I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of this petition, but it strikes me as mostly preaching to the choir given the driving issues here. Governments want the right to cut off Internet in a crisis...and the countries who think that's a good idea do so no matter what established democracies think. It's like signing a petition for peace...the right thing to do, maybe, but it's not really a debate.
After thousands of wars peace is understood by everybody, not so about the free and open Internet, which to most is something that just works like electricity, or black magic.
Making more people understand is definitely worth one tweet.
While I generally support what is being proposed here, Google as a company has a strong interested in "keep[ing] the Internet free and open" for them to sell their products. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means that if this was raised by organisations that don't have a clear commercial interest then it might improve the visibility.
> it just means that if this was raised by organisations that don't have a clear commercial interest then it might improve the visibility.
It might improve the thrustworthness, but I doubt anyone else on the planet has more power to increase visibility than Google. Also always, in terms of visibility, big commercial entities > any non-profit, except maybe Wikipedia.
I also think it's a good thing, that "big players" like google take a stand and say what they think. Even if they have financial interests, if Google wouldn't take a stand and rebel against such things, the internet would be much worst than it is today.
You can improve the visibility by explaining to your friends in non-google circles the importance of this petition to them. That's how this petition is supposed to work, IMO
As a 25yo w/out a TV, this is the first I've heard of it as well.
Given the likelihood of similarly positioned friends on my social networks, I shared the Economist article here ( http://www.economist.com/news/21567340-governments-squabble-... ) as a set up for the link to the petition, should people agree w/ Google's efforts.
Thank you. A very interesting article. A few points that caught my attention:
1. The US position on the ITU meting is to shot down various proposals and keep the current regulations intact.
2. The bulk of proposals are devised to lessen the influence of the US on the internet. E.g. transfer ICAAN duties to ITU, charge companies like Facebook and Google for outgoing traffic to national networks.
3. European Telecommunications Network Operators seek to outlaw net neutrality, quoting that without "fair" traffic control they're unable to develop their networks.
And in the end a little excerpt:
"A bigger danger is therefore deadlock. That might encourage a large pack of nations to set up their own internet regime, making communication with the rest of the world more costly and more complicated."
Which is already happening with China, Syria, Iran, and others.
So I'm enjoying my blank page because for some reason this free and open internet is not accessible and requires several scripts to display simple html.
Posting about a free and open internet on a website which is paid for by ads and with closed content is kinda ironic but it makes a strong point about google's credibility.
Make no mistake, they're defending their business model and profit which happens to be based on internet being sort of free and kinda open.
I couldn't agree more about Google sticking up for what's best for Google. And while I don't agree that we need more government regulation and intervention, we do need to call Google on their BS.
It gets even funnier if you read between the lines on their "take action" page and translate.
Original: "A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet."
----------------
Translated: "Google's revenues depend on a free and open Internet where we can freely monetize content created by everyone else."
Original: "Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech — or even allow them to cut off Internet access. Other proposals would require services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders. This could limit access to information — particularly in emerging markets."
----------------
Translated: "Who are these governments to censor what appears on the Internet? Only Google and our hand-tuned animal-named algorithms have the right to determine what people see and don't see. And how dare anyone but Google attempt to impose tolls on the Internet? Shocking, the audacity of these governments..."
Original: "Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not direct its future."
----------------
Translated: "Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not direct its future. That privilege belongs to Google alone."
Original: "The ITU is also secretive. The treaty conference and proposals are confidential."
----------------
Translated: "Only Google is allowed to be secretive. Everyone else must be open."
I don't understand. Isn't it better for this to get mainstream publicity rather than waving a hand over it saying that it won't change anything? My point is, shouldn't we encourage this so that it might get as much media coverage as possible - "All publicity is good publicity"? Can someone explain to me what it is I'm missing, please?
I think that #STOPSOPA has clearly demonstrated that a lot of people making noise can influence the United States at the very least; and the United States has a number of economic and political tools (I'm not including military tools here) that it can use to influence the decisions of many less than democratic regimes. Politicians are more willing to advocate the use of these tools publically if they think that 1) People care about this; 2) People support using them.
Unfortunately, international policy making is even more opaque and convoluted than the US legislative process. ITU has been several years in the making, and at the penultimate meeting back in October, it's likely that almost all of the big decisions were finalized.
