On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, cyrano wrote:
>
>> Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
>> would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
>>
>>
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_b
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM, cyrano wrote:
> Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
> would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_by_country#Rankings
The U.S. is below most of Europe, and
Cyrano writes:
> Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
> would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
No, I wouldn't say that. Whenever you have enough human beings
assembled to create a political environment, you create the potential
for c
Le 22/01/2012 20:00, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
> On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin 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,
Le 22/01/2012 23:30, Mike Godwin a écrit :
> I think you imagine the blackout was the only thing that mattered in
> turning this legislation around. I can see why you might think that,
> but it is incorrect. Effective strategies for political change are
> implemented on many levels, and, in my vie
Mike, I don't know how's the political landscape is in the USA, but you
would say that there is few significative corruption and collusion?
Le 22/01/2012 21:16, Mike Godwin a écrit :
> Theo10011 writes:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> Am I wrong to assume, that lobbyi
Le 22/01/2012 20:18, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
> That's a good analogy. The approach often taken with studies about
> humanity is not to do experiments (because they can be harmful) but
> instead to examine things that have already happened or are happening
> anyway.
But then you won't act until stud
Le 22/01/2012 20:04, Mike Godwin a écrit :
> Another important lesson about arguing issues in Washington is that
> the fight is never over. The content companies have been at war with
> technology companies for decades over copyright issues. The fact that
> we were heard one day (or even one week)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > If you read I said "according to recent rulings"
>
> And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is
> not what the recent rulings said.
>
>
WP:OKAY
I hope I am st
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> If you read I said "according to recent rulings"
And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is
not what the recent rulings said.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> >> > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech
> an
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Brandon Harris wrote:
>
>I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP
> Law is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
>
>
I agree completely. I love Mike, why on earth would you think I was trying
to "school" him? I was talking about
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
>> > corporations are people
>>
>> Really? That's weird. W
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
> > corporations are people
>
> Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
Citizens United Vs. Federal E
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
>> pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
>> lost.
>
>
> Citation needed.
Here's a place to
On 1/22/12 7:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
P.S. Hi Jorm, whatcha think? ;)
I think that trying to school Mike Godwin on Citizens United and IP Law
is colossally bad idea. But entertaining.
--
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundat
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
>> http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
>>
>> Interesting. Any details?
>
> I thought we had already discussed t
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and
> corporations are people
Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@li
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> Why do you imagine money spent is the measure of influence? The
> pro-SOPA forces outspent the tech industry three-to-one and still
> lost.
>
Citation needed.
>
> Plus, If money is the measure of effectiveness, what does this say
> about
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the
> legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
> to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
> criticized by P
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:
> Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct
> lobbying" of related issues.
20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next
$500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap of $1 million.
The
I find this discussion interesting, although after Sue's clarification, it
might be moot. But I am going to continue it, until someone asks to take
this off-list.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> > Direct lobbying is re
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Direct lobbying is relatively new compared to the older forms of government
> and legislative influence. Strictly from a global south perspective, a
> similar form of unregulated advocacy and influence that I saw practiced here
> was called some
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only
> discussed on the SOPA pages on-wiki? Upshot: the Wikimedia Foundation
> engaged a DC firm, Dow Lohnes Government Strategies, to help us better
> understand SOPA/PIPA. They a
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
> >http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
> >
> > Interesting. Any details?
>
> I thought we had already discuss
On 22 January 2012 08:30, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
> http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
>
> Interesting. Any details?
I thought we had already discussed this here, but maybe it was only
discussed on the SOPA pages on-
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
>> various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
>> bullied by US jurisdiction.
>
>
> AIUI setting u
Hi Mike
I want to talk for a minute about lobbying in general, aside from the WMF
position on it. Because this might be one of those international issues
where perceptions might differ based on the culture and nationality of
someone. I know my position on this might be naive or flawed, but I know
On 22 January 2012 23:33, Theo10011 wrote:
> You may have heard the other stereotype about lobbying, that people who
> actually propose and support legislation like SOPA and PIPA are backed by
> lobbyist on behalf RIAA, MPAA and other large publishers, who have very
> deep pockets. It is not an un
Theo10011 writes:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
> professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
> client to politicians and then facilitate meetings and discussions in
> pri
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
> various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
> bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took considerable effort
and plann
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
> from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> >
> >
> > None of this requires that any nonprofit spend t
The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away,
is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some
costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts.
A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that
Google has already put into force, of dive
Mike, I noticed you have been equating "getting our voice heard" with
general lobbying. I am curious, mostly because I don't know what it
entails.
Am I wrong to assume, that lobbying involves approaching a registered,
professional consulting/lobbying firm in Washington who in turn, refer the
clien
On 22 January 2012 23:09, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
> Ah,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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.)
Ah, then the proper experiment would have been for Wikipedians
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
> from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
> But as I saw it, we already
> made our voice heard? When we blacked out Wikipedia for 24 hours, and saw
> some me
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
>> lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
>> wouldn't be doing it.
>
> Not only that, but of cou
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
> lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
> wouldn't be doing it.
Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink water to
sustain themsel
Mike, I completely understand your point on this and where you are coming
from. But you made a conflicting point yourself
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> None of this requires that any nonprofit spend the kind of lobbying
> dollars that Google spends -- even if that
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin wrote:
> At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed]
> here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
> as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
> NGOs that work in the Washington p
geni writes:
> What is highly questionable is if it a remotely worthwhile use of
> money. If Google's lobbyists can't impact SOPA and the like what makes
> the foundation think our can?
geni, as you may know, I spent more than a decade in Washington
working on public-policy issues for non-profits
Not least our public life-blood comes from the perception we're
independent, non-profit motivated, charitable, public welfare motivated,
grass-roots - not a "Silicon Valley giant". We have spent years explaining
we have just 75 staff and volunteer writers. We seek small donations to be
aligned to t
Google (and facebook and twitter etc) are large corporate organizations
with profits heavily on their mind (by law, they are responsible to their
shareholders). While they clearly have good reasons to be opposed to SOPA
and PIPA there reasons are not exactly the same as ours and in my opinion
we wo
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
> extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
Yes.
Why won't their interest align on the same side as everyone else ? The
issue is just SOPA and P
Actually, they're pretty similar. Don't forget that Google and Sergey
Brin's foundation are major income sources.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
> extent that you're willing to cede government affai
You trust GOOGLE's interests to align sufficiently with ours, to the
extent that you're willing to cede government affairs to them?
pb
On Sun Jan 22 12:48:50 2012, geni wrote:
> On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm
On 22 January 2012 18:00, Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>>
>> I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble.
>> I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed
>> to meddle in political lobbying?
>>
>> I'd appreciate if more kno
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct
> lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good
> and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual.
> They can
Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct
lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good
and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. They
can educate on that person - "so and so wants to do this" -
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
>
> I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble.
> I don't know about US laws, but are charitable organizations allowed
> to meddle in political lobbying?
>
> I'd appreciate if more knowledgeable people could give us some light.
It's perfec
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
> http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
>
> Interesting. Any details?
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
I suggest they not aim primarily against SOPA and PIPA
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
> http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
>
> Interesting. Any details?
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
> --
I'm worried that we may be getting in trouble.
I
Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0112/morningtech377.html
Interesting. Any details?
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubs
54 matches
Mail list logo
