When someone is speaking on a high moral ground, it is always imporant to check their motivations. I bet that China/Tiktok or their affiliates will be reaching out to people to pay them to write positive posts. It is called thought influence media war and it is prevalent tactic in China. If 'free and open internet' means CCP can monitor our evey move and can occasionally change the algorithm slightly to push vidoes that influence a good percet of 150 millions of Americans such asto make it move divisive, more negative then, I think it is fair to restrict this 'free and open'. 'Free and Open' is not enough. It should be 'free and open and legal and not destructive to the democratic systems, values and ways of life.

Holy shit Dvorak wrote something sensible and worth reading!

What free and open internet?

The one the RIAA love? The one many publishers charge your local academic organisation large fees to be part of? The one where you've been the coin to mine before blockchain was a thing?

The article skirts, avoids or misses an important point: A lack of GDPR or stronger laws being enforced beyond the EU. The incumbents are quite happy about that. For an article on incumbents' motivations, I found this point conspicuously absent.