I'm the first person to be skeptical when the left whines about losing the messaging battle. Not that "frames" aren't important, but a connection with the people you are trying to mobilize comes before the frame, not the other way around. You have to know the audience to fashion the message. Being clever is not enough.
That notwithstanding, progressives trying to protect the Internet from corporate hijacking have once again shot themselves in the foot by trying to rally people around "net neutrality."
Only a Democrat would think people could get excited about neutrality. What's the opposite of "neutral"? Non-neutral… Partisan… In gear…?
The specter of "The End of the Internet" is hardly any better. Are you really trying to convince someone that the Internet is about to go away? I hope not, because it isn't. What the corporations are trying to do is close the Internet.
We are in favor of an open internet. We must not let Congress close the Internet. Take action now to keep the Internet open.
Why is it important to talk about open/close rather than neutral/non-neutral… besides being more accurate and more readily understandable?
For starters, it fits with our values. We believe in an open society (to use a trademarked term). We believe our government and our communication networks should be open to all.
Second, it contains the seed of the future we want to see. The vast majority of the world is shut out of this communications medium. The door is closed to them. We want to open it.
On its own, that's not enough, of course. Open does not mean equal, it doesn't mean that usage or usefulness is the same for everyone. Access does not equal justice, but it is necessary for justice. Therein lies our work.