The argument is not that net neutrality currently exists—clearly, at least in the USA, it does not—but that it is a positive thing to strive towards. One could say the same thing about scientific neutrality: the fact that tobacco companies publish bad science claiming that their products are innocuous does not mean that scientific neutrality is a bad thing.

Also, it should probably go without saying, but net neutrality is not incompatible with an end to the advertising/data collection model of selling technology services, and may even be complementary. Net neutrality simply says that T-Mobile cannot decide to offer me one company's web webpage or services at faster speeds than another's (or not at all). This is actually facilitated by stricter laws against data collection or surveillance: if T-Mobile does not know what I am doing, it is going to have a much harder time throttling it.

@Obie 2.0: Science is not neutral. This is a mistake. There is a division of labour. Scientists do the science and its left to politicians to advocate for the science. However, many scientists angry and upset also want to get into policy advocacy and I think good luck to them. It should only improve the climate of opinion. Like raise the bar higher.

@Obie 2.0: I know what "net neutrality" is. I'm saying, as ten nobel peace prize winners are saying, the debate has now far transcended such sterile debates that are of a different epoch. They are talking about "an existential threat to democracy". I'll repeat that - if you didn't get that the first time around, "BIG Tech poses an existential threat to Western Democracies."

You say that stopping the risks of technology companies requires X and Y, not net neutrality. But I have read the letter, and the laureates do not reject net neutrality, they just focus on other things, and there is really no reason to think that the changes that they propose are incompatible with net neutrality.

As for science not being neutral, I refer you again to my previous comment: no one thinks that scientists do not often fall short in being objective in their work, but that does not render the enterprise of objectivity in science negative. To the extent that the scientific process is currently directed by the whims of politicians (as opposed to the mere public funding of basic research), that is to the detriment of everyone, as illustrated by the many politicians who have tried to shut down neutral research on climate change because it challenges their political aims.

@Obie 2.0: I'll repeat what I have said before as it clearly seems you have not understood it: Science is not neutral. But there is a division of labour where politicians, in dialogue with senior scientists interested in policy, advocate for specific policies that are informed by science - like cancer-busting drugs, or climate-mitigation policies and so on. One which I would like to see is plastic manufacturers actually in est in biodegradable plastocs. I imagine there are many thousands of chemists who would delight in doing just that - instead of putting on the poor consumer to sort ...

@Obie 2.0: ... out the plastics. This is just greenwashing. I say go to the source and bust it wide open there.

Oh, I understood it. I simply do not accept your implicit assertion that because scientific research falls short of neutrality, that it is undesirable.

@Obie 2.0: Scientific research has to be professionally irreproachable. But likewise lawyers. But the latter advocate whilst you are saying the former cannot. This makes no sense. Scientists are citizens too.

No, that's something that you seem to have pulled out of thin air. Scientists can obviously advocate for policies in their capacity as private citizens. Their research should be neutral, but that has no bearing on what they publish on social media, say at protests, advocate to their Congressperson or MP, and so forth. Science should be neutral, but scientists need not (indeed, should not) be.

@Obie 2.0: No, that seems to be what you expect science to be like. I'm saying that scientists should be able to advocate professionally - as well as in their capacity as private individuals - like every other professional does.

@Obie 2.0: Amd I'm pretty sure there will be many willing takers in the future as we get a more scientifically literate workforce. They need their own unions.

That really depends on what you mean by "advocate professionally." If you mean writing "vote for Liz Truss because her policies are best for economic growth" in a paper on stochastic equations in stock markets, that is not a good idea. If you mean write an open letter to the Guardian saying that Liz Truss is the best for the economy because I, an economist, think so, obviously that is not any worse than a shopkeeper doing it. Whether it is a good idea depends on what one thinks about Truss. ;)

@Obie2.0: I mean professional unions. I mean advocacy groups. I mean media training for scientists. I mean policy training. I mean professional development routes etc etc. I recall listening to a female professor of mathematics at a maths conference who mafe that change and foumd the work dynamic and challenging. So obviously the appetite is there.

I find those specific ideas to be inoffensive and even salutary, but I would question the notion that they undermine a commitment to scientific neutrality. Such groups even already exist to a limited extent (the Union of Concerned Scientists, say).

@Obie 2.0: I don't think so. I think its like women joiming the workforce. Everyone thoight it was a biggie when it first happemed. But the country did not fall on its knees. Life and work carried on. I'd also advocate for a tjree day workimg week. It gives people far more time for their friends and family. I read pne horrendous statistic that most people in the USA vould barely count on even one friend. Don't you agree that os a terrifyimg indictment of the US economy? I lived with American students in my second year at uni, and all they could talk about is how much money they could make ...

You don't think they are inoffensive, you don't think they are salutary, or you don't think that they do not undermine scientific neutrality? Also, four-day workweeks, less fixation on money, and women participating in the workforce are also not things that undermine scientific neutrality. I fact, I would suggest that lack of diversity, overwork, and fixation of profit incentives are all things that do.

@Obie 2.0: ... after being at Oxford. No sense of the dedication to learning which is what Oxfords about. A bunch of rich spolit kids. And then I foumd out just how few days they had for holidays. Two weeks if you're lucky. And then I thought, these guys are crazy ...

@Obie2.0: You're missing the point!