Matt Mullenweg Quotes

Internet freedom is a bit of a Rorschach test: it means different things to different people.

Information on the Internet must be as free as in the newspapers.

Washington faces a simple choice: allow the Internet to remain as an engine of innovation, a platform for speech in even the harshest tyrannies, and a unified connection for people across the globe—or cede control of the Internet to service providers motivated by their parochial interests.

The web's earliest architects and pioneers fought for their vision of freedom on the Internet at a time when it was still small forums for conversation and text-based gaming. They thought the web could be adequately governed by its users without their needing to empower anyone to police it.

The critical question is: How do we ensure that the Internet develops in a way that is compatible with democracy?

The Internet has exceeded our collective expectations as a revolutionary spring of information, news, and ideas. It is essential that we keep that spring flowing. We must not thwart the Internet's availability by taxing access to it.

The idea of free software is that users of computing deserve freedom. They deserve in particular to have control over their computing. And proprietary software does not allow users to have control of their computing.

Increasingly, I'm finding myself uncomfortable about how the Internet's developing, who's influencing its development, and who is not.

It is not inevitable that the Internet will evolve in a manner compatible with democracy.

Proprietary software is an injustice.

The Internet in the 21st Century is as important to our future as highways were in the 20th Century. Like a highway, the Internet must remain free and open for all - not determined by the highest bidders.

Net neutrality was essential for our economy; it was essential to preserve freedom and openness, both for economic reasons and free speech reasons, and the government had a role in ensuring that Internet freedom was protected.

The public should have access to unfettered communication and commerce, and the Internet is increasingly the medium where that takes place.

Public participation helped create the Internet, and it helps protect it. That's worth celebrating and remembering.

We need a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, not vested interests in making citizens pay for formerly free services or restrictions to their capacity to share information.

The most important thing to remember here is that the Internet is not broken, and all of the innovation that we've seen since inception has been based on it being free and open.

We all have an interest in an open Internet.

The Internet should be an open platform where you are free to go where you want and say and do what you want without having to ask anyone's permission.

The idea of the Internet as sort of open and democratic and free and with no hierarchy, the libertarian beginnings as it were, with peer-to-peer networks... I'd sort of like for everyone to just admit that we're beyond that now.

I want to prevent us reifying 'the Internet' as something to be preserved like some people want to preserve the American Constitution as it was written.

Net Neutrality is what makes the Internet so great - and so vital for innovation and creativity.

The Internet's a big enough place for everybody to be happy.

I think we should not control the Internet.

Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go.

The question is not whether we want to keep this open, neutral Internet - we do, or should - but whether government rulemaking can give us the result we want.