Slashdot Mirror
Misleading Web Page Cons Conference Organizers
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The New York Times has a story about how an anti-trade group conned a trade conference into
inviting a talk from a member
using a page at www.gatt.org that looks like a legitimate WTO/GATT page with a bogus e-mail link to the
WTO's director-general. It seems like domain hijacking to me, but the real WTO 'respects the nature of the Internet' and is playing it cool. Funny for those amused by pranks and hoaxes." (Yes, it's the New York Times, so no-login URLs will doubtless soon appear.) I must admit, this made me think about from which misleading domain names it would be coolest to receive such misdirected mail.
Congratulations! You got the First Post.
In an effort to help the Open Source trolling community, the Slashdot First Post Compensation Commission is prepared to offer you one US dollar.
All you have to do to claim your payment is e-mail us at sfpcc@hotmail.com with the address to which you would like your compensation sent.
This offer only valid for US mailing addresses. Please allow 2 - 3 weeks for delivery. Please include in your e-mail a link to your first post.
Slashdot First Post Compensation Commission
I've got mixed feelings, to tell the truth. On the one hand, I deeply dislike organizations that try and bully all and sundry (remember eToys?) about domain names. And as an added bonus, the message of their victims (if any) is usually cool. Nobody LIKES to see someone making jokes about corporate stupidity get shut down by the corporation in question--you lose access to the jokes.
In this case, it seems the WTO is being cool about this website--which they can be congratulated on. This is, after all, the way it's supposed to work. On the other hand that website is getting close to crossing the very fine line between satire (one of the highest forms of humour) and libel, which is just lying about people.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny. There are legitament criticizism of many of the things the WTO has done...but these people don't seem to know what they are. There are funny jokes that could be made...but these people aren't making them. The WTO has done stupid things...but these people don't know what they are. There are flaws in some bits of the economic reasoning you could drive a truck through...but these people have no clue. The entire point of the site seems to be to confuse and mislead--NOT to entertain or convince.
As it happens, I agree with much (not all) of WTO policy. But I ALSO agree with the right for people to disagree. These people may or may not have the right message--that doesn't matter. But they aren't using the right method. I have a right to tell you what I think of Bush--I don't have the right to tell you I *AM* Bush.
How come it's always the cool sites that get slapped down?
Actually, the URL given (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/weekinreview/07 WORD.html)
is already a no-login URL, if your /etc/hosts or DNS nameserver is set up "correctly". Just be sure you have the following line somewhere in your /etc/hosts:
208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com
That's simple. The point of the WTO is a mechanism for "bargaining" down trade barriers--and enforcing the bargains, once struck. The US says that it will drop tarrifs on wine, if the EU drops tarrifs on beef, let's say. The US could unilterally drop tarrifs on wine and be done with it--but the WTO exists to allow the US to trade that drop for another one.
That's the main reason why countries want to be in--particularly developing countries, which are desperate for lower tarrifs on agricultural products and textiles. They know that the EU would never let their hugely pampered farmers suffer without good cause--the WTO is therefore their best best: If they're lucky, they can trade something unimportant to them (removal of restrictions on foreign ownership of telecoms, let's say) for something vastly beneficial--lowered tarrifs on those goods they export. It's not easy, even with the WTO--witness the current breakdowns (which have little to do with protests--rather, the developing countries are sore that the 1st world hasn't done what it promised last round yet). That's the choice a lot of countries are having to make--stay out in the cold, with no chance of ever having enough clout to get any important barriers lowered...or enter, and have a much better chance.
Finally, the WTO is there to enforce agreements, once struck (but don't forget it was YOUR politicians that first have to agree). Once the US has agreed not to ban tuna imports, it can't then turn around and ban them, however popular or worthy the cause now is. The fault is that of shortsighted politicians, not the WTO.
As an example, China has been working very hard to get into the WTO--despite the fact that it entails a massive shake up of their entire economy, and a real chance of political instability. Why are they so keen? Easy--it's the best, maybe even the only way, they can manage to remove the massive barriers that have been set in front of them--and China needs them removed very badly. China has a massivly growing population--either the economy at least matches it, or a nuclear power with the worlds largest standing army, several territorial disputes with other nuclear powers, and several rebellious provinces (one of which is ALSO nuclear armed, probably)...goes BOOM! No, I think we need to keep those peasents in poverty myself--fatter subsidies for the steel workers! What's that you say? Let them eat cake? I couldn't agree more!
Yeah right... You'll notice that the protestors wearn't Chinese. For that matter, the current head of the WTO is from NZ, population 3.5 million, heavily dependent on agricultural products, mostly wool, cheese, butter, and so forth. Not a particularly important country--which is why NZ is such a strong proponent of free trade. We don't ask for an advantage, we just want a fair go...which is why all my friends are as puzzled as I am about the protesters in Seattle. Fair trade? That's what the WTO is DOING.
Those would be the same organizations who employ millions of people, fund the machinery of state through corporate/employment/windfall taxes, and that your pension fund is invested in?
Things are not as black and white as the "anti capitalist" movement would have you believe. What do you suppose the world was like prior to globalization? The garden of Eden?!