<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do we need two Internets?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thebillblog.com/billblog/index.php/2008/05/14/do-we-need-two-internets/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thebillblog.com/billblog/index.php/2008/05/14/do-we-need-two-internets/</link>
	<description>because it alliterates, and some blogs are journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:27:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.thebillblog.com/billblog/index.php/2008/05/14/do-we-need-two-internets/comment-page-1/#comment-89242</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebillblog.com/billblog/index.php/2008/05/14/do-we-need-two-internets/#comment-89242</guid>
		<description>&quot;unlike Zittrain I think that regulation can help, and that putting control in the hands of democratically elected governments is far better than putting it in the hands of corporations.&quot;

in the uk at least, there is a bolder line drawn (and maintained) between corporation and government. in the states, a line like yours is nonsensical, because the few rules we have to separate corporation and state are not enforced. the corporations are the state. 

this is hyperbole, but i think only a little. we don&#039;t only have a corporate government, we have a corporate culture and they combine to form a sort of corporate religion, which pretends to be &quot;christianity&quot; because that&#039;s easier to swallow. 

i&#039;m for regulation and corporation where it&#039;s sensible, but there is no balance here and no sensible action can be taken. just look at the bipartisan mess (a two right-wing party system) that happens when we try to promise that people will have access to medical care- they revolt!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;unlike Zittrain I think that regulation can help, and that putting control in the hands of democratically elected governments is far better than putting it in the hands of corporations.&#8221;</p>
<p>in the uk at least, there is a bolder line drawn (and maintained) between corporation and government. in the states, a line like yours is nonsensical, because the few rules we have to separate corporation and state are not enforced. the corporations are the state. </p>
<p>this is hyperbole, but i think only a little. we don&#8217;t only have a corporate government, we have a corporate culture and they combine to form a sort of corporate religion, which pretends to be &#8220;christianity&#8221; because that&#8217;s easier to swallow. </p>
<p>i&#8217;m for regulation and corporation where it&#8217;s sensible, but there is no balance here and no sensible action can be taken. just look at the bipartisan mess (a two right-wing party system) that happens when we try to promise that people will have access to medical care- they revolt!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
