verizon did not get it all right for many but through compromise they moved the yardsticks a lot further than a polarized political debate has in the last 5 years.

Then again maybe that's just the view of a liberal democrat and that's an ideology too. But my gut tells compromise is what feeds diversity and diversity is what fuels democracy.

Diversity has to imply we all can't be right all the time, because if we were we wouldn't need open access to new ideas in the first place. So open the tent a bit on the net neutrality side or you may be waking up to Sarah Palin as your next President.