On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
Andreas writes:
"Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
strongly disagree with your view."
I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces.
That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts.
Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very
strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed.
No we think that there are relationships between faux advocacy and what
benefits large
multinational tech corporations to the detriment of everyone else. That
we do not see
'citizen advocacy' groups speak out against the rape of privacy that
online web operators
engage in, that they speak mainly of governments who by and large
out-source the
surveillance to private companies.
For example did the EFF speak out about Google using "Apps for
Education" to profile kids?
No totally silent on the vile behavour of its pay master:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-studen…
There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free
and open web.
That "free and open" is bullshit for the entrenchment of the status quo.
That Government
turned a blind eye to the abuses in the early days, effectively allowing
monopolies to become
established and that it about time that they reigned the bastards back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/modernise_safe_harbour_for_the_tech…
I've actually written about this issue at length,
and will be
publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link
here when I have it.
Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a
"prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open
web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But
I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know
the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long
(400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you
actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the
comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused
to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted
here.
Yeah we heard that. That despite all the supposed brouhaha
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-internet-google-idUSKBN0L9…
The FCC came out in favour of - GOOGLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/
I gather that a recent FTC report is being investigated by a Senate that
is waking up to the fiddling
that is going on
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/03/senate_to_probe_obamagoogle_lovein/
My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and
elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,
Those will all be Google shills correct?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/10/sopa_copyright_voluntary…
In effect it is becoming clearer and clearer that the later day robber
barons, their supporters
and fellow travellers need a clear lessons in citizenship. That the rule
of law is catching up.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html