2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com:
I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF consider it obvious that there is such an effect.
Not so obvious, in my opinion.
The EFF says about Wikipedia zero that it is a "laudable effort"[1] even acknowledging that it may harm competition even in the non-profit world. In another article the EFF says that Wikipedia Zero is "an exception"[2] among Zero rating services because his procedures are more transparent.
This is very different from asking to stop or shut down Wikipedia Zero.
You cannot seriously argue that there are "no facts" available to demonstrate this. It's business studies 101.
I keep hearing this argument, but what myself (and I think also Mike) am contesting is this "automatic implication" that Wikipedia Zero brings behind itself Facebook Zero, Twitter Zero and all the others zero rating services. I don't see this automatism, and I would like therefore see some evidence for it, with dates possibly. (I have already demanded it in the past[3]) I do not consider it obvious at all. Please note that I am not saying that this effect can not exist /a priori/, I am completely agnostic about it and for this exact reason I would like it to be tested (it is also worth pointing out that since you are making the claim you are the one with the burden of proof).
About Thomas Lohninger's opinion, he stated in the talk that you linked previously [4a] that WMF and Wikimedia Chile ask to withdraw or amend the Chilean net neutrality law, but if you read the letter sent (see [4b] for the letter, [4c] has context) the letter "asked to confirm that Wikipedia Zero is not covered by this order [the circular from Chilean government implementing the Net Neutrality law]"[*]. Again, this is different: asking that Wikipedia Zero could continue running in the framework of the net neutrality law is different from demanding an amendment to the law, in the fact that it is asking to consider Wikipedia an exception. From what I can gather from the discussions on the advocacy advisors list I think that this is an opinion held by several Wikimedians (including myself).
I think, Andreas, that your view (or Jens' or Thomas') is a legitimate position, but taking a really materialistic stance this is not a zero sum game. IMHO the "exception approach" is the only one, at least the only one I can think of, that may have a net positive outcome (i.e. giving access to Wikipedia to people and having a very wide-covering net neutrality protection), your proposition has the negative effect of eliciting the access to Wikipedia to people (and I very much understand Josh's reaction in this respect). Always taking this materialistic approach, I think it is legitimate to weight competing values, i.e. it is not automatic that Net Neutrality is a value that has a greater weight than access to knowledge (even if mediated through the in-many-ways-imperfect Wikipedia).
Cristian
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-transparency-princi... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divi... [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/00075... [4a] http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_2014122... (from 40.45) [4b] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carta_a_SUBTEL_ref_Wikipedia_Zero.pd... [4c] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/00075...