[governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Dear Parminder and all

Once more you enlighten the debate with a clear position I strongly support. Therefore, many thanks to you for beeing watchful on this CS list. 
Neoliberal positions, as they are frequently expressed here denying the government its involvment in an as "public affair" as Internet governance, are paradoxal (even  inconsistent) when one considers the billions dollars and euros the democratic governments have just spent for saving the banking system after the neolib disaster.  
Of course, governement shouldn't be given "exclusive power", even in our democracies. For this reason, CS should be the watchdog for preventing people from any deviance (of their government), or at least for informing them on the threatening dangers. Moreover, in many of our democracies CS partners with public authorities at local and/or natinal level in a certain number of domains, even IG. This also happens in France, although with criticisms and, in some cases, even  a clear opposition (e.g. in download control and the so-called "three strikes" law). 

All the best
Jean-Louis Fullsack




> Message du 09/01/10 07:28
> De : "Parminder" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Roland Perry" , "'Research and Advocacy Team'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] 'search neutrality' to go with net neutrality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message <4B46D0F8.101 at itforchange.net>, at 12:00:16 on Fri, 8 Jan 
> > 2010, Parminder writes
> >
> >> there is another ideology opposed to this one which believes that 
> >> there is at present large scale social injustice which has to be 
> >> corrected by strong positive measures for social justice - which 
> >> often involves redistributive measures which you call as 'magic 
> >> financial crutch'.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I was describing what I believe to be Margaret 
> > Thatcher's views, when she made her much misquoted statements about 
> > "society". That was many years ago, and I don't necessarily agree with 
> > the philosophy either then, or now. But I do feel that if you are 
> > going to criticise someone, the least you can do first is properly 
> > understand what it is you are criticising.
> Mr Perry
> 
> I well know what I am criticizing, or rather engaging with, so I request 
> that you avoid snob statements. They are very disturbing, especially in 
> the cross-cultural and geopolitical nature of this group. Do you Mr 
> Perry ever in London, or wherever you stay, in a group pf people 
> discussing something say to anyone - 'if you are going to criticise 
> someone, the least you can do first is properly understand what it is 
> you are criticising'. I am just trying to understand. Also i criticize 
> no one, just viewpoints, unlike what you have done. So please....
> 
> You quoted Thatcher, and then explained the quote using the 'magic 
> financial crutch' language, and then through comparison with the issues 
> involved in US health insurance debate went on to wonder if anyone 
> wants governments to get more involved in IG 'on the grounds that they 
> believe the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens'. 
> That is a very consistent political narrative, and I do understand it 
> completely. (In any case my statements engage with whoever holds views 
> represented in the mentioned statements.) On the other hand (since you 
> used the above distasteful snob language) I can say that before 
> answering *you* should at least properly understand what who are 
> disagreeing or agreeing with. For substantiation of this pl see below.
> 
> >
> > Meanwhile, I spend quite a lot of my time working for various 
> > charitable ventures which are in a very real sense "society's" 
> > manifestation of the philanthropic "Fairy Godmother", or to use your 
> > words "a redistributive measure". 
> No, thats not the meaning of redistribution. In a way quite to the 
> contrary. 'Fairy godmother' business is charity, with moral-ethical 
> basis. Redistribution is a term of political economy, and presupposes 
> political power as its basis. Charity is often the rich persons look at 
> social injustice, frameworks of political power and redistribution are 
> that of the (politically conscious) people at the wrong end.
> 
> 
> > However, the donors in this case are giving voluntary, and it's matter 
> > of plain fact that many redistributive measures are forced unwillingly 
> > upon the wider public. 
> Exactly the issue, thanks for constructing it for me. All voluntary 
> stuff is good. but that does not replace redistribution of the political 
> kind, which is what neoliberal ideology seeks to do. So, both your 
> position and my critique is consistent, unlike what you propose.
> 
> 
> As for 'being forced on the wider public', of course who likes to lose 
> power and resources, while forgetting that they are often the product of 
> unjust and exploitative social structures,and thus need corresponding 
> corrective measures of redistribution.
> 
> >
> > That's what "politicians in power" (or what we call "Government") 
> Micheal has pointed to a good critique of how language is 'constructed' 
> for ideological purposes. I see government in frameworks other that just 
> 'politicians in power'. We work in many forms of engagement with 
> governments, with great results.
> > spends much of its time doing. 
> if you mean redistribution, that is one of the main jobs of governments. 
> Incidentally governments in the North spend 40-50 percent of country's 
> GDPs, a good amount of that on redistribution, while they advocate still 
> weaker states for the South.
> 
> > For example, Margaret Thatcher is famous for a failed attempt to 
> > redistribute local property taxation from a basis of per-dollar-value 
> > of your property to a per-adult-resident in the property.
> On my reading, per-dollar value property tax looks much more 
> redistributive that per-adult resident. So Thatcher was being regressive 
> and anti-redistribution that she is known to be, and was not in that 
> sense not furthering redistribution, but the opposite.
> >
> >> I wonder how many people on this list would wish that governments 
> >> got themselves organised, and [attempted to] sort out all the 
> >> perceived ills on the Internet, on the grounds that they believe 
> >> the current mechanisms were failing their collective citizens?
> >
> > Of course, I posed that rhetorical question because the overwhelming 
> > feeling I get from most lists like this is that Government 
> > intervention is not welcome when it comes particularly to meddling 
> > with content on the Internet (although some people are happier for 
> > Governments to intervene to break up large monopolistic infrastructure 
> > providers).
> I too posed my response because the overwhelming feeling I get is that a 
> few more articulate and dominant voices seem to dominant the list 
> discussion in a manner that makes it look that civil society in general 
> has views that are broadly neoliberal, especially in the area of IG. I 
> proposed a vote since I am confident that the greater majority actually 
> does not really think so. Positioning dominant views as something 
> natural and commonsense, is the very basis of hegemony. (Now before you 
> again react inappropriately as you did the last time, let me tell you 
> that my critiques are political and not personal, unlike what comes out 
> of the language you used.)
> 
> Regards
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100109/bd33a727/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance