Switzerland faces the loss of net neutrality.

If I had been told 1.5 years ago that we would be voting on the first lockdown in Switzerland in 2018, I would probably have laughed out loud. Switzerland, the country of reason, of compromise, of the future. No way. But unfortunately that’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. A downright disgrace for a country that prides itself on neutrality as one of its highest virtues.

(Reading time: 5 minutes)

Gambling Act

The plot surrounding the impending network block takes place in the context of a revision of the law. A new law on gambling is to come into force. It certainly has a lot of good points, such as better protection for gambling addicts and many other things that don’t interest me because I think gambling, especially in connection with wagers, is a pretty stupid way to spend your life. From everything I’ve seen so far, I immediately agree that the law needs to be revised.

In my opinion, however, two things don’t work at all:

Network blocking

Gambling institutions in Switzerland are required by law to pay a portion of their income in the form of a special tax. This money goes into a large pot (as they say in Switzerland), from which all kinds of charitable causes are co-financed. For example, sports clubs, cultural activities, social institutions. In short, everything that makes life in Switzerland even more worth living.

Of course, the Internet is not just stopping at the gambling business. No, like everywhere else, it is becoming an increasingly important part of the business. And because Swiss gambling players, like many others, are not that innovative and are fairly underrepresented on the net, foreign gambling providers are increasingly stealing their business. Courant normal.

The foreign players, how could it be otherwise, do not care about the taxes in Switzerland for the time being. As a result, the state and the Swiss gambling industry see themselves as the losers. And as we all know, there’s nothing better than feeling sorry for ourselves together, so we fraternize. Logical, legitimate and understandable in itself.

In order to persuade foreign players to give in, the new law will attempt to make these foreign players pay. If they refuse, access to these sites is to be blocked by the state, as this is probably the easiest way to do so. Which, in the case of gambling providers, is probably no loss at all.

Pandora’s box

Having the freest possible access to information is an incredible privilege. The more a state interferes with the free flow of information, the more delicate this becomes in principle. So far, in my opinion, Switzerland has played an exemplary role with regard to the handling of electronic information and data.

With the first economically induced network blocks, we are opening up a whole new field for demands from all corners to restrict freely accessible information or access to external providers. And they will be very difficult to fend off. Of course, we are also indirectly paving the way for politically motivated network blocks.

Help, principle overboard!

Just because charitable, financial interests are indirectly linked to this, it is not worth throwing fundamental principles overboard. You don’t throw net neutrality overboard in a state that wants to stand for the future. Period.

Even if that sounds a bit like billposting:

In a future that takes place on the Internet more than anything else – how can a state that proclaims neutrality as one of its highest assets give up this very neutrality?

The legendary grandfathers who endured anxious days with carbines and felt uniforms in the 1940s and for whom, I have been told, neutrality was like the magic sauce of national defense, would be spinning in their graves if they knew what the Internet was. You probably realize that I am trying to trigger points in the emotional worlds of my most conservative Swiss readers.

You can only be against the limitation of freedom of information, regardless of whether or not you belong to a fixed political camp. Period.

Other ways

Especially as there are obviously better and other ways to make foreign providers pay. Just legally or, for example, via the flow of money. Admittedly, this would be or is a little more difficult and complicated than simply dictating network blocks to providers. But also more effective. Today, even lower school students can manage to override geoblocking. If you really want to play abroad, that’s how you do it.

Operating with false facts

The second thing that worries me is the way the pro camp deals with facts. For weeks, posters have been put up all over Switzerland with the narrative that if the law is rejected, charitable activities will have to cease. The concert canceled, the elephant enclosure, the playground in disrepair.

This is clever insofar as it turns 30% of the Swiss population into ambassadors for the pro camp. Members of associations and institutes that receive contributions from this “pot” are now writing letters to the editor in local newspapers and campaigning for votes – worried about the financial situation.

The problem is: it’s not true. If the law is not adopted, *nothing* will happen. Everyone will continue to have the same amount of money and receive the same amount of money. The conclusion that more and more of the gambling business will move abroad is only one possible scenario. That may well happen. But to present it as a given fact is simply wrong and misleading.

Article 34 paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Constitution defines political rights. It literally states:

“The guarantee of political rights protects the free formation of will and the undistorted casting of votes.”

Andreas Kley, Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Bern, writes in an article for the “Swiss Advertising Agenda 2003”:“In the case of misleading political advertising for votes, the Federal Supreme Court uses four criteria to recognize political advertising that violates the freedom of choice and voting.”

These four criteria are the misrepresentation of an objectively ascertainable fact, the misrepresentation must be seriously misleading, the misrepresentation must be made shortly before the vote and leave the other party no opportunity to intervene, and the effect of the misleading misrepresentation must obviously contribute significantly to the outcome of the vote.

Let’s play the whole thing out on the closing elephant enclosures. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, they will not close (I have been assured of this). Apart from the point (3.) about the short notice, the presentation therefore meets the requirements for misleading political advertising. And this was done deliberately to trigger people’s emotions. My eldest son (8) recently asked me whether the elephants would be banned. Oops. If you’re a father who doesn’t have much to do with technology and the internet – and you’re not aware of the problem of network blocking – what exactly are you voting for here? I don’t want to have my child’s elephants taken away!

Role of the state

I consider it unfair to fight for a vote by such means. Legally, the pro camp has nothing to fear. But it stinks to high heaven. It is common practice in Switzerland for the state to support a proposal and to communicate this. Here, however, I would have expected much more tact.

I find it unacceptable to join a campaign that operates with false facts. After all, it is precisely the state that has the leverage here to create facts. Let’s just hope that on June 10 it won’t be “Les jeux sont faits” when it comes to network blocking.

Because the next people who will be screaming for your business to be blocked are already waiting in the wings. And it will be difficult to deny them. After all, every company makes a financial contribution to the common good, whether a special levy is imposed or not. This bill sets the precedent for a corresponding argument.