About Scott Cleland
![]() |
|
You are hereFreedom of SpeechGoogle caught censoring free speech... again -- where's the indignance from net neutrality supporters?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-02-20 18:43Fox News reported that Google quietly reinstated an Inner City Press news service that specializes in UN corruption news, that Google had previously censored from its search engine and from Google news.
Important Questions: Google humor: "human review trumps technology" in filtering for copyrightSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2008-01-31 10:48I had to stop myself from bursting out laughing when listening to Google-YouTube's product counsel, Mia Garlick, speak on the Internet Caucus panel on "Internet Copyright Filters: Finding the Balance."
Let that little quote sink in for a moment. Google...
If human review of content trumps technology, why doesn't Google rank/filter all the world's content in its search process with human review rather than technology -- if human review is better? ACLU kneecaps argument that net neutrality implicates First Amendment freedom of speechSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2008-01-25 10:57The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) entered the fray on net neutrality yesterday in an important ACLU blogpost: "Free Speech and Net Neutrality: Separating fact from fiction." While the ACLU predictably voiced strong POLITICAL support for net neutrality, the ACLU Blog surprisingly and effectively eviscerated the LEGAL and practical case for using the analogy that "Net Neutrality is the First Amendment of the Internet."
Net neutrality is not about free speech. It's classic buzzword political blackmail. Proponents cynically believe that if they repeat the conspiracy theory that big corporations want to systematically take away their customers freedom of speech -- that some people will believe it. Has Tim Wu lost his credibility? in his tunnel-vision piece: "Has AT&T lost its mind?"Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2008-01-16 17:55Tim Wu is losing credibility fast.
Mr. Wu please calm down. Put away any sharp objects and please listen to some reason. More guilty-until-proven-innocent regulation from Google's Poodles; new petition on texting regulationSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-12-11 10:59The Washington Post reports that a consortium of Google's closest net neutrality allies: FreePress/Moveon.org, Public Knowledge, New America Foundation, Media Access Project, are poised to petition the FCC again, this time to mandate that wireless carriers deliver all text messages to their customers, even including text messages by wireless competitors trying to sell their competing wireless services. How Principled is Google about free speech when it opposes the "Global Online Freedom Act"?Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-12-03 12:16An editorial by the New York Times on free speech points out that Google and other big Internet companies in fact oppose legislation that promotes free speech for those who most need it around the world.
It seems all this Google-funded effort to cloak net neutrality as a "freedom of speech" issue by Moveon.org, FreePress, Public Knowledge and other Google-supported pressure groups, is just a cynical tactic and political ploy because Google actually opposes free speech when the rubber meets the road -- like with the "Global Online Freedom Act."
Kudos to Ou/Bennett for slam dunking the bogus FreePress Comcast petition!Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-11-07 23:28I most highly commend George Ou and Richard Bennett for bringing some much-needed adult supervision and technical excellence to the issue of Comcast's network management. Please read George's latest blogpost.
George has produced the must read piece on this issue. In "A rational debate on Comcast's Traffic management" George explains, with the assistance of Richard Bennett's exceptional expertise, what is really going on with Comcast's traffic management.
The already low credibility of net neutrality proponents will fall even further as the FCC investigates this allegation and determines Comcast's network management to be well within the bounds of "reasonable."
The reason we have due process in this country is precisely to protect against this type of spurious allegation. an emerging backlash against unaccountable Internet openness?" .Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-10-29 10:24I think I see the beginning of a backlash trend against those advocating unfettered "openness" on the Internet. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police is pushing for legislation to limit the availability of police and firefighters' property records to anyone on the Internet.
I'll be surprised if their isn't a growing number of people, from all walks of life, who will want to protect their privacy/safety and be able to remove some of their information from public view on the Internet.
A hair-trigger standard for Net regulation? Rebutting the Business Week columnSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-25 18:03With all due respect to all the folks I read often at Business Week, I have to challenge the thinking behind Stephen Wildstrom's column in Business Week where he shares that he switched his year-long position opposing new net regulation, largely because of Verizon's admitted mistake in delaying by one-day a text messaging approval code to NARAL. After Verizon and the rest of the industry have handled literally billions upon billions of communications for years without significant similar incidents, one company makes an admitted mistake, takes full responsibility, immediately fixes it, changes its procedures so it won't happen again, -- and Mr Wildstrom's answer is to now throw the common-carrier regulatory book at Verizon and the whole industry? Googlegate? The Examiner documents Google coverup of close Google-Moveon.org relationshipSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-10-25 16:04The plot thickens. Robert Cox of The Examiner has produced another must-read piece uncovering much more detail of the closeness of the Google-Moveon.org relationship: "New questions raised on Google, Moveon.org relationship."
What's new and fresh in this piece is the very detailed timeline that connects-the-dots of all of the coverage to assemble a compelling chonology that shows how Google did not follow its own policies and procedures, or even trademark law and practice, in order to censor other's free speech that would be critical of their close political ally Moveon.org. Pages |