You may have noticed that net neutrality was in the news quite a bit this week after US FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tried to slip a release into the pre-long weekend news burial ground stating that he plans to roll back any legislation related to Net Neutrality. In response to this, Netflix released a statement that it opposes any attempts to roll back net neutrality rules. Back in July, when the idea of gutting net neutrality law was first floated under the Trump administration, all of the major platform players such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, spoke out against these proposed regulations. But a Google search that I conducted this morning shows news in which Twitter, Pinterest, AirBnB and of course the aforementioned Netflix make statements opposing the new legislation while Facebook and Google are conspicuously absent.

Where are you, Google and Facebook? Why when I search for your company name and the words “net neutrality” do I get results from July but nothing from this week? I have a theory about that. And I also want to point out that even in the case of those platforms speaking out about net neutrality – the David vs. Goliath argument of online competition doesn’t really hold water. In fact, as much as I may support the idea of net neutrality in theory, I’m mindful of propaganda and missing information in an environment that is more Goliath vs. Goliath than David vs. Goliath.

First things first – why are Google and Facebook absent from the most recent discussion of net neutrality. My theory is this: On November 9th of this year, Senator Al Franken suggested that the big platforms, for example Google and Facebook, should be subject to a type of net neutrality legislation. Franken pointed out that as a new kind of information gatekeeper, with arguably as much power as the cable companies and internet providers over the flow of information, companies like Google and Facebook should not be able to favour some content over others. Franken is not wrong, and thus it could disadvantageous for Google and Facebook to support net neutrality. In fact, they’re so big now, that even if net neutrality is dismantled, it is likely that large internet providers such as comcast and AT&T would be forced to come to some sort of agreement with them, so they have less to fear (potentially) from the rollback of net neutrality than they have from possible additional net neutrality legislation targeting their activities.

Which leads me to my second point: Goliath vs. Goliath. Even in the case of companies that have spoken in support of net neutrality, it may be wise to question their motives. In the case of Netflix, Twitter or AirBnB for example, they make money primarily on collecting data, and are able to do so because of the way they can access the network to get into people’s homes relatively cheaply. They don’t value small business or competition, in fact, they use their data advantage to engage in anticompetitive behaviour. They don’t value community, because they have built their business model in ways that are detrimental to communities. What they want is to maintain their dominant money making position. It’s not David vs. Goliath. It’s Goliath vs. Goliath, and David is stuck in the middle.

As Ian Bogost wrote recently in a fantastic Atlantic article, we already don’t have net neutrality. This doesn’t mean that Pai’s legislation should be ignored, but it does mean that the issue is a complicated one. Net neutrality in fact, is not enough in its current form – so more than protesting the current state of affairs, it may be that we need to take our cue from those who recommend an extension of net neutrality – and ask ourselves what a truly competitive online playing field would look like.