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."
but I thought Microsoft was on record as pro-net neutrality.
This may not be tinfoil level, but it is certainly in conspiracy land. Microsoft, a powerful corporation, covertly paying seemingly unrelated industries to rally against net neutrality? How conspiratorial (yes, I know that the word is not being used properly).
Palm trees and 8
Yes, but it would be hard to prove that Google was engaging in anticompetitive behavior. They don't set their prices lower than their competition, their advertising agreements are, as far as I know, pretty similar to their competitors', and they aren't dominant in the markets where they have added proprietary extensions to open standards. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is running afoul of the intention of our antitrust laws, I just wonder how one could really build a case against them. This isn't like Microsoft, where people weren't making a choice because of bundling; in fact, Google is not the default search engine on the majority of out-of-the-box PCs (inclusive of Apple), MSN is.
Anyone with a good understanding of the law and this particular situation, how would one make a good case against Google?
Palm trees and 8
Transparency is a good thing and western politics is already more or less transparent (if one has the time and inclination), but western politics is still just as machevellian as it ever was.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
ISPs like Comcast are hiring groups like LMG to spoof anti-net neutrality articles using the signatures of well-known people, some of which are actually fighting for it, and they've been paying others to sit in and take up space at the hearings to keep protest at a minimum. Assholes.
PR Bloggers against astroturf
"LMG is one of several firms we work with in D.C.," Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said. "It's no secret that we oppose the Google-Yahoo deal and that there's been a great deal of opposition to it by advertisers, publishers, consumers, and legal experts." Evans points out that Google has hired a constellation of D.C. lobbyists and public relations groups to tell its side of the story.
The SlashDot poster acts like this is a single issue lobby. If you believe that, then you have no concept of lobbiest firms.
Microsoft has worked against anti-net neutrality, as they would have the LEAST to gain from ISP lock in, as they have no ISP bundling deals, which you can't even say about Yahoo or Google. (Toolbars anyone?)
So how did this get to be about Microsoft? Because they hired a firm to oppose the Yahoo-Google deal?
They didn't hire them to DO ANYTHING ELSE... Move on to Comcast and other ISP nut balls that are working against net neutrality.
Things like this are old hat to me. I run OS/2 and one of the reasons OS/2 failed was due to MS paid astroturfers posting in various forums about how much better Windows was then OS/2. :)
The saddest part was that even when the astroturfers were outed most people only remembered the negative posts, not that they were part of a propaganda campaign and should of been taken with a large grain of salt.
Had the same problem with magazines. Some database would be reviewed and you would get reviews like,
We couldn't get SMP working on OS/2, so even with one CPU it was faster then NT with 2 CPU's we fail OS/2 due to only using one CPU. People, especially the pointed headed CEO's would only remember the words fail. It is the same with net neutrality, even with lots of evidence of astroturfing, people will only remember that the corn growers association came out against net neutrality. The corn growers association must be neutral right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Things like this are old hat to me. I run OS/2 and one of the reasons OS/2 failed was due to MS paid astroturfers posting in various forums about how much better Windows was then OS/2. :)
The saddest part was that even when the astroturfers were outed most people only remembered the negative posts, not that they were part of a propaganda campaign and should of been taken with a large grain of salt.
Had the same problem with magazines. Some database would be reviewed and you would get reviews like,
We couldn't get SMP working on OS/2, so even with one CPU it was faster then NT with 2 CPU's we fail OS/2 due to only using one CPU. People, especially the pointed headed CEO's would only remember the words fail. It is the same with net neutrality, even with lots of evidence of astroturfing, people will only remember that the corn growers association came out against net neutrality. The corn growers association must be neutral right
Part of that problem was also that IBM had signed M$ to produce some core applications for OS/2 to jumpstart the market. M$ reneged shortly before release, way to late to find other software companies let alone have time to develop.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If a large, non-corporate company did the same thing, would it make any difference? Sure, the people who owned it would be responsible, but what difference would it make? Nobody's done anything illegal. Nobody's getting sued or taken to court. They look silly, but they would look silly whether it's a corporation or not.
Maybe not
They seem to have adopted the L. Ron Hubbard method of policy advancement.
Gee...I guess this changes everything.....
So..if the McKinsey Global Institute creates a "study" whereby the assumption being that offshoring all jobs is profitable....and the "study's finding" is that offshoring all jobs is profitable....maybe that's really not a "study" at all????