Google's Fight to Socialize Broadband
By Erick Posted in Technology — Comments (19) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am increasingly convinced that the right is getting distracted by George Soros's incompetent spending of his personal fortune and we should instead be looking at Google.
Google, which claims it will "do no evil" is, in fact, doing evil by proxy.
Through a host of third party organizations, Google is at the center of a spider web of entangled left wing interests hiding behind feel good notions like "net neutrality" that have evolved from keeping internet service providers from charging you extra for using iTunes instead of Rhapsody, into socialized broadband.
More troubling though, Google is the silent partner in a host of organization that are subtly, but consistently promoting social change in a way that is long term harmful to the individual and the free market.
Let's begin today with internetforeveryone.org, a pretty little site on the internet that unintentionally gives a subtle hint in its intentions with its map of the U.S. entirely in blue (I write that only partly in jest). It's innocent name covers up all the troublesome characters who are using this site as a program for radical social change.
Read on . . .
This organization was launched at the Personal Democracy Forum, a gathering of internet junkies bent on changing the world, this year up in New York. It has a laudable goal of access, stated thusly: "Every home and business in America *must* have high-speed internet access." Please note the word "must." Likewise, everyone "must [there's that word again] have the right to free speech and commerce online without discrimination." Of course we should ignore the anti-Obama and pro-Hillary websites on blogspot that Google just shut down. That was not free speech apparently.1
Here's the thing. Remember our old friend Larry Lessig? He's behind a lot of this with Google. According to Lessig
"This is the first time in our history that we have tried to build fundamental infrastructure on the basis of a Neanderthal philosophy," announced Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, "which is that we don't need government to do it."
Get that? Lessig want the government, not private business, to build the internet. Then it would be the government overseeing our free speech and the government overseeing e-commerce. It's bad enough when the mortgage bailout bill will require all e-commerce companies to report your transactions to the federal government.
So what does this all have to do with Google? Well, Google claims that it has "joined a national initiative of public interest, civic and industry groups to help launch the Internet for Everyone campaign, whose goal is to make ubiquitous and open broadband access for every American a priority in the next administration." "Joined" is apparently new speak for "put up all the money and got the thing organized."
What's so funny about this all is Google's co-founder Larry Page telling Congress, "Part of why I'm here is I don't want people to be misled by people who have interests. I'm really bothered by that" But, of course, Page does have an interest. Google stands to rake in billions of dollars from this and, in the process, change the world to its founders' progressively socialist view.
If you don't think that is bad enough, consider who all belongs to this touchy-feely named organization: Acorn, Common Cause, FreeCulture.org, Free Press, Participatory Culture Foundation, Sunlight Foundation, Progressive States Network, SEIU and others. The actual funding of the coalition was not disclosed.
What we do know is that Larry Lessig cropped up again. Barack Obama's technology advisor was a speaker at the announcement of the organization and is listed as a member along with Google. Then there is the Sunlight Foundation, which pushes for all sorts of openness. Lessign and Google's Kim Scott are on the Sunlight Foundation board and the Sunlight Foundation is listed as a member of Internet For Everyone — I though incest like this was only legal in Alabama.
Let's go back to the irony: Google and all these individuals and groups who tout transparency are backing this group, but no one really knows where the money is coming from. We suspect Google because it fits the pattern.
And what they are doing is very simple and clear: they are trying to get the government to socialize broadband. Folks, for those still fighting the net neutrality battle, Google has moved the goal posts. It's no longer about showing bias in favor of some internet traffic over others. Now it is about the private sector's right and ability to provide you the service.
Google is pushing the internet as a right, which means the government will have certain obligations and certain rights, not to mention a whole new division of the Justice Department to enforce and secure those rights.
This. Is. Nuts.
I'll have more tomorrow extending this web out to show you just how hypocritical all these transparency guys are when it comes to their efforts to socialize the internet and shut down the free market.
-
Since this news broke, it appears Google is only doing this because Obama supporters are flagging these sites as spam. Google automatically suspends spam sites pending review. I'd just note that these same Obama supporters are more likely than not supporting Google's efforts to socialize broadband.
↩
« Google's Fight to Socialize Broadband, Part 2 — Comments (15) | California: No Better Than China In Intellectual Property Rights — Comments (4) »
Google's Fight to Socialize Broadband 19 Comments (0 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I read Lessig's book, "Free Culture". He is very leftist, extremely contemptuous of the idea of free markets and property rights. He can come off sounding more moderate in some speeches, but not if you look at what he writes.
The problem with "freetards", as The Register calls them, is not that they are making free media and software, but that they are intolerant of people who try to do otherwise. They attack anyone who exercises property rights or tries to make a profit.
And by the way, Lessig is talking about runing for congress...
with all due respect, isn't there something better to spend your time concerning yourself with than Google. I have heard and read these conspiracy theories a lot and I am amused. If this were true, Google would have lost popularity long ago. Their supposed left wing bias doesn't stop them from hosting millions of conservative blogs on blogger. Furthermore, those blogs get moved up to the top of most searches. If Google had any agenda beyond mazimizing profits they wouldn't be as successful as they are, and that is my counter to any conspiracy theory.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
The Google web is pretty impressive.
is doing just look at the right hand....thank you for following this because to ignore something is not going to make it go away....Bill O'Reilly did the same thing with the web out from Soro's and all the entities he has his grubby paws in trying to circumvent FREEDOM....ignore those who would tell you this is a waste of time...they know not of what they speak!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I would agree that ideological compatibility alone does not confirm conspiracy.
However, Erick is identifying a possible hidden money trail in which Google is funding a "grassroots" campaign that not only dovetails with its owners' political philosophy but also provides it with potential financial benefit because Google would have a controlling interest in defining the ground rules of this new government-operated internet.
