When Kevin Rudd successfully ran against John Howard it was widely claimed there was very little difference between them. Both were said to be in the mainstream and the distinctions between them one of style rather than fundamentals. But if there were no difference there would have been no point in the elections. Today, one of those possible differences may have emerged. The Herald Sun reports that “Australia will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the Internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter. The plan was first created as a way to combat child pornography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.”
And now, riding up in order to save the world from the creeping shadow of censorship comes the cavalry. Or should that have been the Calvary? “US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.” This coalition is called the Global Network Initiative. Eweek writer Larry Seltzer says:
There’s no shortage of do-gooders struggling to protect the people’s rights on the Internet. The latest entry may be different: The Global Network Initiative is a group of companies that have agreed to a code of conduct for protecting their users’ rights. The participants include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and a collection of others—mostly academics and human rights NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). The NGOs overlap some with the do-gooders I mentioned, but it’s the inclusion of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo that makes this interesting. What are they actually committing to? Is this just PR for them or are they really going to make tough decisions about doing business in repressive countries not based solely on maximizing profit?
But I beg to disagree with Seltzer, it’s the list of NGOs or do-gooders that make it interesting. The Global Network Initiative is headed by Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. The participants include:
- Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California
- Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
- Boston Common Asset Management
- Calvert Group
- Center for Democracy & Technology
- Committee to Protect Journalists
- Domini Social Investments LLC
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- F&C Asset Management
- Google Inc.
- Human Rights First
- Human Rights in China
- Human Rights Watch
- International Business Leaders Forum
- Internews
- KLD Research & Analytics, Inc.
- Microsoft Corp.
- Rebecca MacKinnon, Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong
- Research Center for Information Law, University of St. Gallen
- Trillium Asset Management
- United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights (observer status)
- University of California, Berkeley School of Information
- World Press Freedom Committee
- Yahoo! Inc.
The list highlights what I’d like to call the “NGO gap” between the liberal and conservative side of politics. It’s a common misconception that “do-gooders” are engaged in ‘doing good’, ie operating soup kitchens, ministering to the sick, paying the legal fees of the downtrodden. In reality the vast bulk of do-gooding consists of advocacy, a catch-all phrase to cover lobbying, pamphleteering, media operations, educational curriculum building, and similar undertakings in the pursuit of their pet causes. Given enough time the advocacy of the do-gooders will inevitably set the public agenda. Anyone who doubts that simply has to recall the phrase “global warming”.
Whenever a critical public issue emerges, the advocates will be there. So when an alliance to defend the Internet against the encroachments of government censorship is created it will be dollars to donuts that the do-gooders will be there. That’s not to say that none of the Global Network Initiative’s goals are laudable; it would be a key place to build alliances, but which and how many conservative advocacy organizations would be available to sit at the table?
While the Left can hardly be blamed for its long heritage of organization, conservatives cannot continue to leave advocacy to amateurs and part-timers. To do that would be to opt out of the game. The fundamental freedoms of speech may soon be under serious attack. And if that sounds too alarmist, the WSJ makes the argument that this November the “planets have aligned” and the nation is at an historic fork in the road. If you don’t mind Google and the do-gooders being there to lead us, then relax. Otherwise, get out and organize.
Maybe it’s our fault we’ve got day jobs. Or maybe we’re just making excuses.
Tip Jar
Isn’t Google already helping to facilitate China’s censorship? They just want to play both sides of the street?
Wretchard:
Let me add the final quote from Henninger’s WSJ piece so we know what we will get when the Google and MSFT do-gooders (the “asset-safe rich” are in control:
Many voters — progressive Democrats, the asset-safe rich, academics and college students — regard this as where America should go. They explicitly want America’s great natural energies transferred away from unwieldy economic competition and toward social construction. They want the U.S. to reduce its “footprint” in the world. Monies saved by stepping down from superpower status can be reprogrammed into “investments” (a favorite Obama word) in a vast Euro-style hammock of social protection programs.
One wishes John McCain had been better able to make clear what the truly “historic” meaning of Tuesday’s vote is. Once it’s done, it’s done.
I think Google (and Microsoft) have got a lot of heat for their Chinese aid and assistance. My hit is that they’re trying to hide behind all these other groups in standing up to China, or at least in modifying whatever they’ve been doing that has made so many people really angry with them.
