On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"
<lebo.beland(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed? "
As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
abstain from any
activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
more morally wrong in my opinion.
That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
ethical and moral standards.
JP Beland
aka Amqui
I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the
opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
-Martijn
"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
(
)
I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
closer to our vision.
JP Béland
aka Amqui