http://www.techliberation.com/archives/036617.php

What’s striking, I think, is that on a continent with hundreds of millions of people, those are the best examples the advocates of regulation can come up with. Maybe the larger companies will do bad things in the future, but there’s no sign of them doing anything so far.

Unsure of what PK stands for.

In anycase, I happily voted for Jeff Smith…

But Tim, I am much more interested in the substance here and I don’t think you’ve adressed the issue which is: How can I maintain individual liberty, including right to freely asscoiate, when corporations who control the interent (and we are talking about monopolies in many locations) have clearly shown, through the examples I have listed above, that they will filter or censor content ????

Answer???

Tim Lee sent me a very nice email Saturday night. I’m afraid I only just read it a few minutes ago—that delay is my fault.

I’m sorry I got mad at you and I apologize for calling you a bully.

Tim Lee sent me a very nice email Saturday night. I’m afraid I only just read it a few minutes ago—that delay is my fault.

I’m sorry I got mad at you and I apologize for calling you a bully.

Well, Timothy Lee it was you who had asked the question: Why is our claim to non-partisanship hogwash?

And I provided the explanation that documented the Republican leanings of those who form the board of the “Show-Me Institute.”

And as to so-called Libertarianism, it is a morally defunct doctrine that would lead, were its advocates actually to attain the halls of power, to a society in which all power would be concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. That society would be indistinguishable from the fascism by the man on the street, whose rights would be suppressed, his communities destroyed, and his environment destroyed by agents of these corporations. (But not–gasp–by Big Government that would be Evil!)

The reason for this is that present day libertarianism has backslide, and now only favors those freedoms that improve the ability of large corporations to concentrate wealth. Any other freedoms, that could, for example, lead to deconcentration of wealth, such as FOSS, are vilified (see IP Central for that) Thus their positions on tort reform limiting the rights of individuals to obtain judgments against large corporations. So present day Libertarians are just about tilting the economy, so that everything falls (surprise, surprise) into one large plate, after only those freedom which allow wealth to be concentrated are systematically expanded. I really don’t want my children to live in a world where that society exists, let alone live in it.

Of course, you realize that regulation will be required to maintain net neutrality.

And let’s get some facts straight: net neutrality by telephone data carriers (as opposed to cable companies) was required under the Telcomm Act of 1996, so the normal state of the internet has been to have net neutrality regulated. You say you want no regulation, but also that you’d like to maintain net neutrality. Here’s stuff that has happened without net neutrality, and I would task you to explain how you would prevent this type of abuse from occurring without regulation.:

- In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

- In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. (Welcome to the world of CORPORATE FASCISM),

- Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.

- In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned http://www.dearaol.com – an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship and repression of individual liberties by large corporations will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

So there is a clear reason to preserve net neutrality, summed up by Tim Berners-Lee most eloquently:

The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net.”

Well, Timothy Lee it was you who had asked the question: Why is our claim to non-partisanship hogwash?

And I provided the explanation that documented the Republican leanings of those who form the board of the “Show-Me Institute.”

And as to so-called Libertarianism, it is a morally defunct doctrine that would lead, were its advocates actually to attain the halls of power, to a society in which all power would be concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. That society would be indistinguishable from the fascism by the man on the street, whose rights would be suppressed, his communities destroyed, and his environment destroyed by agents of these corporations. (But not–gasp–by Big Government that would be Evil!)

The reason for this is that present day libertarianism has backslide, and now only favors those freedoms that improve the ability of large corporations to concentrate wealth. Any other freedoms, that could, for example, lead to deconcentration of wealth, such as FOSS, are vilified (see IP Central for that) Thus their positions on tort reform limiting the rights of individuals to obtain judgments against large corporations. So present day Libertarians are just about tilting the economy, so that everything falls (surprise, surprise) into one large plate, after only those freedom which allow wealth to be concentrated are systematically expanded. I really don’t want my children to live in a world where that society exists, let alone live in it.

Of course, you realize that regulation will be required to maintain net neutrality.

And let’s get some facts straight: net neutrality by telephone data carriers (as opposed to cable companies) was required under the Telcomm Act of 1996, so the normal state of the internet has been to have net neutrality regulated. You say you want no regulation, but also that you’d like to maintain net neutrality. Here’s stuff that has happened without net neutrality, and I would task you to explain how you would prevent this type of abuse from occurring without regulation.:

- In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

- In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute. (Welcome to the world of CORPORATE FASCISM),

- Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to “enhance” competing Internet telephone services.

- In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned http://www.dearaol.com – an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship and repression of individual liberties by large corporations will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

So there is a clear reason to preserve net neutrality, summed up by Tim Berners-Lee most eloquently:

The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net.”

As for your second comment, I think the word you’re looking for is “libertarian.” We’ve never hid the fact that this is a libertarian blog, nor has the Show-Me Institute tried to hide its libertarian leanings. And yeah, some of our board members, in their personal capacity, give money to Republican candidates. So what?

The TLF is clearly an instrument of the corporate fascists who seek to control all speech and all dissent against the system which they are promoting. Well, some of us like our First Amendment, and the rest of them too for that matter, and do not appreciate the line being pushed here, which threatens my rights.

Large Corporations are much more of a danger to our Freedoms right now in 2006 than Big government is. Many feel this way, and we will not go away, no matter how much noise and misinformation TLF continues to spout.