Regarding the list Wretchard shows above you just KNOW that “hate speech” is going to be thrown out there real soon now, and is probably the bottom-line sole reason for the whole project. Especially when you have both Human Rights Watch *and* the UN involved. The UN has its own “hate speech” initiative its been trying to get off the ground for a year or two now, and everyone has been successfully ignoring it; this will be their camel’s nose under the tent.
I can’t believe Rudd is throwing in with this daft idea so readily … unless he thinks he’s going to ride the wild Chinese tiger and make it go where he wants it to go. And Rudd just does not look like a tiger-rider to me.
So much for the free flow of ideas. So glad that there are such noble people out there to protect us from our worst impulses, like free speech.
There is definetly the hint of “double-plus ungood” about this whole enterprise. Interesting that the usual suspects that were so alarmed by the NSA digitally searching e-mail messages, will probably be blandly agreeable to something like the GNI doing digital monitoring and censoring of internet traffic, searching for key words and phrases used together.
So much for the free flow of ideas. E. Nigma
E. Take a look at this quote from Sarah P., disillusioned Obama Campaign worker on the Hillbuzz blog :
“Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.”
Of course this is all done in the name of “uniting the country” and ‘reaching across the aisle’. A little lying, voter suppression and “skewing the polls” never hurt anyone, particularly when it’s done in the name of a righteous cause, that being Obama.
Wretchard: “but which and how many conservative advocacy organizations would be available to sit at the table?” has in it the presumption that conservatism is now wholly liberal.
Time and again it is clear that the “don’t upset the boat” wing of conservatism has its hand on the overall movement’s rudder. And I can’t shake the feeling that our admirals all have something in common with Benedict Arnold.
Should we get the reprieve in this election that I expect, conservatives who are truly concerned for traditions such as free speech will be thinking about climbing aboard a CLASSICAL LIBERAL ship. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am tired of putting my back into the oars lest the enemy boat overtake us as the captain refuses to shed ballast.
Yes Hate Speech for criticizing Islam, Jihad, or “the One” but free reign for Osama. Or Obama.
As for what can be done about it?
You can’t beat the lead time to out-organize the Left. What you can do is poison the waters.
DEMAND that “leftist” and “anti-American,” and “anti-Christian,” and “pro-Abortion” and “anti-Gun Rights” and “anti-Conservative” speech be CENSORED AS WELL.
These people are not going away. The only way to make them switch of the censorship gig is to make it so bad that THEY lose more than they GAIN.
So, partner with Japan to CENSOR ANTI-WHALING speech. Partner with the Catholic Church to DEMAND CENSORSHIP of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian speech. Partner with Scientologists to DEMAND CENSORSHIP of anti-Scientologist speech. And so on.
Poison Pill.
How would one “skew the polls” if the calling is a nationwide random sample? You could buy off the pollsters themselves, but beyond that what?
As for salting comments, well again it’d require a pretty big campaign budget and I’m not sure the “cost per vote” would be worth it compared to conventional advertising and get out the vote methods. And the contention that “it works” isn’t terribly convincing. Didn’t work on me. I’d be inclined to think the comment itself was salting.
Having the entire MSM in your back pocket is a lot bigger ace in the hole. And even that can backfire.
You can’t beat the lead time to out-organize the Left. What you can do is poison the waters.
Once you start trying to match the fanaticism of the left then everything becomes a race to the bottom, which is pointless because the Left can always go lower than you can. They can win the Limbo Rock dance contest everytime.
The answer to the problem is a return to the center and a removal of the worst causes of extremism. One of those causes is the existence of a “God Button” which a supremely powerful government apparatus would represent. Such an object would be an irresistible attraction to ambitious men. Checks and balances are there in part to prevent the development of the God Button.
But poisoning things isn’t the answer. Turning Pajamas Media into the Daily Kos isn’t part of the solution, it will be part of the madness.
All this talk of not becoming like our opponents (to be kind) reminds me of my father’s advice, “He who takes the high ground makes a darn fine target.”
@David Levine
Phili, Albuquerque,
UMass, Vashon Island, Ireland?
@Picket
Sorry not from any of those.
As someone in this industry… You have no idea how real this issue is and how many state attorney generals want to replicate the Australian model here, to save the children (oh, and prevent free speech). It is extremely disturbing.
@Joe
What’s the case against parental control – or control at the “end of the pipe”?
It has always fascinated me that most people think non-profits (aka NGOs) are good, and for-profits are bad.
