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."
The American Porn Growers Association is very aware of the issues... oh, wait, you said corn, nevermind.
I for one am shocked by such behavior from such benevolent corporations - they always act in the public interest!
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.
but I thought Microsoft was on record as pro-net neutrality.
can be found here and here.
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.
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
> 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.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/maintain.htm
While it is not illegal to have a monopoly position in a market, the antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete. A single firm may commit a violation through its unilateral actions, or a violation may result if a group of firms work together to monopolize a market.
A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.
PR Bloggers against astroturf
It's really time to take a step back from posting when you get modded for trolling yourself.
"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.
I don't think this guy was trolling, I think it was a joking reference to McCain's own astroturfing scheme where he gives points for swag to people who cut and paste his talking points into blog comments.
This space available.