next »

[isthisthingon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

Google and Verizon officially denied this story today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38576914/, but others such as a Verizon spokesman claim they've been in talks for 10 months in an attempt to permit Verizon to choose how they would like to charge for traffic, performance and all. 

But this quote from the NY Times story reminds me of perk-think

But, Mr. Fish added, “We are currently engaged in and committed to the negotiation process led by the F.C.C. We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet, and the investment and innovation required to sustain it.”

Fallacy in bold.  The implication here is the Internet will collapse without the support of Verizon and Google, our saviors.  Same crap we parrot about "protecting" innovation in general.  Faith-based horse poop.  The Internets were brought to you largely by hackers.  Why else would the option to "View Source" become standard in browsers?  It's the good folks from Apache who then worked for Netscape who became Mozilla.  Hackers and hippies.  Apache removed Microsoft's IIS chains which happily traded innovation and growth for better business margins.  Hardy har on them.  But Christ don't let Google and Verizon strap them back on 

[perkiset]

"perk-think." Wow man.

[isthisthingon]

ITTO-think is totally fair game as well   And ITTO-think is implied frequently, see Black and White thinking

But this particular brand of logic sounds so similar to perk logic: "We are optimistic this process will reach a consensus that can maintain an open Internet, and the investment and innovation required to sustain it."  As always, I'm aggressively challenging the assertion that some common good requires the support of some concentrated control structure and you're asserting that it's actually required, like innovation needs patent law to thrive, for example.

[nop_90]

Disgusting.
So rare that now days people will do evil without making a profit.
What happened to doing evil just for the joy of doing evil ?
A sad state of the world.

[Bompa]

Disgusting.
So rare that now days people will do evil without making a profit.
What happened to doing evil just for the joy of doing evil ?
A sad state of the world.

Classic nop-think.

 roflmao

[rcjordan]

So Wired, what do you REALLY think about Google's deal?

Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/

<added>
Jeff Jarvis ain't too happy with the Big G, either.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/08/10/internet-schminternet/

[isthisthingon]

@Carrier-Humping   

But for those who whine about Google doing evil on this one, yet own an iPhone, sorry but you've already declared this to be a non-evil practice.  Personally I think this move is a horrible dominance grab, just like Microsoft does all the time and just like Apple does all the time.  Of course Microsoft is the root of all evil and Apple has played off the Garden of Eden temptation with a bite out of an apple since the 70s, and clearly they stand for evil regardless of this thinly veiled reference to Adam and Eve and the fall of Man.

I say "evil" is hooey and these publicly traded money missions are just doing whatever it takes, regardless of who gets hurt, to win.  This is why the details of open source licensing are so important and shouldn't simply be swept under the rug of "hey, don't worry about it..."
Google doing a 180 on their long standing "principles" = 

Being surprised by this happening?