In my experience, non-profits are fundamentally no different than for-profits. Both types of organizations require “profit” to survive; one calls it “profit,” the other “change in net assets.” Both types of organizations are subject to the same human vices, be they greed, pride, lust, gluttony, envy or the other two deadly ones. And both types of organizations have noble, virtuous, productive, and hard working people.
So, at the end of the day, the only difference between them is their Federal tax status. And since when is the Federal Government a reliable arbiter of morality?
L3
How Reason Works
What if Obama had the strongest record of bipartisanship in the Senate, with major bills to his credit like the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign reform, the 2003 McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship and the 2007 McCain-Kennedy immigration reform acts.
What if McCain had the most extreme partisan voting record in the Senate?
What if Obama offered a broad, sensible energy policy that embraced both emerging and current resources, including building the greenest power plants possible with nukes?
What if McCain declared that the nuclear waste technology we’ve invested hundreds of billions in over the last three decades is unacceptable, and refused to build nukes until we invent something better than Yucca Mountain?
What if Obama offered sensible tax policies that have historically led to healthy business growth and financial freedom for more Americans?
What if McCain promised to cut taxes for 95% of us while proposing almost a trillion dollars in new spending?
What if Obama had called for reform and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006 that could have prevented the current financial collapse, only to have his efforts squashed by the opposition party?
What if McCain was the second highest recipient of political donations from Fannie and Freddie in his short Senate career, and had the former head of Freddie heading up his VP-vetting team, and the WaPo published the fact that the disgraced former head of Fannie was a financial advisor to his campaign?
What if Obama had been the leading supporter of the surge strategy that has won the war in Iraq?
What if McCain’s primary claim to fame was his leading the charge to lose the war by withdrawing all our forces in Iraq where Al Qaeda declared their new caliphate?
What if Michelle Obama devoted her time and wealth to charitable organizations over the last couple of decades, and she adopted a Bangladeshi girl with a cleft palate on a visit to one of Mother Teresa’s orphanages?
What if Cindy McCain got a $200,000 raise in her job as a Community Relations Director in a hospital when her husband became a Senator, and once in the Senate her husband put in a $1M earmark for her employer U of Chi Hospital, and she declared that when her husband won the nomination for Presidency was the first time she was really proud of her country?
What if Joe Biden had a proven record of opposing his own party and winning, and confronting Big Oil and winning, and sharing the revenues he levied on Big Oil with the citizens of his state?
What if Sarah Palin imagined we and the French “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon” and said President Roosevelt “went on TV in 1929″ (before TV existed) to talk to Americans about the Depression (before FDR became President in 1933)?
Well, hell, I’d vote for Obama. There’s nothing racist about it.
As a rule, leftists organize to cause events to happen. They often spend so much time planning the future that they don’t get around to doing anything to implement those plans. The very emphasis on planning among leftists makes them intrinsically vulnerable whenever they need to think on their feet. Historically, the Left’s main weakness is its inability to react quickly to events.
If leftists were smart, they wouldn’t hesitate to criticize Obama whenever he makes a boneheaded decision. As it is, I expect the Left to be chained to Obama and his legacy, with the effect that when he becomes wildly unpopular, his unpopularity will rub off on them. Ironically, any leftist and especially any Democrat who desires power in future decades would do well to keep his distance from Obama to keep that intense unpopularity from touching them.
The real historical institution building on the Left has been cultural — I dare say musical. I predict that once Obama gets perceived as “establishment”, people will feel a thirst for a new counterculture to emerge in opposition against stodgy hasbeens such as Bruce Springsteen, Joan Baez, and P Diddy.
There is building opposition to Rudd and Conroy’s plans to filter the internet – it started out 5 months ago on Whirlpool, in a thread titled “What Happened to ISP Level Filtering?” and has in the past week spilled over to discussions across many Australia blogs and forums. People are contacting their MPs and the traditional media, there’s a score card listing which MPs support it, and someone’s even organised protests for tomorrow.
Wretchard — I am not arguing for turning Belmont Club into Daily Kos.
As a practical matter there is no middle, there will be none, all conflicts escalate and this struggle between elites and the populists will only get ugly.
What I am arguing about is poisoning the well for a specific tactic that if implemented would erase all alternatives to the Hard Left.
If the tactic is unpalatable for them, they will abandon it. It’s an extension of MAD. If their suppression of all anti-Jihad sentiment also means suppression of things they want (for example, all pro-Gay speech for which you could find many sponsors at the UN, even Iran! for example) then the Left will abandon this means.
In fact, since the “nuclear weapon” can be used against THEM, and THEIR interests as well, it is an excellent tactic to escalate to deter. Cause the whole thing to be abandoned.
Protesting and writing letters and acting all “responsible” will simply see this place and all others like it shut down. Making the price for shutting down Belmont Club also be sending Andrew Sullivan to jail for pro-gay sentiment, and the like, because the Saudis, Iranians, and other OIC demand it, makes the whole “regulate the internet” movement shift to “never mind.”
Moreover, a Fabian tactic, of poisoning wells and denying forage for troops, is a proven way to gain space and time to marshal one’s own resources. Even the brilliant Hannibal could not conjure up food and water for his starving troops. As Fabian simply burnt the countryside, poisoned the wells, and left him to starve amidst his victories. Hannibal could not gain allies south of Rome, because Rome burnt them all out. Leaving him just stuck there.
For the Left and Obama — same thing. Leave them with nothing. A Fairness Doctrine that also shuts down THEIR speech. So they will abandon it and return to Carthage.
How many who read my last word of the first paragraph of comment @6 instantly comprehended that I was using liberal in its original meaning? Even at this site with so many intelligent contributors, how many of you had to double-think before seeing it? And in the general public, how many would not comprehend at all?
Already near every one in “The Excluded Middle” has had his language despoiled so that corrupted words and self-censoring fog his thinking.
Ironically conservative, unlike liberal, has not changed nearly so much because it already encompasses contradictory meanings. The majority of conservatives in revolutionary America were Tories. There were sound — conservative — reasons to stay loyal to King and home country and not make waves. It wasn’t the conservative movement which found edicts and taxes from afar that ran roughshod over the majority of colonists a problem worth revolting over.
The red coats coming to confiscate a few guns certainly seemed reasonable in NYC even then.
And if a few quid could buy for the crown the allegiance of some former heroes (like the guy in charge of a key premonitory point on the Hudson), well that’s just politics, right?
Where exactly, Belmont Club members, has conservative leadership been in protecting culture and language and even borders? And has that leadership been tolerant of lesser conservatives who disagreed with their positions? HELL NO!
THIS is the movement Wretchard worries has adequate seating the table?
So Wretchard, isn’t this news item simply the enemy boldly heralding its next step towards stemming opposition down there in Oz?
List Clubbers. W may be constrained, but today Americans are still permitted to remark at how liberal has been so perverted and narrow that contemporary liberalism tramples nearly all the rights that classical liberalism champions. You are free to note that conservative has always been a conflicted term. But the majority won’t know what the hell you are talking about, and so your warnings have been effectively neutralized.
That is in large part because the watchdogs of American heritage, including its language, told you they would conserve that heritage. They failed that vital function because they were willing to compromise. These “conservatives” found by compromising they instead conserved something even more important: their acceptance at “progressive” social circles and a seat at the table of power.
This is who Wretchard sees with a seat at the table in Oz. You too America?
That’s “Listen Clubbers.”
And that should be “promontory” point, not a premonitory. Spell checker dyslexia.
Wretchard:
If I understand all this correctly, it points to something that has become a problem, but shouldn’t be, and I lay the blame on the Left as usual.
Most of your list is of non-profits, and are not taxed, and Yahoo!, Microsoft, and google, which are, of course taxed.
Its seems right that independent companies, as with blogs, could set up their rules as they see fit. For example, blogs let people know that the blogs are private property and the owner can run things as he/she sees fit. (no profanity, flaming, no disrespect, or I don’t want you taking up bandwidth, you’re banned, cuz I feel like it, etc.)
Its a different story when company or nation(regime) colludes with the other for the purpose of restricting content.
The examples you gave are euthanasia, child pornography, adult content. While restricting those might, in theory, be a good pursuit, good intentions at government level is problematic, to say the least. Companies, independent of gummit can, and do, set rules that users agree to before service is granted. Thats O.K. with me.
The insight you offer is that the objective of NGO’s is advocacy; setting public policy.
The examples you gave of advocacy groups were ” lobbying, pamphleteering, media operations, educational curriculum building, and similar undertakings in the pursuit of their pet causes.” And of course “community organizing”.
