[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

[Lila Tretikov]

I have a question for all of you here, which is not specific to NN, but is
about the evolution of the internet:
Do you believe that there should be "public space" on the internet,
available to all as the basic right, for no access charge. Things like:
government info, medical, social services, 911?
Thanks all!
Lila


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi Eric
>
> I re-watched it, too. I'm on road now, so I will answer later in detail
> why it is still insulting and why the misleading and plain wrong use of
> “slow/fast lane“ and an ellegibly “wider concept of net neutrality“ is -
> unconsciously or consciously - misleading.
>
> Jens
> Am 12.08.2014 19:30 schrieb "Erik Moeller" <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 6:32 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."
>>
>> Dear Jens,
>>
>> This is not what Patricio said. Thanks to him for linking to the
>> relevant segment of the video. Here is a full transcript:
>>
>> "In the last couple of weeks, it's [sic] been some debate about
>> Wikipedia Zero and whether it conflicts with the concept of net
>> neutrality .. and .. my opinion is that net neutrality refers
>> specifically or mostly to the fact that some services or some ..
>> certain companies are trying to pay to use what is called the fast
>> lane, lanes of the Internet. If there are fast lanes, there are also
>> slow lanes, and that's not the Internet we want, we completely reject
>> that possibility. In this sense, we completely support the concept of
>> net neutrality. But when going to Wikipedia Zero, we are not going ..
>> we are not talking about fast or slow, we are talking about people who
>> is outside the road(?) at all .. so what we are trying, is to give
>> them access to a basic human right, which is access to information and
>> knowledge. And .. I know some people don't agree with this opinion
>> because they have a wider notion of net neutrality. And, I'm sorry,
>> but my opinion is quite different. If our concept of net neutrality
>> prevents us to secure human rights then we should revise the concept
>> of net neutrality."
>>
>> This makes it clear that:
>>
>> - Patricio's opinion as expressed was clearly nuanced, and explicitly
>> acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree on the matter. In
>> turn I have a hard time seeing how a reasonable person would be
>> offended by how it was stated. If you're going mostly off the heise.de
>> report, though, please make sure you read the full statement above or
>> watch the video Patricio linked to.
>>
>> - The heise.de news article misquoted Patricio, since in context it is
>> clear that he strongly supported a basic principle of net neutrality,
>> but not necessarily an expanded notion that may conflict with
>> right-to-knowledge objectives. The words "our concept of" are pretty
>> important to the meaning of what he said and were omitted in
>> translation, alongside the full context of his statement.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Erik
>>
>> --
>> Erik Möller
>> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140812/e47233b8/attachment.html>