2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>om>:
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-princ…
[2]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-div…
[3]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/0007…
[4a]
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_201412…
(from 40.45)
[4b]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carta_a_SUBTEL_ref_Wikipedia_Zero.p…
[4c]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/0007…