When they look at Internet policy, EU policymakers seem mesmerised, if not bewitched, by the
word ‘neutrality’. Originally confined to the infrastructure layer, today the neutrality rhetoric
is being expanded to multi-sided platforms such as search engines and more generally online
intermediaries. Policies for search neutrality and platform neutrality are invoked to pursue a
variety of policy objectives, encompassing competition, consumer protection, privacy and
media pluralism. This paper analyses this emerging debate and comes to a number of
conclusions. First, mandating net neutrality at the infrastructure layer might have some merit,
but it certainly would not make the Internet neutral. Second, since most of the objectives
initially associated with network neutrality cannot be realistically achieved by such a rule, the
case for network neutrality legislation would have to stand on different grounds. Third, the fact
that the Internet is not neutral is mostly a good thing for end users, who benefit from
intermediaries that provide them with a selection of the over-abundant information available
on the Web. Fourth, search neutrality and platform neutrality are fundamentally flawed
principles that contradict the economics of the Internet. Fifth, neutrality is a very poor and
ineffective recipe for media pluralism, and as such should not be invoked as the basis of future
media policy. All these conclusions have important consequences for the debate on the future
EU policy for the Digital Single Market
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.