Pokerface

I disagree, but not wholly. I think that indexing services need to lay bare their criteria. Google doesn't have to hit on how it gets its results, but the public should know what they're getting and what they're not getting.

My thinking comes from looking up scholarly journals; back in the day, if I wanted something, I needed to choose the RIGHT index in order to find it; a medical journal index wouldn't have the information on Kant I needed. I knew this going in though, and picked my index accordingly. I think the same can be true of indexing services on the internet.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

AMosely

I think things are getting stretched here. Who ever said net neutrality applied to indexing services? From what I've read on the subject, non-neutrality has to do with priced QoS (quality of service), and only relates to ISP's and Tier-1 carriers - this has no bearing on indexing, editing, censoring or anything along those lines. To extend the neutrality debate to an indexing - or worse, a news service - is foolish. That's like saying we need congress to step in and regulate newspaper or magazine neutrality.

Furthermore, neutrality (or non-neutrality) is unrealistic in terms of implementation. QoS isn't that succesful across the Internet itself. Metropolitain(MAN)/ISP/Campus/Corporate networks are vastly different from the Internet itself. An WAN backbone router is much more like a race car - stripped down to bare essentials and built for speed - whereas a MAN router is typically feature-rich, heavy on ACLs, and may even contain QoS and other optimizing functions. The Internet is a diverse network - not just in terms of content but in architecture and design - to apply some kind of unifying theory to it would be so complicated as to be almost unimaginable.

This op-ed seems to support this line of thinking.
http://www.networkworld.com/columnis...06layland.html

leejo

I think the non-telelcoms would certainly like to make Net Neutrality a telecom-only issue, but if you consider Net Neutrality as a set of objectives and consider the elements that must be in place to achieve those objectives, then it does require either a wide set of indexing services with known properties like the model Poker mentioned, or neutral indexing services that do not create preferred levels of indexing or de-list sites for political reasons.

That's how I see it anyway. What's the point of net neutrality if the telelcoms pass bits through without discrimination at the physical layer but indexing services create the same situation NN is supposed to avoid? I don't understand the point of the legislation if we simply wind up with the same types of fragmentation.

AMosely

Exactly - there is no point. None of this will ever happen.

I do appreciate the hypothetical discussion, though - but I also disagree that indexing services can be included in the same model as the network operators. Indexing is akin to editorializing, which is protected as free speech. If indexing is deemed important to the public welfare, a better solution would be to fund an unbiased government indexer (where the library of congress is an excellent suggestion). Still, though - indexing and traffic routing are two totally different things.

Steeler

Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action, claims that the rumor of links between Google and his organization is false.

__________________

leejo

Uh...yeah. I call bs on that. Moveon may get lots of small donations, but it relies on the big underwriters like everyone else does. I've worked 10 years in non-profit fund-raising and everyone loves the major donors.

What I guess is going on is that Google didn't cut a check to Moveon, its executive management and lobbyists made contributions totalling roughly $1 million.

Steeler

Either way, I would like to see the evidence for that. All of this is conducted in opinion articles with no data or research to back up the claims. So how can we believe anything?

__________________

leejo

Well we know that George Soros gave $5 million to Moveon during the 04 election cycle. I remember seeing a chart in '04 of other very large gifts they received from similar regular joes. I'll poke around as time allows.

leejo

Speaking of campaign contributions, check out this list: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A

Look who has deep pockets and where the money goes. There is a giant machine in place to take money from the working class and dump it into the democratic party.

In the top 10 all time, giving a combined $179,859,844 are

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Service Employees International Union
National Education Assn
Laborers Union
Communications Workers of America
Teamsters Union

Exactly one group in the top 10 gives to conservatives, AT&T (also the only corporation), which has given $35,937,756 and probably has deeper pockets than all these other organizations combined.

Anyway. Sidetrack off.

Pokerface

The working class supports the democrats? Man, next you'll be telling me that corporations support republicans!

The "deep pockets" of unions... that's great. Unless that list has the NFLPA on it, very few of those workers have deep pockets of their own.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

leejo

I understand that the workers themselves don't have deep pockets, but the unions sure do!

And, I think you should look at the list carefully and understand the legend. Corporations do support Republicans, but more slightly, indicating that they're also supporting 40-ish % democrats, and with a TON less money.

AMosely

Awesome link - great data. It's fun to keep tabs on who's funding who or what.

This is a good thing - the republican party still believes in trickle-down economics, which has effectively lowered working class wages when inflation is factored in (http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html). The democratic party still offers the most hope for the American working class - I know, far from perfect, but far better than the alternative, which clearly screws the working class.

Kerostasis

You're missing something here:

The high giving numbers by the unions have NOTHING to do with whether or not the union WORKERS support the democratic party. All it means is that the union LEADERS support the democratic party. A solidly conservative union-worker still pays large sums in union dues, of which a substantial portion is then translated into democratic political donations. And that is what Leejo is getting at when he points out that there is a machine TAKING MONEY from the working class, and giving it to the Dems.

Excusing it by saying the country is better off with Dems in power is pathetic. If it's really that much better off with Dems in power, people are free to donate their own money to Dems, and theyre free to vote for Dems. But you know what? A lot of people disagree with you, and think the country is better off under the GOP. And they should be free to direct THEIR money and votes in that direction.

__________________

Steeler

You think a Democrat employee of a big Republican corporation is happy that his company is paying out to the Republican party?

__________________

Kerostasis

As long as the corporation isn't taking HIS money to do it, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Lets say you invest a large sum of money with someone, and earn a profit on it. When you get your profit back, do you take advice on how to spend it from the person you invested it with?

__________________