Le 22/01/2012 20:00, Thomas Dalton a écrit : > On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. >> Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can >> simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to >> fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least >> I'm transparent about my biases. > I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't > worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more > than just monetary cost, of course.) > > You have to compare the cost of lobbying with the cost of not lobbying too. Censorship is the worst case against our mission ("knowledge for everyone"), so opposing it is a more worthy stance (less costy) than consenting it. These bills would set up a structure capable of the equivalent of the Great Firewall of China. We're not doing very good in China. That's one fifth of the planet already off-limit of our mission. There's no reason to let a country to shut off another whole part of mankind, in particular when you CAN do something.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
