<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking">http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking</a><br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<br>
<br>
</div>
On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+EjHYqj0B3jaKOhMPMDSthSezpvj1dM6nx+OTMVeRhoWAp9GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi all,<br>
<br>
Google is now champion for arrogance and disinformation. They
believe they reached a State statute whereby they can dictate
other States what they have to do. Actually this not so different
from the US gov attitude.<br>
<br>
Google's dominance of the advertising market is in no way a
guarantee of quality and neutrality. They just leverage their
dominance for promoting their own business. And they conflate
their particular interests with grand ideologies as free
information for all.<br>
<br>
Let's assume that drugs are free for all. Then the web would be
swamped with ads for drugs, seminars praising benefits of using
drugs, training sessions for acquiring drug consumption art,
testimonies from drug users telling how it changed their life for
the good, mass campaign vilifying institutions or governments
requesting drug control, and so on. Just because the drug maffia
has enough resources for controlling a free market. And the saying
is "the market is right".<br>
<br>
As expected, the simple association of information and drug will
immediately raise fury. It's just taboo. Like associating Google
interests with freedom of information.<br>
<br>
There was a time when the US gov would resist and break excessive
and abusive dominance in certain market segments, like oil, bank,
telecom. Now it's the opposite. Excessive market dominance is good
for US world dominance, as long as the dominant firms are based in
the US. Then where are check and balance mechanisms ?<br>
<br>
Let's not be fooled by Google stylish propaganda. The real issues
in WCIT 2012 have nothing to do with internet censorship, and
Google knows it too well. The issues are finding a more equitable
balance between stakeholders interests and profits.<br>
<br>
Parminder's observations are entirely relevant. The most dangerous
threats to information freedom are US lead secretly negotiated
treaties by multi-national lobbies, SOPA, ACTA, etc. More are
coming, still secret, basically a rehash of those that failed,
TPP, CleanIT, .. watch out.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Louis<br>
- - -<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<div>On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <font face="Verdana">snip</font><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></blockquote>
<div class="im"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana"> Dear Google;
Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for
which reason it is rather awful to note that you,
meaning, Google;<br>
<br>
1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign </font><font
face="Verdana">down the drain </font><font
face="Verdana">in the US, by first assuming its
leadership and then entering into a self-serving
agreement with Verizon, whereby the main means of
accessing the Internet in the future - mobiles - are
exempted from net neutrality provisions. <br>
<br>
2) Have recently entered into exclusive arrangements
with telecos to provide Gmail, Google + and Google
Search for free in some developing countries
(Philippines) , and as a special low cost package
exclusively of a few Internet services (and not the
full, public Internet) in others (India), which makes
a mockery of an open and net neutral Internet.<br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
BTW, i<font face="Verdana">s it a mere coincidence these new
mobile based non-net-neutral services seem to have
something to do with the betraying compromise that Google
made that is mentioned in point 1 above?</font>
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana"> <br>
3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly
the main way of accessing </font><font face="Verdana">locations
on the </font><font face="Verdana">Internet, in
non-transparent ways, with increasing evidence that
this is done in a manner that merely serves your own
commercial interests and goes against consumer/ public
interest, and for which reasons Google is currently
subject to regulatory investigations in the US and EU.
<br>
<br>
( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small,
including the fact that </font><font face="Verdana">today
I </font><font face="Verdana">suddenly see my
default browser getting set for "Chrome' when I prefer
and have always used Mozilla Firefox and never asked
for the </font><font face="Verdana">change of </font><font
face="Verdana">default.)<br>
<br>
I cannot see anything other than effective regulation
of the Internet to be able to check such excesses by
Internet companies that are deeply compromising the
openness of the Internet (sticking here to only to the
subject of openness of the Internet, used in above
appeal by Google). <br>
<br>
So, lets be honest, it is not about people versus ITU,
not even, Google versus ITU, or even Google versus
content regulation; it is Google versus any regulation
of the Internet space so that Google, and similarly
positioned dominant players, can have a free run over
the economic, social and political resources of the
world. <br>
<br>
It is very important to wage the needed struggles to
keep Internet's content free from undue statist
controls. But one needs to be careful about whom one
chooses as partners, nay, leaders of the campaign.
Remember, the lessons from the net neutrality campaign
in the US which was sold cheap by those who assumed
its leadership. Also, have no doubt whatsoever that
ACTAs and PIPAs will come back in new forms,
accommodating the interests of the big Internet
companies that led the opposition in the first round.
(Anyone wanting to take a bet on this! :) ) And. when
the second round happens, since 'our leaders' would
have crossed over, there wouldnt be much fight left to
give. <br>
<br>
For sure, make opportunistic, tactical, alliances, but
civil society needs to be careful not to abandon
leadership of public interest causes to players who
cannot but become turncoat and, well, betray, - sooner
or later getting into bed with whoever is economically
and politically powerful around to help their business
prosper. Such is the structural logic of big business.
Let them stick to what they do best - organise
productive forces of the world. Leave public interest
causes to public interest players - civil society and
governments. However, if the sentiment is simply
overflowing, maybe just donate some money to such
causes, in an arms- lenght /hands-off approach vis a
vis managing the precise activities involved. I simply
dont fancy corporate-led 'public interest' campaigns.
<br>
<br>
One was stuck by the number of Google organised panels
at the Baku IGF, where they openly took part and gave
their policy pitch. As a participant from Pakistan
said at a workshop ' I find a Google representative at
every panel that I am at'. Such brash presence at
policy forums and taking strong policy positions by
corporates is a relatively new game, and to my mind
not a welcome thing for our democracies. I keep hoping
that civil society would give this phenomenon a deeper
thought and analysis, rather than just riding the
bandwagon. <br>
<br>
parminder </font><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>