On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER
rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:
Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:
Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte
Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries'
laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about
Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all
of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.
It cannot reasonably
If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP
would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they
access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality.
But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We
are talking
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Denny Vrandečić
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:
2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
That's like saying
printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net
Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 13:32:
Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does
work. :)
Sure, but ISP conducting Wikipedia Zero programs are. :) WMF is just
facilitating the activities being speculated about as potentially
illegal in some countries, I don't think
I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
Wikimedia movement and the WMF are not advocates for net neutrality,
but for free access to knowledge for everybody. Sure we want to
respect legal, moral and ethical standards while doing so, but the
only arguments I`ve read here where Wikipedia Zero could be at the
inverse of those standards is
Andreas:
The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
information market place.
Is this not our organizaitonal goal being
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
many water
This is a huge question and problem, however:
Andreas:
The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
public's best interest.
If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to
provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of
Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in
violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an
And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed?
As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed?
As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all
On 26/08/2013 18:14, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
that having a walled garden
2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com:
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed?
As said
On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com:
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it
It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from? how many
road networks?) but are
It's fine (and necessary) to hold ourselves to our own ethical standards,
but if we start trying to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal
in any country, we would run in to a lot of problems awfully fast. Trying
to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal somewhere in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
