<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Could somebody please post a link/scan of Patricios original statement in question?<br><br>Best,</div><div>Thomas</div><div><br>On 10.08.2014, at 19:38, Christophe Henner <<a href="mailto:christophe.henner@gmail.com">christophe.henner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Patricio comment was more complete than that.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Net neutrality is about fast/slow Lane. WP0 is about a free Lane. Bis argument was pretty sensible. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm not sure why we should fear a free Lane. The worst it does is providing free access, not a better QOS or a filtered/unfiltered access to the Internet.</p>
<p dir="ltr">N'est,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Christophe</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 10 août 2014 18:00, "Anirudh S. Bhati" <<a href="mailto:anirudhsbh@gmail.com">anirudhsbh@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jens Best <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jens.best@wikimedia.de" target="_blank">jens.best@wikimedia.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>According to the press Patricio Lorente, member of the Foundation's board, said: <br><br>"Access to information is a basic human right. If net neutrality is hurting a human right, we have to rethink net neutrality."<br>
<br></div><div>Haven't heard such a single-sided, unbalanced and self-righteous statment for a while. <br></div><div><br>So, people standing for net neutrality are now became enemies of basic human rights in the understanding of the foundation. - Well, if this low level of discussion is reached, I guess it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject with the foundation at all. </div>
</blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Last I checked, "self-righteous" could be used to describe the advocacy of a one-size-fits-all solution implemented in an absolutist fashion without regard to the rights and interests of those who would be most affected by it, i.e. the owners of private property.<br>
<br>You like "net neutrality"? Go buy your Internet access from a company that promises to adhere to those principles. Or better yet, raise some money and start your own infra and ISP business. Don't force others to play by your rules - that would be self-righteous.<br>
</div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org">Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Advocacy_Advisors mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org">Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>