Unlike most conspiracy theories out there, Erick at least is defining a conspiracy theory with a monetary (not just ideological) motive and a falsifiable hypothesis (i.e. secret funding), which provides a basis for further investigation.
To refute your point, I'll simply refer you to the words of Eric Schmidt himself.
The goal of the company is not to monetize everything, the goal is to change the world ... We don't start from monetization. We start from the perspective of what problems do we have," he said, referring to big, world-class problems.
also and made a lot of money doing it. What is your point? By changing the world, you mean their business model. Give me a break. Google has changed the world. you can find anything about anything just by searching google. That is changing the world. you see they figured that the best way to make money was to change the world. The company accomplished both handsomely.
Again, I don't care. I like Google. I use it for all my searches and I have their email. If they are running conspiracy theories on the side, that is their problem. That is quite a dangerous game for their brand, which is why I am skeptical. Folks with that much genius in creating the brand know better, and thus, I am not buying it. Furthermore, even if what you say is true, their evil master plan is blown apart by their own business model which gives preference to their own blogs. As such, their attempts to bring more notice to far left causes are stunted by the company's own insistence on giving their own blogs special treatment. Given that Google does this consciously, how does that fit in with your theory.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
What is the deal with whiny neo-hippies making brazillians of dollars off of the free market, then trying to eliminate the free market?
"No no, the free market doesn't work. Ignore my billions."
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
They, just like Obama and most (if not all) left wing politicians, believe in the philosophy of "Do as I say, not as I do."
-----------------------------------
4.62, 0.51
Very true.
See, if their philosophy was to avoid capitalism, they would avoid capitalism while spouting the evils of capitalism.
Instead, they embrace capitalism to further their own needs, while spouting the evils of capitalism. This means that anti-capitalism is not their philosophy, but an agenda...
and you are exactly right... they call for us to do as they tell us, not as they do.
That is, of course, how communism works in practice. You submit to the Government, living as you are told, buying what you are told. . . . . but do not mention or draw attention to what the government does... It is one law for us and another for them.
Such oppression is why Communism, or its many children, will always degenerate into a moral-less and soul-less society, based on oppression of the common man, sanctioned slavery of the people, and a reduction in status to subject rather than citizen.
After all.... it is all for the good of the people. . . as they say..
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
There must be something in the Bay area water.
From your own link to newsbusters
to look like this Blogspot shut down of anti-Obama sites occurred because of a concerted effort by Obama supporters.
What they did was go to the Blogspot addresses found on the site of the NoObama coalition called Just Say No Deal and constantly hit the "mark as spam" link so that Google's Blogger would be flooded with spam warnings. This caused Google/Blogger to freeze the sites marked.
Apparently, this campaign merely took advantage of Google/Blogger's flawed system of finding spam blogs. So, it looks like what we have here is an Obama dirty trick to shut down political opposition. Looks like Obmatons aren't much for that whole democracy thing, eh?
Once I find a link to an Obama site talking about this attack, I will post it.
As for Google being communist in this,
YOU ARE WATCHING SAVAGE CAPITALISM AT WORK.
They are acting to maximize the value of their product and marginalize the other parts of the value chain. This is a brilliant way to flank the ATTs and Verizons of the world. If they want to play with the nets favoring specific services there are alternatives to shut them down. I have no problem with them screwing with the phone co ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Well, there's a lot to chew on (and respectfully disagree with as a member of the InternetforEveryone.org coalition). I blogged about why I'm a part of this coalition over the weekend at TechRepublican.
But I would point out what Lessig added in his statement about the important role of the private sector which gives more context:
"That Neanderthal philosophy has governed for about the last eight years and it has allowed us to slide from a leader in this field to an abysmal position. And it's about time when people recognize that of course the private sector has a role, a central role, maybe the most important role…”
===================
David All
Slatecard
TechRepublican
===================
Card carrying membership in the Change Congress movement? You already signed yourself (and Slatecard, if I'm not mistaken) onto the notion that union fundraising leverage ought to be GREATLY expanded and government ought to subsidize more federal campaigns, in direct contradiction with the law on its face.
Thanks for the clarification, David.
I've shown this to a few people, and we were all sorry to see it...it exemplifies the worst paranoid side of the right-wing movement, and brings disrepute to our more serious arguments. Google is supporting a movement which is eminently in its business interest. Larry Lessig is supporting it because he supports essentially anything relating to open access.
This isn't an evil plot against the republic. It's a large corporation supporting a movement in its interests and a professor with his head in his clouds supporting an organization with his head in the clouds.
And the movement is a group of nerds working with a group of fluffheaded idealists with aims that are extremely vague, and a methodology that is fully unclear. It just another group to advocate for extending broadband.
Is this really the best use for the front page of Redstate? This is your second post on the matter, and each time the entire site falls a bit in my estimation.
Bandwidth providers should be concerned with one thing: bandwidth. They should not be in the business of giving one kind of traffic priority over other kinds of traffic, or some sites priority over other sites. To my view, the moment they do that they should lose whatever their equivalent is of common carrier status.
I haven't read enough of who's arguing for what in all of this to be able to come down firmly on one side or another, but if that principle is lost or abandoned, it's going to cause nothing but grief for everyone.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
--------------------
Small is beautiful.
"'net neutrality' that have evolved from keeping internet service providers from charging you extra for using iTunes instead of Rhapsody"
Ultimately, the blame rests on the cable and phone companies that threatened to use their government-granted monopoly positions to shut out free-market competition.
Check your link again about the anti-Obama sites being shut down. It's because Obama supporters tagged them all as spam, and Google automatically freezes blogs tagged by multiple people as spam.
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain