| reply to funchords
Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join? said by funchords:Its members are groups and individuals with numerous financial ties to Verizon. Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google. |
|
|
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by funchords:Its members are groups and individuals with numerous financial ties to Verizon. Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google. but its because "google is fighting for the rights of consumers". give it a year and we'll see what position google is in.
most of these "consumer groups" are nothing more than a populist microcosm of the knee-jerk reaction in today's politics.
every consumer group funded by a large corporation has an agenda to push that suits their corporate role in some fashion.
if you don't believe that, then i have a bridge to sell you.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by tubbynet:every consumer group funded by a large corporation has an agenda to push that suits their corporate role in some fashion. if you don't believe that, then i have a bridge to sell you. Perhaps, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Google is a minor funder of New America Foundation (my employer -- and I'm not a spokesman*) but we get accused of carrying Google's water, even though we're pretty much older than Google.
Do we get operating orders or some such from Google? nope, never.
Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding.
Are we aware of that? yeah but we aren't doing the right thing if we let that affect us.
*I'm speaking only for myself.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by funchords:Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding. i've quoted the important part of this whole thing. google has a vested interest (as do all of those supporting your thinktank) in making sure that you accomplish whatever it is that you do. whether or not they give you "operating orders" is irrelevant.
going back to economics101 here, much like you don't start a business unless you can make money, you don't *spend* money unless you will get a return on investment in some way, shape, or form. i'm sorry, you can't pay your bills with karma.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Sort of like how some of the consumer groups are funded by Google. You can guarantee none of Google's consumer groups will be allowed membership in Broadband America, that's for sure.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to tubbynet
said by tubbynet:said by funchords:Do they like what we do? I presume that's what's behind their funding. i've quoted the important part of this whole thing. google has a vested interest (as do all of those supporting your thinktank) in making sure that you accomplish whatever it is that you do. whether or not they give you "operating orders" is irrelevant. going back to economics101 here, much like you don't start a business unless you can make money, you don't *spend* money unless you will get a return on investment in some way, shape, or form. i'm sorry, you can't pay your bills with karma. q. What is relevant here is that Rob is the only one here with a track record of defending our rights.
The fact that he receives no operating orders from Google is very relevant. In fact, the most relevant.
The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant.
In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.
We know rob here and what he is about. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by DataRiker:you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant ... google absolutely wants something in return i'm sorry. i've bolded all the parts of your post that lead me to not listen...
sorry.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | said by tubbynet:said by DataRiker:you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant ... google absolutely wants something in return i'm sorry. i've bolded all the parts of your post that lead me to not listen... sorry. q. You assumed a contradiction because your not a careful reader.
You have only been here a short time, and you give off an awful presence. Your posts are always argumentative and never helpful.
Firstly, giving a hollow implication to one of the most respected members of our site is not a good start. His credibility, unlike yours has been cemented many times over. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by DataRiker:Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation? yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here.
you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position.
i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded).
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | said by tubbynet:said by DataRiker:Guess you have never heard of the Gates foundation? yes. i have actually. but lets talk about relevancy here. you said that my statement was not only wrong, but irrelevant. you then went on to explain that google wanted something in return. in this context, my statement was highly relevant and supported by your position. i stopped listening because of the contradiction. it was not assumed (hence the reason it was bolded). q. Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add.
Your whole statement is a overly broad, unfalsifiable statement. Usually used unknowingly by people who think they are smarter than everyone else.
By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction". |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by DataRiker:Yes your statement was wrong and irrelevant. You have still assumed my point, most incorrectly I might add. as you see it, since it has the unintended consequence of being misunderstood.
you seem to think i am wrong in stating what i did, and that you feel that google is doing this for the "feel good feeling". i tend to take the view that (while their are islolated instances of "general good") *corporations* donate because they have some vested interest. there are good corporations and there are good and benevolent individuals, but on the whole, i'd assume that my position is more relevant and much more common than the one that you are trying to suppose. if it wasn't, then why are there all of these corporate funded lobbyingconsumer interest groups? corporations have a vested interest in saving their bottom line. i'm not saying its wrong, but i'm saying that you can't get lost in the topic of the argument; you have to understand what this may lead to and who is supporting it.
call me cynical, call me a corporate shill; it doesn't matter.
if you choose to think that google is funding these "net neutrality thinktanks" for their own good and the fact that they are "looking out for the consumer", then thats your choice. however, in thinking that, you must ask yourself, why are there so many people who are up in arms over google's tracking/ad/privacy policies because they are far-reaching?
again, i support my position wholeheartedly. your posting of a contradiction against my argument only leads support to what i was saying in the first place.
your posts will do nothing to change that.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
| reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:By the way, the words "nobody" and "google" are not the same thing, thus disproving your whole "contradiction". priceless - i was going to write that almost verbatim
This is the third time you beat me too it ! |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to tubbynet
Still missed my point. What is relevant here is how they are funding, not why.
The why is debatable, the how is not. The fact that you don't understand the difference is pretty it telling.
Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in, nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).
My alleged contradiction is nothing but your inability to read and/or think critically.
From my original post out:
but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by DataRiker:Anyone has the right to fund what they believe in right, and most do because they have a vested interest in the outcome of what is being lobbied for.
nobody had the right to fraudulently mislead people (astroturf).
i never said google was astroturfing (pot, meet kettle). in fact, while funchords  is not an official spokesman, if google was "astroturfing" his group, i'm pretty sure they'd want to keep it a secret, or at least hide it from a pretty popular site for people interested in the sort of thing that is being "astroturfed".
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
| Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by DataRiker:Yes, you finally get it after intentionally misrepresenting what I said 3 times. apparently you *assumed* that by having a vested interest in the outcome, i meant astroturfing.
but you are more than welcome to criticize *my* comprehension ability.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | During your original statement you supposed that if somebody is investing money for a cause there must be some return ( you did use the general construct "you")
My response was this:
"The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant"
Which is true. Again a counter example would be the Gates foundation. (there are countless, but that's an easy one)
Now on to the troubling part for you, my next statement:
In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.
I did notice your convenient omission of "In this case"
Something tells me you comprehended my original point just fine but rather then debate on the merits you took the low road. |
|
1 edit | reply to funchords
Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join? Minor funder Rob? Hah! Eric Schmidt gave you guys $1 million and got a board seat.
Google donates more than $450 million in free adwords through Google.org to 501(c)3's. How many of them are carrying the Goog's water? They admit that Google.org was created as a for-profit rather than a non-profit specifically so they could lobby on policy issues without all that messy non-profit disclosure silliness. They have never released who this money is going to... And not only that, as a condition of receiving the free adwords goodies, the recipients are contractually prevented from disclosing the terms and conditions of the goodies. So much for all that talk of transparency.
That would be the equivalent of cablecos donating $450 million in free air time on their stations for public policy groups to advertise in support of cable issues. I could only imagine the hew and cry from NAF and others if that were the case. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Shheesh :
Minor funder Rob? Hah! Eric Schmidt gave you guys $1 million and got a board seat. If Google wants to give money, Google can give the money and it would give it to something better targeted than New America Foundation -- which mostly concerns itself with education, health care, foreign policy, and etc..
I admit I'm not sophisticated in the non-profit operations, including mine, but if Google was really pushing its NN agenda vs. Schmidt following his personal public policy interests, why dilute that support by being a general contributor to NAF? Why not donate to someone who is only working on tech and privacy issues?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ |
|
