It's unreasonable because of the disconnected thought pattern.

We all have a tendency to jump to conclusions. But when that knee-jerk reaction in the author's mind (The Internet is going to be shut off any moment now!!) is disconnected with facts (The conservatives have pushed for regulation and censorship), then the author is guilty of fantasizing.

This diatribe is fantastic. It's fantasy.

Why debate fantasy?

I say it's fantasy because the author can show no proof of these predictions, nor could I assent or dissent from made-up, fantastic, unsupported speculation.

My point is that in order to have a fair and reasonable debate, we should at least have some framework, some rules, and some parameters. The alternative is to shout each other down, invent false premises and straw men, and fabricate things.

May the best un-sourced, un-attributed, un-founded speculation win?!?

My contention with the author's points of speculation are precisely that they are ... literally ... un-reasonable, meaning that they are supported with no reason, no reasoning, except as naked assertions.

My opinion is that the author needs to change the naked reasoning into clear and convincing reasoning. Then I will debate the premises and conclusions.

ECHO.... ECHO ... echo ... _echo