VF saidI hate to break this to you, but that is by far not the only gvt taking such actions. As much as I’d love to agree with you on the one-sidedness of this campaign, it’s also the fact that governments had the exact same strategy with SOPA and ACTA , before of course some whistleblowers brought it to public attention, that makes me somewhat ignore the presentational aspect. Sure, the formulation is bad, but then again such meetings should be of informative nature first, then only for agrement, and of course members of the public or chosen representatives should take part in such informative meetings. The fact that we are being informed only by the time decisions are being made doesn’t ring the same desire to wonder why for you? Just a thought
rabidflash saidThat is off topic – specific to one peculiar govt / situation. Even these situation happen due to not having a well known policy about communication limits / freedom. If media have to help on these things, that means law isn’t followed or formed properly. That differs a lot from adding restrictions (google’s personal issue ). We have rights of speech through internet but where and when becomes very important due to traffic. The anonymity should not be taken granted which is the problem of internet
^^I didn’t find anything funny in the recent arrest of two girls in Mumbai for a facebook post which was a direct result of the govt. regulating the internet. Luckily, the girls have got enough media attention to escape jail.
I am all for knowing what your protest is for, but if to begin with actions that affect or MIGHT affect your freedom are being put into effect, then there is already enough reason to protest (i.e. Not being informed about what those decisions actually mean for each and every one of us). What’s the difference between google and gvts you might ask? Well it’s exactly the censorship applied by governments to their decision-taking power. If google says it wants to allow filesharing or host “illegal” content, it will be brought down (even if that spunds impossible) by governments. Now tell me, if the governments decide they need to regulate your access to information even by simply implementing a cost for speed, another one for access, and so on and so forth, who gets a chance to have a say against that? I will further ellaborate once I get a physical keyboard because this touch thingie is killing me, so sorry about the spelling, as I can’t even check previously written text haha
^ Well, simply my concern is how google approaches this. If they have a dedicated site that gives collected info about the situation, that would be fine. What they are going to do with these voice counts? They can even alter the numbers which no one going verify. How many people pulled into their site just to make votes? We internet users these days made to become “believers” of big corporations (google, apple etc). This is what the tragedy of open Internet – you can even utilise the traffic for commercial or any purpose with the mask of helping the openness / blah blah (well done by steve jobs). I don’t mean to support closed internet just pointing google also can be safely added to such doubtful list. Just my 2 cents.
^ Well, simply my concern is how google approaches this. If they have a dedicated site that gives collected info about the situation, that would be fine. What they are going to do with these voice counts? They can even alter the numbers which no one going verify. How many people pulled into their site just to make votes? We internet users these days made to become “believers” of big corporations. This is what the tragedy of open Internet – you can even utilise the traffic for commercial or any purpose with the mask of helping the openness / blah blah. Just my 2 cents.
Mate, we are all being used anyway, with I don’t know how many users on facebook (be-used book) where your self-inserted preferences, choices, likes are being used to profile you as a potential buyer… Any visit you have on any site on the internet for that matter, nowdays, represents someone making a profit based on that, but that is a different thing. The concept was about limitation, restriction and censorship, not about how ethical or not so much advertising practices are online lol
If anything, it’s just a big merit that they manage to monetize based on a good purpose (which the scope of the campaign is).
Also, from a psychological point of view, please, tell me how 98% of the people who might be interested in knowing about their rights actually also want to know “accurate information”, as legal code and penal implications for their actions ? Yes, I don’t mean for you to sell me black sheep instead of a Ferrari, but if you’re selling me a Ferrari, I really don’t want to know how the adaptive isolated suspension system workes on the FF. I just want the major points the “general interest” things to be out in the open, and that’s what campaigns generally also focus on. Get in too deep and you risk losing interest before you get to the point. This also applies to this current campaign.
What I can agree with you upon is the fact that I doubt a “private” party will have any saying, no matter the number of votes. It is just hype. But then again, so was the main impression of Social media on the Arab Spring matter, and that’s what brought it so unavoidably to public sight that it actually became a topic of discussion on other levels.
I won’t go much into political detail as that’s sort of against forum rules, but I’m just going to say that starting with 2010-or slightly earlier, a time for change came, which involves sometimes picking a side. The world was built on theory and brilliant minds, but unless you’re living a dream, utopia can never be achieved, and you have to use your own intelect and knowledge to weigh in on what’s better for you (not going to say right / wrong because both are arguable). This is no different. People have the choice to consider it a good thing, or a bad thing, but they have to either go with it, or against it. My opinion is just that. I like to consider google less of a threat as it’s quite a small fish compared to the cumulative power of governments. Hence, my vote goes with them, their campaign, whatever.
here’s some more to read up on if anyone is interested : just found this http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/itc-internet-meetings/