[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Tue Aug 12 12:09:02 UTC 2014

Hello all,

I feel like the discussion has become toxic which is why I decided to try
to take a few steps back and try to map the situation at least in part.
I've been thinking very long and hard about the whole issue on global,
European and Wikimedia levels in the past days. I also spoke to an massive
amount of people. Unfortunately I can't say that I've found the magic
solution, but maybe some of these thoughts and attempts to find a way
forward can help.

==The Wikimedia Discussion==
Part of the discussion is getting heated, frustrating and dangerous. This
has destructive potential beyond NN and such things are major risks to
Wikmedia as a movement.
Many people I spoke to (including myself) feel like they're much closer the
position of organisations opposing us in public than our own, which can be
a very painful experience. We all feel like Wikimedia is part of our
identity. That being said, we still must make sure we assume good faith at
all times. The chances that we're attacking people who feel exactly the
same are big. Let's assure ourselves and others that we won't let recent
corrosive behaviour both on and off-list poison what has been an otherwise
productive relationship built on trust and, I feel, real friendship.

*Channels like the Advocacy list so far have been great places to discuss
and speak one's mind and I personally will take steps to keep them this
way. Please try hard to avoid logical fallacies and personalising attacks.
The AGF principle was fundamental to building up Wikipedia and if we're to
engage in advocacy it will be a sine qua non*.

==The NN Discussion on Either Side of the Big Pond==
When it comes to Europe, we just had an almost year long discussion over
the meaning and definitions of internet, net neutrality, data caps,
specialised services, about the importance of flat rates and the risks of
zero-rated content. We've become very (perhaps too) sensitive on this.
Additionally the European Commission tried (and to some extent still tries)
to trade off net neutrality for the removal of roaming fees with the big
telcos, which naturally makes a large part of the people interested in the
topic extremely careful.

Many of us understand net neutrality as an ideal or even utopian state
where very data package is treated anonymously and equally. That being
said, there are two predominant ways it can be violated: data
prioritisation (paying to get data through quicker) AND zero-rating. I
generally get the sense that in the US the debate is much more centred
around the former (because of Netflix deals) while in Europe the debate has
a much stronger focus on zero rating models, which mostly occur in mobile
data.

The truth is that we're attached to both, the idea of making knowledge
accessible to everyone, but also the idea that everyone should participate
in a global network that will allow them in 20 years' time to start an new
project like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just one of the ways to deliver free
knowledge.
This being said, it to many people on and off this list it seems clear that
WP:0 is a violation of NN and we're simply looking for a way to get an
exception through without letting Facebook Zero in. The below ideas are
gathered from speaking to countless people over the past week. Maybe not
all are acceptable, but it could be important to have them in one place.

==Product Differentiation and Delivery==
Remember Amazon WhisperNet? It offers a  "free" data channel worldwide of
just a few products. It does so over a mobile data connection. Yet no one
really attacks it as an attempt to kill the off the internet. The reason
for this is that it offers a product somewhat distinct from what is
available online and it doesn't call it internet. It is a different net. It
is the WhisperNet.
Why don't we go a step further and create the Wikimedia KnowledgeNet? It
could be much broader than just a zero-rated Wikipedia. It should also be
available over different types of technology to differentiate it clearly
from the internet. Mobile data of course, but if someone wants to transmit
it using radio waves, satellite, teletext channels or on airplane
entertainment systems it should be open to that. Different name, different
net, much more open and more knowledge while in no way running against the
free and open internet. How cool would that be?

==Zero Naming and Positioning==
Let's be honest: the Zero name is killing us. Not only is it close to
impossible to compete with Coca-Cola's marketing muscles, but it puts us in
the corner of Facebook and other zero-rated projects.
Most importantly: Any participation in projects like Internet.org is
poison. Here we have a project that without a doubt  - based on its name
and the behaviour of its initiator - is trying to replace the internet.
Even people among us who otherwise feel quite relaxed about WP0 start
shivering when they hear about this one.

==Discriminination but Positivie==
Zero rating is discrimination. I myself would feel at ease if we're honest,
public and frank about this. Our argument can be that it is positive
discrimination tackled at solving a specific social issue.
In fact there are plenty of court decisions on positive discrimination.
Judges, at least in Europe, have many times ruled that things like minority
and gender quotas are in fact discrimination that is normally not
acceptable in a democracy, but that there can be a temporary exception.
Three things are important here to allow this discrimination: it tackles a
specific social issue, it is targeted at a specific group and it is limited
in time (must stop once the issue is solved).
We are not targeting WP0 at North America and Europe but at the "Global
South" (I strongly dislike this term). We're already implying that some
countries don't need it while others have a problem. It would be a step
forward to define at which moment a country doesn't need WP0 any longer and
we pull out. The "market will solve it" argumentation won't be well
received here, I fear.

==What does WP0 really solve?==
WP0 wouldn't be necessary if people just had access to knowledge/internet.
It is a patch but not a lasting solution. If we're engaging in such a
project, it would help produce or at least support others' strategies that
aim at solving the underlying problems of access to knowledge/internet.
Otherwise we're rightfully going to be blamed for just pushing our own
brands/projects.
To use a metaphor: WP0 is like dropping care packages and delivering
international aid. It helps, might even be life-saving and no one questions
the good intent. But we need to be careful that our free rice donation
don't put out the local rice farmers out of business and aren't a
disincentive for growing and producing other kinds of food.

Thank you for reading all the way through! Please don't immediately react
to this email! Take a short walk, drink a cup of coffee, sleep on it. I
promise to do the same in the future. These are complex issues and not only
the internet is at stake here but also our movement. Let's keep both a
place we like to call our home.

I am off on holidays for two weeks and will be AFK and hopefully offline
for a while :) But since this is important I will make sure to check in
from time to time in case there is something urgent.

