Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Net Neutrality Astroturfer Exposed
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there are no other search engines), or worse, coming out against Net Neutrality? CNet has a story about a shady DC lobbying group called LawMedia Group, being paid by Microsoft and Comcast, that is behind many of these attacks. That said, it's a mystery why they weren't able to pay more authoritative groups than the American Corn Growers Association or the League of Rural Voters to weigh in on technical matters. As a computer geek from corn country, I wouldn't solicit their opinion on tractor repair, let alone Internet policy."
Can someone explain to me why Comcast would be paying lobbyists to "slam Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent and promised penalties" ???
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but things like this make me understand a little bit more why someone would become one.
I'm a big tall mofo.
I think it's rather wrong to put out a campaign for spreading information and point of view while concealing the source of such being expressed, or worse, deceiving the public by attempting to make the information come from independent or neutral groups, individuals or parties. Not only is it disingenuous, it's approaching fraudulent and potentially dangerous depending on the circumstances. Just as in the case of political campaigns and the like, the parties paying for such activities should be required by law to disclose that their clients are paying for this service.
The matter of public deception is bad practice and should be exposed and disclosed wherever it exists. Expressing opinions is important, but in the case of business and political interests, disclosure should always be required. Only private individuals deserve the right to privacy and anonymity.
I am just as shocked as you, but I have to wonder "Why do Corporations have the same free speech protections as real people?" It has long been understood that disinformation is a powerful weapon. That's why the US Army has Pysop. Yes, propaganda that is disguised as a grassroots movement or the work of independent experts is disinformation, not advertising. Part of taking in information (like a product review or political statement) is accounting for the source of that information, ie you will consider the words of someone you respect more than words of someone you regard as a fool. So misrepresenting the source of information is a form of disinformation, and disinformation is weapon, weapons are used to control and destroy. Why are corporations allowed to control and destroy things like legislative process and public political awareness? Sure it's subtle damage, but over time it has done much harm to our society.
We are all just people.
Why should you get interest groups that have no interest in the case you're trying to press into your boat? Because they're cheap, and because they have the ear of the politician.
Some corn growers association may not know jack about the internet, or even care about it. But they are a group of people some representative can't ignore. Especially when he's from a corn growing state.
On the other hand, getting them to forward a letter from you under their name to their rep is cheaper than trying to get a group that actually has some interest in the internet to do it. What company that deals with the internet, aside of telcos and huge players, have an interest in getting rid of net neutrality? To get some internet company to oppose it, you have to pay it about as much as you have to pay to buy it out, because they know their very existance depends on NN.
Now, imagine the reverse and you're the rep of some computer software association. In comes a letter asking you to put some pressure on your rep to allow the planting of some foreign crop that some hippies consider a "threat for our environment", but that could tenfold their crops (and revenue). How expensive would you say is it to get you to put their letter in a new envelope and send it on its way?
Of course they get dubious groups into their boat that have nothing to do with the issues. First, they don't know jack about what's going on. Second, it doesn't affect them. And because of all that, they're cheap to buy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It isn't how much they know, or how much they receive, or even how many people listen to them, it's who they can bribe (and with the current interest in American corn, that's probably quite a number) and who they play golf with (see point 1). Someone else mentioned conspiracy theories - oh, "good old boy's clubs" have conspired to ensure all sorts of things happen or don't happen since time immemorial, which is why social networking in the right circles is quite effective. What you know is unimportant compared to who you know. The only reason such theories usually lack credibility is that they usually end up blaming someone who not only knows nothing but also knows nobody for stuff that nobody would give a damn about anyway. But companies like Microsoft can certainly be expected to conspire with others to protect their empire. I wouldn't expect them to change their spots now, their old behaviours have worked so well.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there
> are no other search engines)...
Google has a search monopoly in the same way that Microsoft has an operating systems monopoly: they have most of the business. Note, however, that having a monopoly (even a total one) is not in and of itself illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
tractor repair and internet policy go hand in hand.
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Why are corporations allowed to control and destroy things like legislative process and public political awareness?
Can you believe the Simpsons have been on for almost 19 years? That Bart, he's so funny... And the Cubs are still in first place! And that guy...what's his name? He might win 8 gold medals...
Does that answer your question?
What?
> Taking advantage of your monopoly is illegal though.
Taking illegal advantage of your monopoly is illegal.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I can understand your point of view. You like your porn. It's understandable.
ISPs are stifling technology because they are the kid who invites you over to his house after he gets a new game. He never lets you play, but he wants you to stay and watch him.
That's the kind of asshat the ISPs are. Until we can force the ISPs to treat all packets equal, we lose.
Do you know of a technology to defeat sandvining?
They're using their grammar skills there.
I believe that MS is still pro net neutrality. My understanding, and the summary is unhelpful to understanding, is that Microsoft is paying them for their attack on Google and Comcast is paying them for their attack on net neutrality. The same organization is paid for two separate jobs.
Correct. That's what the article is saying. The summary, is, as usual, very useless in regards to representing the actual contents of the TFA. The timeline says it all:
Timeline: Anti-Net neutrality, anti-Google lobbying efforts
February 2008: Email apparently sent to Mel King providing him with text of his pro-Comcast op-ed.
March 2008: Latino IT group sides with Comcast on Net neutrality
May 2008 (PDF): Latino groups ask Justice Department to investigate Google's "search monopoly." Also see press release (PDF).
June 2008: Latino IT group says it has "serious concerns" about a Google-Yahoo advertising deal
June 2008 (PDF): Corn growers ask Congress to investigate Google
IOW, no one is suggesting that Microsoft is anti-net neutrality except perhaps some poster here foaming at the mouth, as usual.
In case anybody isn't paying attention: Net neutrality is in Microsoft's best interests as an OS maker and as one of the Net's top three search engine providers. It is not in Comcast's best interests as they can make money from a lack of net neutrality.
My blog
GMail is a bit different, but I'm pretty sure I could rig up a python script to back up my gmail account, and move it onto a different server, if I was unhappy with their service. It's really not a big issue, there just isn't any better service (I did try MobileMe, but wasn't really blown away).
Actually, Groening does harbor some hostile feelings towards Fox: the main reason why the new Futurama season is on Comedy Central. I wouldn't call it completely ridiculous to think he's been sabotaging The Simpsons to the detriment of Fox.
Your ad here.
You are correct. The U.S has great freedom, a free speech. And government cant control who can speak and who doesn't, but they can control who says what by what way. There is big "cartel" on U.S, media corporations and government. When government does something what people does not like, the media corporations does not tell the truth, usually they dont even release any information, mayby somewhere middle in paper on small article, just scratching the surface, because they need to publish the information if columnist writes such, but they control how it gets published.
And big media corporations can be owned by other big corporations or such are owning stocks from media corporations so they have control to them, like armaments industry corporations. There is big money on that bisness and it's always about getting more money. And it's very bad for business if media corporations publish the information of how U.S guns has be used by X to unarmed people by people who are supported by these armaments industry and U.S goverment.
And when big corporations controls how the information is released in news, for the people. They control what people is thinking and talking.
Even that those corporations cant control who can express their opinion, they can control what is public opinion.
bullhockey!
libel and slander are illegal.
This was a libel and slander movement against google and the american public.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
A corporation is owned by an unthinking unfeeling mob that doesn't have an moral accountability.
An individual is morally aware. A mob is not.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
?
No, it can't.
I think you're either confused, or you're being disingenuous. If it's the former, google is your friend.