Also, I get the gist as (basically) this: “If google can do it in [WITH] China, they can import it to the nearest place (Australia), and spread it further from there.”
In a previous thread, I took issue with unnamed conservatives based on the fact that I saw a self fulfilling pessimism in their posts as hoarding bandwidth. I do not object to their expressions of pessimism, and I am familiar with their reasons why: That is what blogs and the internet are for- to vent, and to verify if others see what you see.
In this election, all the usual permutations of the left gave one pause, and much cause and opportunity for discouragement. However yours is a case in point, because
1) Obamas greatest danger is in the judges he would appoint. (And the courts, for example will play a role in the issue you sight in this post.) and that makes the issue of who McCain appoints as judges (perhaps) the paramount issue of this campaign. (And the paramount issue, paradoxically, seems to get lost in this campaign in the neck onslaught of permutations and “penumbra”)
2) The first duty of a conservative is to vote against Democrat Party. McCain wasn’t my first choice either, but thats neither here nor there. Thats why I was more motivated to vote against Ubamas in primary elections by voting for Sen. Clinton because the Rep. nomination was already sown up by then.
So there is no excuse (re: Jordan video) for not voting against Ubamas, and for McCain (despite any differences one might have with him, we all do) or else we might be looking at having to organize in the streets.
But don’t count me out either: we just need to figure out how, where and when, (to organize) and then make appropriate commitments.
So how to be David to google’s Goliath? I don’t know, but recently I watched (again) Reverend Mannings sermons on, and about, Ubamas on U-Tube. He calls his ministry (abbreviated) ATLAH. In these semons he sites all the (sorry) abominations of Ubamas himself. But the most important one was this:
(paraphrased) -When this person Ubamas, and his followers (Dems) speak of his infallability, of him as a messiah, when they put a chip on their shoulder, because you aren’t supposed to say anything against him, cause he’s black, you get up and knock that chip right off their shoulder”.
(its far better when you hear Rev. Manning say it) But this is the point. This is the time, even when ubamas loses, to start knocking that chip off of the lefts shoulder. Because they have gotten far too far with it before he even got here, they’ve just miscalculated by thinking Ubamas had so much teflon, because he is supposed to be black, that we would back down once again. They have harruanged us to the point where we don’t give a good gd anymore if they level the tropes of Bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist/bigot at us anymore.
The time is right, but what, how, and where to do it?
the blogoshere has been an effective tool to bust up their lazy tv soaked strategy. But if they try to take this away from us, we may have to conduct diplomacy by different means.
They are not leftists in the old political sense. They are wannabe Cardinals of a secular international church with no god and no morals other than nihilistic pleasures.
I have been in the Google complex. It is a type of Disneyland. The bosses see themselves as giants on earth. The place has the smugness of Stanford, another university of groupthink.
So many of the young “ITnicks” are arrogant nerds. I live in a city that is full of them. But the IT people whom I work for are adults.
So many of the young “ITnicks” are arrogant nerds. I live in a city that is full of them. But the IT people whom I work for are adults.
The IT industry is schizophrenic – culturally and emotionally, IMO (never – ever – be humble around Them – Joyce Carol Oates could have written a book). Just when you make up your mind you will never – ever – when h^ll freezes over – attempt to communicate in a professional – and goal (four letter word)-oriented – manner with these closet aliens (add rampant and juvenile sexism to their list of dysfunctions), POW! an adult emerges from the netherworld. And you have to radically adjust your seething contempt meter.
As for the demographics, you can thank the IT lobby that heavily backed Clinton who revised the (4b-1?) Visa requirements. Ask Mad Fiddler for the details.
Isn’t ICANN considered to be an adult organization? Do they have any opinions on all of this or is it outside of their pay range?
ICANN sounds like another bureaucracy dead in water from the wiki entry. Authority to craft policy is disputed and talk includes recasting it as a branch of the UN (!)
This isn’t my subject so I should probably shut up, but it seems to me – given the nature of networks (frequently discussed on this board for their inherent properties as well as the analogues to the intersecting “matrices” of the modern world), but given the structure, operational control can be installed at any number of levels – the ISP is one, the end-user is another.
My question is who decided that the current end-user controls (so-called parental controls) were ineffective? The level/location of control will clearly dictate the motivation behind the policy.
However this evolves (good word that) I cannot see any *effective* way to control or filter internet content except at a very high level. Lower down in the network can always be circumvented. End-user controls give authority to the family.