To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet)
Radio works by beaming signals all over their coverage area. those signals are pushed to everyone.
Whereas, a website isn't just sending its html to every IP and port it can find, it waits for a request and responds accordingly.
This seems to be a fundamental distinction to me, but one that would likely be easily obscured by politicking and misinformation campaigns if that were the ultimate goal.
Interesting thought though, as we do see the UK beginning to move towards this more hands-on internet regulation all of a suddden
To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet)
Now, that's a very good point, but can't the very act of turning a radio dial be the 1930's equivalence of typing in a URI or clicking a link?
Wired magazine published an article in the 90's about the parallels between radio and the "new" internet, and it was filled with direct analogies between the two and how governments eventually took control and started regulating licenses and content, for the most part.
I am unable to find a link to that long article, but the ideas contained in it have stuck with me for a long time.
Radio works by beaming signals all over their coverage area. those signals are pushed to everyone. Whereas, a website isn't just sending its html to every IP and port it can find, it waits for a request and responds accordingly.
This seems to be a fundamental distinction to me, but one that would likely be easily obscured by politicking and misinformation campaigns if that were the ultimate goal.
Interesting thought though, as we do see the UK beginning to move towards this more hands-on internet regulation all of a suddden