Let’s look at the first two names on the board of directors of the Show-Me Institute:

1. Rex Sinquefield funds the RNC to the tune of about $230,000. Not very non-partisan to me. He also channels money to right wingers disguised as Democrats here in Saint Louis, for example in Rex’s war against Jeff Smith:

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001789.php

“It would have been another mediocre quarter without the help of Rex Sinquefield who sent $20,700 Gamarbo’s direction. $600 Rex Sinquefield $600 Jeanne Sinquefield $6,500 via 13th District Legislative Committee $6,500 via 14th District Legislative Committee $6,500 via 15th District Legislative Committee Sinquefield gives lots of money to Republicans. We wrote about him back in April as one of the major funders of the Show Me Institute. According to our research, he has contributed over $230,000 to the Republican National Committee since 2002.” So in a technicalsense, he is bi-partisan, in the sense that he donates to both Republican and Democratic right wing extremists.

1. R. Crosby Kemper, III,

President, United Missouri Bank is listed on the Business Advisory Council of Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. While in a narrow technical sense it is a non-partisan organization, with members like: Hon. Robert H. Bork, Orrin G. Hatch and Kenneth Starr, it clearly is a conservative group, aligned with the extreme right causes.

And also I noticed this:

Stephen Brauer

Stephen Brauer is the Chairman and CEO of Hunter Engineering Company, which sells computer-based automotive service equipment and employs more than a thousand people. From 2001 to 2003, he served as U.S. Ambassador to Belgium…

Well, if he was Ambassador to Belgium 2001 to 2003, I’ll bet he is not a Democrat.

So the Show Me Institute is clearly a conservative think tank, spouting the fake news that the corporate paymasters demand.

Yes it is clearly problematic, and at the very least the NYT should have made it clear that the Tim B. Lee who was writing the articles was not the Tim Berners-Lee, who advocates the maintenance of net neutrality.

Incidentally, any clear thinking individual must acknowledge that TLF is a major source of noise and confusion on this Net Nuetrality debate, maintaining that they are for the status quo, for example when in fact the net is neutral right now as we speak. The TLF would like to change that, and that’s fine but please stop the mis-information.

The TLF is clearly an instrument of the corporate fascists who seek to control all speech and all dissent against the system which they are promoting. Well, some of us like our First Amendment, and the rest of them too for that matter, and do not appreciate the line being pushed here, which threatens my rights.

Large Corporations are much more of a danger to our Freedoms right now in 2006 than Big government is. Many feel this way, and we will not go away, no matter how much noise and misinformation TLF continues to spout.

You are protecting the Timothy Berners-Lee brand name. “Sir Tim” is a valuable property. I can sympathize with your endeavor.

I sincerely appreciate that you have not yet abused the courts with some baseless and frivolous lawsuit—like so many other rights-holders have over the past several years. Thank you for
explaining your position.

If Tim B. Lee wishes, out of kindness and graciousness, to burden his political speech by attaching some disclaimer to his own name, then
that is his affair. And I apologize to him if I may have abused the hospitality of his forum by exchanging harsh words with you here.

But it is manifestly unfair to oblige him to speak or write in furtherance of your goals under
these circumstances. You have no right to compell him to carry your speech at his cost.

You are protecting the Timothy Berners-Lee brand name. “Sir Tim” is a valuable property. I can sympathize with your endeavor.

I sincerely appreciate that you have not yet abused the courts with some baseless and frivolous lawsuit—like so many other rights-holders have over the past several years. Thank you for explaining your position.

If Tim B. Lee wishes, out of kindness and graciousness, to burden his political speech by attaching some disclaimer to his own name, then that is his affair. And I apologize to him if I may have abused the hospitality of his forum by exchanging harsh words with you here.

But it is manifestly unfair to oblige him to speak or write in furtherance of your goals under these circumstances. You have no right to compell him to carry your speech at his cost.

I’m neither exceptionally polite, nor a bully. But perhaps I can be more clear.

I asked Tim Lee for his help, given the queries I was receiving from the general public, from developers, and reporters. When I explained the misattribution problem, he not only understood, he agreed to help with a letter to the editor he worked with, as well as the ones I know.

Part of my goal was to curb the misattribution of authorship. But another part – especially my decision to post here – was to contribute to stopping misattribution of motive. It’s been rampant and unfair. I hoped that the public recognition of his voluntary action might stop the accusations.

You’ve got my email address and my phone numbers as a result of the private email you sent. I’m happy to continue the conversation with you via email or by phone.

I’m neither exceptionally polite, nor a bully. But perhaps I can be more clear.

I asked Tim Lee for his help, given the queries I was receiving from the general public, from developers, and reporters. When I explained the misattribution problem, he not only understood, he agreed to help with a letter to the editor he worked with, as well as the ones I know.

Part of my goal was to curb the misattribution of authorship. But another part – especially my decision to post here – was to contribute to stopping misattribution of motive. It’s been rampant and unfair. I hoped that the public recognition of his voluntary action might stop the accusations.

You’ve got my email address and my phone numbers as a result of the private email you sent. I’m happy to continue the conversation with you via email or by phone.

But, like Matt, I was pretty damned shocked to see it run. (I live in NYC and read the NYT daily.) It was just so completely at odds with the facts, especially with the base premise that the internet has ever been unregulated or that there is any suggestion from anybody that it be unregulated, that I was upset that it ran. It just shows how abstruse this issue is, I guess. But, sheesh, couldn’t Gail have asked someone who knows about this stuff about the piece? I mean, other than Mike McCurry.