Hugs and lots of WikiLove!
Dimi

2014-08-11 14:33 GMT+02:00 Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de>:

> Thank you, Lodewijk,
>
> for giving us another example of fine subtle manipulation. Let's have a
> closer look to your mail:
>
>
>
> 1. "the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret it"
>
> Describing people who have a clear positive position on protecting net
> neutrality indirectly as "absolutistic" is a rhetoric trick which intents
> to make a reasonable position look like an extremist or absolute position.
> This then tries to create the impression that WM is taking a "balanced"
> position instead. This isn't true - WM is taking a position which is a
> clear violation of net neutrality.
>
> 2. "Patricio's full response, but I can live with what I heard"
>
> Well, that's nice for you, Loewijk, but that's not an objective argument
> for or against anything. Let's repeat the quintessence of what Patricio
> said here: Free Knowledge is a human right, Wikimedia is selling the
> Wikipedia as "Free Knowledge", therefore, if somebody has anything against
> Wikipedia (Zero) he or she is an enemy of a basic human right. - Well, this
> sounds pretty much as a very hostile absolutist position to me.
>
> So let's make this clear another time: Wikipedia is NOT Free Knowledge, it
> is a brand which works with the claim that it is "Free Knowledge". In other
> context (e.g. education) the same people always remind the public that WP
> is just one possible gateway to knowledge and that if you really want to be
> informed it is important that you not only use one encyclopedia but more
> sources. More sources are available online, but they are not zero-rated.
> And here the whole "argument" of Pro-WP0 collapses. The remaining fact:
> Wikipedia Zero is the free use of the Wikipedia as a website, but you can't
> use any external links to sources or further knowledge, because then
> zero-rated is over. Therefore WP0 is marketing which has to stand up
> against all senseful rules which exist to protect a free and open web.
>
> 3. "when we at least consider the nuanced side"
>
> Yeah, let's be nuanced, let's be balanced, let's not make a stand for such
> a stupid argument all the rest of the digital civil rights movement people
> are making. We are the Free Knowledge people, we stand for a clear and
> unbreakable human right - the right to read the Wikipedia, ah, sorry the
> right to access free knowledge. This is were we aren't balanced, we have to
> protect our brand and therefore everybody against our project WP0, which we
> will do whatever you say anyway, is an enemy of the human rights. - I like
> this "nuanced" argument, too, Ludewijk.
>
> 4. "please assume good faith and be constructive" (my favorite "argument")
>
> This part of your email implicit that people who take a clear point
> against WP0 have no "good faith" and more importantly aren't
> "constructive". Apart from the fact that using a basic paradigm of the
> movement against people who just have another standpoint in a factual
> discussion is already manipulative. But why should somebody have "good
> faith" when he/she is called wrongly an enemy of human rights by a member
> of the board of the Foundation? Why should he/she expect a "constructive"
> debate when for months all the clear and reasonable arguments against
> violating net neutrality with WP0 are ignored? WP0 which by the way is far
> from successful in its aim when you look at the numbers is a violation of
> net neutrality and still the Foundation is pushing this project - it is not
> on hold at all. This is a clear sign to everybody "assuming good faith" and
> who wants to be "constructive" that the matter at hand is and will be
> ignored by the people in power.
>
> ------
>
> As long as Wikimedia thinks it is the queen of Free Knowledge or even
> better the digital incarnation of Free Knowledge there will be ignorance
> for other equally important aspects of a digital civil, free and open
> internet. Net neutrality will be ignored by the guards and priests of this
> brand-oriented endeavour which thinks it could expliot the sublime meaning
> of Free Knowledge for its brand marketing. (see, Ludewijk, you wanted
> inconspicuously reduce the discussion to rhetoric trickery? Well, here we
> go.)
>
>
> best regards
>
> Jens
>
>
> 2014-08-11 12:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>:
>
> Responding to your last few emails: could you please assume good faith and
>> be constructive? Even in your quote there was a clear big if.
>>
>> I did not have the chance to see Patricio's full response, but I can live
>> with what I heard. That does not mean that the discussion is over, but
>> given past and current conversations it is unlikely indeed that wikimedia
>> will take the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret
>> it. And personally I'm always happy when we at least consider the nuanced
>> side.
>>
>> As to Lila's comment, I think this list consists mostly of community
>> members that liaise to their respective communities. It has proven in the
>> past to be a valuable discussion forum and it would be a waste if we would
>> limit ourselves only to the wiki pages.
>>
>> Best, lodewijk
>> On Aug 10, 2014 9:08 PM, "Jens Best" <jens.best at wikimedia.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Patrício is quoted as “he said at Wikimania conference“. The journalist
>>> who has written the article is known for his accuracy.
>>>
>>> Link:
>>> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Wikimania-Die-Wikipedia-als-soziale-Maschine-2289614.html
>>> - last passage.
>>> Am 10.08.2014 22:01 schrieb "Thomas Lohninger" <
>>> thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org>:
>>>
>>>> Could somebody please post a link/scan of Patricios original statement
>>>> in question?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> On 10.08.2014, at 19:38, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Patricio comment was more complete than that.
>>>>
>>>> Net neutrality is about fast/slow Lane. WP0 is about a free Lane. Bis
>>>> argument was pretty sensible.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> N'est,
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>> Le 10 août 2014 18:00, "Anirudh S. Bhati" <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the press Patricio Lorente, member of the Foundation's
>>>>>> board, said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Access to information is a basic human right. If net neutrality is
>>>>>> hurting a human right, we have to rethink net neutrality."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haven't heard such a single-sided, unbalanced and self-righteous
>>>>>> statment for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Jens Best
> Präsidium
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
> mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140812/fdb4a5d7/attachment-0001.html>