You can’t go around correcting the Internet–but you can disagree with arguments.
Google Privacy Practices Worse Than ISP Snooping, AT&T Charges (Wired)
“If anything the largely invisible practices of ad-networks raise even greater privacy concerns than do the behavioral advertising techniques that ISPs could employ, such as deep-packet-inspection,” AT&T wrote.
Wired gets it right in stating, “You pay your ISP to carry your traffic to and fro. It can see everything you do online, unless you take extreme measures,” but an additional factor in Google’s favor is that it’s easy to delete cookies and opt out of services that allow it to track users. There is just no way to do this if monitoring happens at the service provider level. I hope the members of congress see that.
Fairness Doctrine Panic hits FCC, spreads through blogosphere (Ars Technica): A good quick read on the history of the fairness doctrine misses one crucial point–it was created to even access to a limited resource (time on licensed broadcast stations). While some may use it as a political tool, it was designed to keep TV from becoming too one sided or political.
As for the actual prospects of the Fairness Doctrine itself, for the most part it addressed the anxieties of the nine-TV-channel world of the third quarter of the 20th century—a landscape that cable and the Internet has transformed.
“Transformed” is a bit of a strong word. Network and local TV news still command a huge audience, and consolidation and shrinking news budgets have the potential to make balance an issue to many in the public. Cable and the internet are a part of the same media landscape, but shouldn’t weigh too heavily on decisions influencing broadcast.