Google-Verizon Pact Works Against a Free and Open Internet

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 9, 2010 4:41 PM

CONTACT: Free Press Liz Rose, Communications Director, 202-265-1490 x 32 Jenn Ettinger, Media Coordinator, 202-265-1490 x35

Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared

WASHINGTON - August 9 - In response to Google and Verizon's "policy framework" unveiled today, MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ColorofChange.org and Free Press, all members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, issued the following joint statement:
"The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared - it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled.
"They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they'll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks.
"It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road.
"Worse still, this pact would turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing complaints and unable to make rules of its own.
"This is not real Net Neutrality. And this pact would harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with our leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC should reject this deal, restore the authority of the agency that's supposed to protect Internet users, and safeguard Net Neutrality once and for all."

###

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net

A free and open internet is incredibly important for bloggers like me and SO MANY other voices that just would not be prioritized by some "tiered" system. I really can't stress this enough, we've got to fight this y'all, there are way too many spaces already which privilege corporations over actual people; especially marginalized people!  As many class issues as there are with access to the internet, it is, as best I can figure, our last real refuge for the free exchange of information for everyone in this country and that needs to be protected.

Does Yelp Manipulate Business Pages For It's Advertisers?

From the East Bay Express: Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0

Because they were often asked to advertise soon after receiving negative reviews, many of these business owners believe Yelp employees use such reviews as sales leads. Several, including John, even suspect Yelp employees of writing them. Indeed, Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. And in at least one documented instance, a business owner who refused to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee.

Many business owners, like John, feel so threatened by Yelp's power to harm their business that they declined to be interviewed unless their identities were concealed. (John is not the restaurant owner's real name.) Several business owners likened Yelp to the Mafia, and one said she feared its retaliation. "Every time I had a sales person call me and I said, 'Sorry, it doesn't make sense for me to do this,' ... then all of a sudden reviews start disappearing." To these mom-and-pop business owners, Yelp's sales tactics are coercive, unethical, and, possibly, illegal.

"That's the biggest scam in the Bay Area," John said. "It totally felt like a blackmail deal. I think they're doing anything to make a sale."

Yelp officials deny that they move negative reviews, although such allegations have surfaced many times before. The issue is even addressed on the web site's Frequently Asked Questions page. Chief Operating Officer Geoff Donaker said advertisers and sales representatives don't have the ability to move or remove negative reviews. "We wouldn't be in business very long if we started duping customers," he said.

But Donaker's denials are challenged by nine local business owners and also by a former contract employee who worked with Yelp in its early days. That person, who is still close to some Yelp employees and only agreed to be interviewed if granted anonymity, said several sales reps have told him they promised to move reviews to get businesses to advertise. "It's not illegal or unethical," he said they told him. "We're just helping the little guy. It doesn't hurt them, it benefits them."

Such tactics may be legal, but they clearly raise ethical concerns. Yelp touts its web site as consisting of "real people" writing "real reviews." The allegations of business owners who have tangled with the company suggest otherwise.

If Yelp indeed suppresses honest reviews in exchange for its advertisers' money, it is cheating users who expect genuine consumer feedback. Conversely, if Yelp demands payment to remove even dishonest reviews, then advertisers are being cheated.

One thing is certain: In both cases, Yelp benefits.

Who Cares if a Few Dykes Get Banned from Digg?

Via

Got your attention? Good. Recently I’ve become aware of a strange situation at Digg, where a few quality lesbian articles have been systematically buried and lesbian Diggers have been banned, with no response from Digg. Why should you care?

After reading this story, I got scared. I’m not a lesbian, but I care, because this is exactly the sort of things, we internet dwellers should be worried about. As content creators and consumers, we can’t allow de-democratization of the web. It will be the end of free speech on the web.

“It’s Democratic- the Majority of Diggers Don’t Care for this Content”
I’ve spoken with a few people on the subject, for the past couple of days, and this objection came up every time. I disagree. These stories never reached much over 20 Diggs, it would only take as many buries to make them disappear. The option to report a story also makes it quite easy to make it go away. To strengthen my point, that there is an alternative Digg, just type the term “gay rights” in the Digg search box, and look through an endless list of pro-gay stories, (too bad more than 95% haven’t risen above 2 Diggs).

“Well if it Wasn’t Porn, Why Did the Digg Staff Block it?”
That’s a great question! What the hell is the Digg team doing, blocking none-offensive material? And why would it ban its own users, if they were on the up-and-up? Stories by Gay Parents, a sub-blog at Parents.com, surly couldn't be porn, right?

So I come to a worrying conclusion: There are a few homophobic Diggers out there, burying stories and reporting gay Diggers, and Digg is either irresponsibly banning without checking the facts, or actively supporting homophobia. Either way, they are not dealing with this issue as I would, personally, see fit, of a social network.

It Scares The Shit Out of Me
And that’s why I care. Because if it’s gays, now, who’s to say blacks aren’t next? Asians? Hispanics? Jews? Women? And maybe it won’t be just Digg? Maybe all the other social networks? Maybe the whole of the web?

Am I over reacting? You tell me. Is there a difference between banning lesbians with lesbian-interest stories, or banning Jews with Jewish-interest stories? Diggers have told me of hateful, disturbing comments. A Short search could lead you to this seemingly innocent example.

Ban Digg!
Many of the gay community have opted to ban Digg, in protest. And my initial reaction was quite similar. But after turning it over in my mind, knowing I’m writing this article, an interesting idea popped into my head:

Don’t ban Digg!

Think of a workers strike: What would be more effective? If the strikers sat home and waited to be begged by their company to come back to work. Or if the strikers gathered around their company buildings, chanting and singing, till their throats are hoarse and they can’t sing any more?

I took the liberty of compiling a 100 Digg articles, which are of gay interest. I want every one reading this article, to follow these links and Digg every one of these stories. These are quality gay-targeted content- no porn, no spam. Some are fun, some are sad, some are political. I want to see gay stories take the front page of Digg! Maybe that’ll get the Digg team to acknowledge the situation, which has been inflaming gays and straights alike.

Don’t ban Digg- give it another voice! I’m sure not every Digg user is a homophobic. I know for a fact, there are plenty of us out there, who love to read this content, or at least want to know that the content is not being censored.

Please follow the link at top to her original post, and link list!!!!

I think this is important shit and we should work together on it!

Why is Net Neutrality Important?

Please watch this video, if you do not already understand the unbelievable importance of the neutrality of the internet.

Thank you Bint Alshamsa