I tried to look up the privacy platform page, but got a
502 Bad Gateway
error just now. They evidently still have both reliability and usability issues to fix on the association's own website before they go out to make the world a better place.
Oh, okay, when I go to the Protecting Internet Freedom page
I see a statement that the association supports
"policies that protect and promote Internet freedom – information should flow freely across national borders, uninhibited by tariffs, regulations and government censorship that are fundamentally inconsistent with the transnational, free and decentralized nature of the Internet. To preserve the Internet’s role as a conduit for free expression, Internet intermediaries must not be held liable for the speech and activity of Internet users."
Opposing censorship is one of my causes, so so far, so good.
GFW could censor stuff using QoS discrimination. Un-welcome sites has really bad connection. How do you deal with that?
Same thing with China. Google suffered and still suffers the consequences of going against their government then. They should've allied with other companies first before deciding to pull out of China.
Funny that they qualify it as government censorship. Because everyone knows that Facebook will censor the crap out of anything they find objectionable. Just a week ago they banned a cartoon of Adam and Eve because it contained nipples. http://tinyurl.com/d5tqnhk
Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time.
It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that governments should be held to a much higher standard of openness, accountability and freedom.
edit: again, not sure why people are downvoting without explaining why.
There is nothing inconsistent with this.
That sounds too much like the number one cited reason against net neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Arguments_ag...
I don't see how you could then turn around and claim that NYT supporting freedom of speech is in any way a double standard. They aren't preventing you from creating your own paper, in which you can say whatever you like. When the government limits your speech, you don't have that option.
To elaborate, freedom of speech actually does mean the freedom to speak. If you're trying to speak and some asshole is yelling over you, you're being shut down.
> When the government limits your speech, you don't have that option.
More specifically, it's the government's job to protect that speech. When the government doesn't do that, it's nearly as egregious as when it actively censors speech. For instance, if you sent thugs around to threaten your critics, it's the government's job to stop that. There are a lot of angles by which they can justify doing so, and this is a relatively unused one (esp. because it's so abstract), but it's there.
"The IA’s founding membership consists of Google, Facebook, eBay, Rackspace, Zynga, IAC, TripAdvisor, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Monster Worldwide, salesforce.com, AOL, and Expedia."
Also from a design perspective they are really bad. You want people to be reading the text, not focusing on the dots.
I think that this was the actual goal of legislation like SOPA and PIPA, make the "internet industry" pay up by threatening to threaten their business model. It doesn't seem likely to me that they would really risk seriously damaging a largely US based multi-billion dollar industry, but Google, Facebook and Co. decided to play it safe.
Still, it's better than nothing (no godaddy in the association, I see!). I do believe Google mostly fights for a free, uncensored web, though once a conflict arises, between shareholders and freedom, as with any company, shareholders always win.
Agreed. Unfortunately, getting people to take uniform political action on anything is difficult, whereas companies can have a political mandate (and the money to support it).
P.S. If anyone wants to to learn a little bit about the lobbying industry, check out Turkmeniscam by Ken Silverstein. It's a short read, but eye-opening.
Yes. Lobbyist = legitimate bribery, and we need somebody bribing congressmen to start voting our way on patents and copyright (among other things.)
Of course, they'll be bribed to vote against small company startups getting in the face of goog and fb, so it's a double-edged sword.
While this may be a step forward in the fight against SOPA-style bills, this is a huge step backwards in the fight to take money out of politics.