3 ms·

Why shouldn't someone publish their view?

by darawk 9y ago

simonh 9y ago
It can take a while to get used to the lingo: Professional person that agrees with you - expert. Professional person that disagrees with you - shill. I’m conflicted on this. I do not think the Obama era measures are the be all and end all of net neutrality legislation, but Trump’s blatant pro big business and anticompetitive instincts are always a threat to consumer interests. Whichever way we as individuals decide or lean, it’s always worth listening to both sides of the argument.
- dd36 9y ago
  Is it disagreement if it’s paid for? How’s it any different than an ad?
  - simonh 9y ago
    Suppose an attorney for the Electronic Frontier foundation posts an article or opinion piece on a digital rights legal issue. This has happened many times and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone call them a shill, yet they are a professional person paid to argue on these issues in public and in court. How is that different from advertising? How about legal experts on human rights? Environmental activism? Is anyone working for Greenpace as a lawyer or scientific adviser an environmentalist shill? If not, then how can we use that slur against people working for energy companies? I’m not some corporatist shill making this argument. I’m just making a liberal plea for tolerance and respect in public discourse. Legal experts on many different sides of many different debates have a reasonable expectation to have their opinions and arguments heard in public without harassment, abuse and intimidation. However there is a reasonable expectation of disclosure of such interests. The argument in this specific case seems to be n the amount of detail in the disclosure, but the fact is he was a Democrat appointee and he works for a law firm that represents Comcast. There was an attempt at some level of disclosure and he wasn’t actually acting as an attorney for Comcast. I don’t think this is as big a deal as is being made about it.
- matwood 9y ago
  I agree with you. The debate is a lot more nuanced, but you would never know that listening to the hyperbole from both sides. Someone can be completely for net neutrality, but against classifying ISPs as common carriers as the solution. The problem with using the FCC classification is that we can a) get flip flops like what just happened and b) it opens up ISPs to unknown potential regulation that in theory could slow down innovation (will the government start regulating pricing?). I thought this article from earlier this year did a pretty good job laying out the whole issue: https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-an... I support net neutrality, but would prefer a better long term solution than the FCC classification. Unfortunately, there is still no better law in place, but with the current energy level people should be calling their congress people to get something done.
danso 9y ago
Op-eds are generally understood to be opinions, often from stakeholders ina news/policy situation. The problem here is that the author's bio was apparently this: > Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. The Intercept's assertion appears to be that Leibovitz's affiliation with recent Comcast deals should be more prominently noted.
- eptcyka 9y ago
  I believe that opinions that some view as harmful should be given more light than they're currently receiving, however withholding this kind of information is actively harmful and WSJ should face repercussions. I'm doubtful they will.
masklinn 9y ago
The issue at hand is not that this view was published, but that the current and highly relevant affiliation of the author was obscured in the disclaimer: > Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. quoth TFA: > However, we do know Leibowitz’s primary broadband client: Comcast, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the net neutrality repeal. Furthermore that obscurant disclaimer is at the end of the op-ed rather than the introduction.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Why shouldn't someone publish their view?

by darawk 9y ago

Why shouldn't someone publish their view?

It can take a while to get used to the lingo: Professional person that agrees with you - expert. Professional person that disagrees with you - shill. I’m conflicted on this. I do not think the Obama era measures are the be all and end all of net neutrality legislation, but Trump’s blatant pro big business and anticompetitive instincts are always a threat to consumer interests. Whichever way we as individuals decide or lean, it’s always worth listening to both sides of the argument.

dd36 9y ago
Is it disagreement if it’s paid for? How’s it any different than an ad?
- simonh 9y ago
  Suppose an attorney for the Electronic Frontier foundation posts an article or opinion piece on a digital rights legal issue. This has happened many times and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone call them a shill, yet they are a professional person paid to argue on these issues in public and in court. How is that different from advertising? How about legal experts on human rights? Environmental activism? Is anyone working for Greenpace as a lawyer or scientific adviser an environmentalist shill? If not, then how can we use that slur against people working for energy companies? I’m not some corporatist shill making this argument. I’m just making a liberal plea for tolerance and respect in public discourse. Legal experts on many different sides of many different debates have a reasonable expectation to have their opinions and arguments heard in public without harassment, abuse and intimidation. However there is a reasonable expectation of disclosure of such interests. The argument in this specific case seems to be n the amount of detail in the disclosure, but the fact is he was a Democrat appointee and he works for a law firm that represents Comcast. There was an attempt at some level of disclosure and he wasn’t actually acting as an attorney for Comcast. I don’t think this is as big a deal as is being made about it.
matwood 9y ago
I agree with you. The debate is a lot more nuanced, but you would never know that listening to the hyperbole from both sides. Someone can be completely for net neutrality, but against classifying ISPs as common carriers as the solution. The problem with using the FCC classification is that we can a) get flip flops like what just happened and b) it opens up ISPs to unknown potential regulation that in theory could slow down innovation (will the government start regulating pricing?). I thought this article from earlier this year did a pretty good job laying out the whole issue: https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-and-regulation https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-tangled-web-of-net-neutrality-an... I support net neutrality, but would prefer a better long term solution than the FCC classification. Unfortunately, there is still no better law in place, but with the current energy level people should be calling their congress people to get something done.

danso 9y ago

Op-eds are generally understood to be opinions, often from stakeholders ina news/policy situation. The problem here is that the author's bio was apparently this: > Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. The Intercept's assertion appears to be that Leibovitz's affiliation with recent Comcast deals should be more prominently noted.

eptcyka 9y ago
I believe that opinions that some view as harmful should be given more light than they're currently receiving, however withholding this kind of information is actively harmful and WSJ should face repercussions. I'm doubtful they will.

masklinn 9y ago

The issue at hand is not that this view was published, but that the current and highly relevant affiliation of the author was obscured in the disclaimer: > Mr. Leibowitz was a Democratic commissioner at the FTC from 2004-13 and chairman beginning in 2009. As a partner at the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, he represents both technology companies and broadband providers. quoth TFA: > However, we do know Leibowitz’s primary broadband client: Comcast, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the net neutrality repeal. Furthermore that obscurant disclaimer is at the end of the op-ed rather than the introduction.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]