In 1962 Milton Friedman, then a renowned professor of economics at the University of Chicago, published a book entitled Capitalism and Freedom. Among the many ideas in the book that have come to fruition, including the ending of the draft and the Bretton Woods system, the book contained a staunch defense of capitalism being a necessary prerequisite for democracy.
The argument worked in this format: In a democracy, a successful movement (election, passing legislation, etc.) requires awareness and organization. In a theoretical socialist state where all have equal resources, there is no way to build awareness. This is because the best way to build awareness is to collect a large number of funds to then be used in ways such as media campaigns, but the necessity of money to build awareness to collect the money to build the awareness is a chicken and egg problem: you need the money to build the awareness and organization, but you need the organization and awareness to collect the money in the first place. Thus, real democratic movements not approved by the state become impossible without capitalism allowing multiple concentrations of wealth instead of a relatively equal distribution.
This defense worked well in the pre-Internet era, but that invention has made a challenge of these beliefs absolutely necessary. For with the arrival of the Internet, the need for capitalism’s defense of democracy seems diminished. After all, people can get millions of followers on the Internet without spending huge amounts of money: YouTube videos featuring dogs on skateboards get more views than whole political movements. The Internet is certainly reducing the need for capital in today’s democracy.
But it can never remove it. For the Internet is based in the capitalistic system, no matter how different its ideology. Removing the capitalistic basis would introduce the problems of state censorship and control of politics, leading to fascism. Only with capitalism still existing can the Internet lessen its worst effects.
Thus, the idea that the Internet is a public place, regardless of the companies that maintain the private (though in reality public) infrastructure that supports it. Companies must realize that anything less than a wholly public Internet is completely unacceptable, and support for measures which undermine net neutrality are politically, economically, and morally wrong, for they threaten to undermine the delicate balance between the free market and freedom itself.
