[governance] Google's Fight the ITU/WCIT website

Wed Nov 21 12:21:52 EST 2012

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12676-how-google-is-helping-the-gas-lobby-support-fracking


On Wednesday 21 November 2012 06:25 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers, Louis
> - - -
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:24 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Wednesday 21 November 2012 01:19 PM, parminder wrote:
>>     snip
>
>>     Dear Google; Yes, the world indeed needs an open Internet, for
>>     which reason it is rather awful to note that you, meaning, Google;
>>
>>     1) Sold the entire net neutrality campaign down the drain 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.
>>
>>     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.
>
>     BTW, is 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?
>
>>
>>     3) Tweak your search results, which is increasingly the main way
>>     of accessing locations on the 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.
>>
>>     ( There are hundreds of other outrages, big and small, including
>>     the fact that today I suddenly  see my default browser getting
>>     set for "Chrome' when I prefer and have always used Mozilla
>>     Firefox and never asked for the change of default.)
>>
>>     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).
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     parminder
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121121/ff42f207/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t