Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

Mike Godwin-2
Lilburne writes:

"> 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?"

Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate
Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years.

I understand that for "keyboard cowboys" it may be hard to understand
that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal
being a "shill" and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all
the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy
work know who we are and why we do it.

In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about
your activism and public-policy work!



--Mike





On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:42 AM,
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
>         [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>       Strategic Partnerships (Cristian Consonni)
>    2. Call for Election Committee candidates (Alice Wiegand)
>    3. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>       Strategic Partnerships (Anthony Cole)
>    4. Re: Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>       Strategic Partnerships (Gerard Meijssen)
>    5. Re: Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize! (Lila Tretikov)
>    6. Re: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of
>       Strategic Partnerships (Lilburne)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 19:44:21 +0200
> From: Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
>         President of Strategic Partnerships
> Message-ID:
>         <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
>> Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero
>> and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in
>> the following countries:
>
> I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
> question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
> making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
> It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
> is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
> this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
> the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
> Facebook Zero.
>
> [...]
>
>> Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
>> Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
>> articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
>
> This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>
>> Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
>> fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
>> Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
>> Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
>> also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
>> impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
>> be a Facebook experience to them.
>
> I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
>
> This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
> to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
> content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
> reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
> reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
> for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
> strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
> to do this.
>
> Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
> space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
> Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
> services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
> and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
> In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
> non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
> Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.
>
> C
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 22:28:47 +0200
> From: Alice Wiegand <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Election Committee candidates
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJO1yKBSi+DgQhjf4m-Z1BtgSx1PV_F5E72vPW8=BZ=[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> 2015 is an election year for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees> as well
> as for the Funds Dissemination Committee
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee>.
>
> As you may recall the Board has three directly-elected members who serve
> for two years. Currently they are Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Phoebe>), Samuel Klein  (SJ
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj>) and María Sefidari (Raystorm
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Raystorm>). As in the past years we
> rely on an effective election committee to coordinate the elections for us
> along with staff support and a Board liaison. Not only do they guarantee
> that the election is overseen by an independent body, but they also make
> sure that the tremendous amount of work that needs to be done is taken care
> of. My job, as this year's Board liaison, is to coordinate the formation of
> this committee and to support them in their work while serving as the
> primary point of contact with the Board regarding the process..
>
> This is a call for volunteers to serve on the election committee. If you
> feel that you can contribute to this committee, please email James
> Alexander ([hidden email]) and give a small summary of why you
> think you would be able to help out with this process.
>
> The Committee is responsible for planning and maintaining virtually every
> aspect of the Board election. For example, the Committee plans the type of
> voting, suffrage criteria, and criteria for candidacy, helps to draft and
> organize all of the official election pages on Meta, verifies that
> candidates and voters meet the criteria, audits votes to ensure there are
> no duplicate votes or other problems, et cetera. You can expect that this
> work will take an average 5-10 hours a week with a few periods of relative
> quiet and a few periods of heavy work during and after each election (the
> FDC and Board elections are planned to be separate this year).
>
> If you decide to join the committee you will have to identify to the
> Wikimedia Foundation
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook/email_templates#Notification_that_identification_is_required>
> because
> of the personal information you have access too and must be at least 18
> years of age. In addition you cannot be part of the election committee if
> you are planning to be a candidate or are planning to support any candidate
> publicly.
>
> To ensure we get going as quickly as possible, committee members will start
> to be seated as soon as we have 4-5 good candidates with an anticipated
> first meeting of Friday April 10th (or soon after, depending on committee
> availability). The deadline for volunteers, however, is Friday, April 17th
> UTC 12:00.
>
> The committee and staff will be setting up the election pages soon and the
> call for candidates, led by a letter from the Board, which will be going
> out shortly. If you're interested in running for either the Board or the
> FDC, I encourage you to read up on prior elections
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013>and
> the groups themselves to prepare your statements!
>
> Regards,
> Alice.
>
>
> --
> Alice Wiegand
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:52:20 +0800
> From: Anthony Cole <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
>         President of Strategic Partnerships
> Message-ID:
>         <CADnSFR+WrE3pb06tgw3vhfxQu_VriZSDDEaLJg6eW6c=[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source.
>
> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
>> > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia
>> Zero
>> > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites)
>> in
>> > the following countries:
>>
>> I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
>> question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
>> making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
>> It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
>> is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
>> this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
>> the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
>> Facebook Zero.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
>> > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
>> > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
>>
>> This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
>> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>>
>> > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
>> > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
>> > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
>> > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
>> > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
>> > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
>> > be a Facebook experience to them.
>>
>> I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
>>
>> This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
>> to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
>> content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
>> reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
>> reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
>> for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
>> strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
>> to do this.
>>
>> Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
>> space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
>> Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
>> services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
>> and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
>> In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
>> non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
>> Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.
>>
>> C
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:36:48 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
>         President of Strategic Partnerships
> Message-ID:
>         <CAO53wxVusfbyBrX-pAqHgjfKYmZ97=[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
> encyclopaedia. It is not original research. Studies have indicated that
> Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors. Wikipedia does link ever more
> to the VIAF indicators by the OCLC and thereby it links to the sum of all
> knowledge as it is available in libraries.
>
> I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
> do care about Wikipedia Zero. It is why Wikipedia Zero is not part of any
> walled garden; it is there for every company who cares to provide it free
> of charge.
>
> For the rest I find that I am getting annoyed.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 5 April 2015 at 01:52, Anthony Cole <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source.
>>
>> Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Andreas,
>> >
>> > 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <
>> > [hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>:
>> > > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
>> > > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia
>> > Zero
>> > > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other
>> sites)
>> > in
>> > > the following countries:
>> >
>> > I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
>> > question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
>> > making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
>> > It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
>> > is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
>> > this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
>> > the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
>> > Facebook Zero.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
>> > > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
>> > > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
>> >
>> > This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
>> > https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>> >
>> > > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
>> > > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
>> > > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
>> > > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
>> > > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
>> > > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still
>> primarily
>> > > be a Facebook experience to them.
>> >
>> > I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
>> >
>> > This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
>> > to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
>> > content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
>> > reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
>> > reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
>> > for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
>> > strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
>> > to do this.
>> >
>> > Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
>> > space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
>> > Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
>> > services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
>> > and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
>> > In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
>> > non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
>> > Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.
>> >
>> > C
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 02:30:05 -0700
> From: Lila Tretikov <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing: The Wikipedia Prize!
> Message-ID:
>         <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> All,
>
> As Tim mentioned we are seriously looking at
> privacy/identity/security/anonymity issues, specifically as it pertains to
> IP address exposure -- both from legal and technical standpoint. This won't
> happen overnight as we need to get people to work on this and there are a
> lot of asks, but this is on our radar.
>
> On a related note, let's skip the sarcasm and treat each other with
> straightforward honestly. And for non-English speakers -- who are also (if
> not more) in need of this -- sarcasm can be very confusing.
>
> Thanks,
> Lila
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> 2015-03-30 0:25 GMT+02:00 Brian <[hidden email]>:
>> > Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize was to design a
>> > collaborative filtering algorithm, it became notorious when the data was
>> > used to de-anonymize Netflix users. Researchers proved that given just a
>> > user's movie ratings on one site, you can plug those ratings into another
>> > site, such as the IMDB. You can then take that information, and with some
>> > Google searches and optionally a bit of cash (for websites that sell user
>> > information, including, in some cases, their SSN) figure out who they
>> are.
>> > You could even drive up to their house and take a selfie with them, or
>> > follow them to work and meet their boss and tell them about their views
>> on
>> > the topics they were editing.
>>
>> somewhat tangentially, and to bring back this to topic to a more
>> scientific setting I would like to point out that there has already
>> been reasearch in the past on this topic.
>>
>> I highly recommend reading the following paper:
>>
>> Lieberman, Michael D., and Jimmy Lin. "You Are Where You Edit:
>> Locating Wikipedia Contributors through Edit Histories." ICWSM. 2009.
>> (PDF <
>> http://www.pensivepuffin.com/dwmcphd/syllabi/infx598_wi12/papers/wikipedia/lieberman-lin.YouAreWhereYouEdit.ICWSM09.pdf
>> >)
>>
>> For those of you that don't want to read the whole paper, you can find
>> a recap of the most relevant findings in this presentation by Maurizio
>> Napolitano:
>> <
>> http://www.slideshare.net/napo/social-geography-wikipedia-a-quick-overwiew
>> >
>>
>> The main idea is associating spatial coordinates to a Wikipedia
>> articles when possible, this articles are called "geopages". Then you
>> extract from the history of articles the users which have edited a
>> geopage. If you plot the geopages edited by a given contributor you
>> can see that they tend to cluster, so you can define an "edit area".
>> The study finds that 30-35% of contributors concentrate their edits in
>> an edit area smaller than 1 deg^2 (~12,362 km^2, approximately the
>> area of Connecticut or Northern Ireland[1] (thanks, Wikipedia!)).
>>
>> For another free/libre project with a geographic focus like
>> OpenStreetMap this is even more marked, check out for example this
>> tool «“Your OSM Heat Map” (aka Where did you contribute?)»[2] by
>> Pascal Neis.
>>
>> This, of course, is not a straightforward de-anonimization but this
>> methods work in principle for every contributor even if you obfuscate
>> their IP or username (provided that you can still assign all the edits
>> from a given user to a unique and univocal identifier)
>>
>> C
>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_degree
>> [2a] http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/
>> [2b] http://neis-one.org/2011/08/yosmhm/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:41:59 +0100
> From: Lilburne <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice
>         President of Strategic Partnerships
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> 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-students-email/
>
>
>> 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_oligarch_era_mike_weatherley/
>
>
>> 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-idUSKBN0L91E420150205
>
> 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_agreements_hollywood_lobbyists_are_like_exes_who.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list,  guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17
> ********************************************

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17

Lilburne
On 05/04/2015 14:13, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Lilburne writes:
>
> "> 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?"
>
> Incorrect. My work, and EFF's work, to take two example, predate
> Google's involvement in public policy by 15 years.

Really! Seems that the EFF et al have been shilling for tech
corporations at the expense
of consumers for about 15 years or so. The others from the day before
they formed.


> I understand that for "keyboard cowboys" it may be hard to understand
> that mere agreement with a corporation some of the time does not equal
> being a "shill" and does not entail agreeing with a corporation all
> the time. But those of us who actually do activism and public policy
> work know who we are and why we do it.

Its not a case of 'sometimes' its nigh on all the time. You'd be more
accurate to list the
dozen or so times in the last 15 years when the EFF hasn't played drum
major to corporate
tech, beating out a voodoo rhythm  to entrance the unwary.

> In those contexts, I've never heard of you before. Tell us more about
> your activism and public-policy work!
>

Well one thing I don't need to go about name dropping to justify my words.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>