7 ms·

The fact that Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Wiki didn't promote or get involved with this REALLY hurt the cause... To many (read: The Majority) of people the above com

The fact that Google/Yahoo/Facebook/Wiki didn't promote or get involved with this REALLY hurt the cause... To many (read: The Majority) of people the above companies are the internet. In the same way the people who think this way used to think AOL was The Internet (Capitals important). It really is sad that this seems to be true and that a couple companies have so much influence on what the internet is and does. But it really did make it easy to downplay the whole thing by saying "If it was so important why didn't Google get involved?"

chriswarbo 13y ago
If you're going to complain about the meaning of words, you should at least try to use them properly yourself. Lowercase "internet" refers to any network of networks, for example a router which lets machines connected via Ethernet talk to machines connected via WiFi. Capitalised "Internet" is a proper noun referring to a particular network of networks which began life as the ARPANET. "Wiki" refers to user-generated Web sites in the style of WikiWikiWeb; since you put it in a list of Web sites/companies, I'll presume you meant "Wikipedia", which is a particular Wiki. So whilst AOL, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Wikipedia aren't "The Internet", at least your hypothetical "Majority" have enough respect for the Internet to refer to it by name.
- ne0codex 13y ago
  That is a really pedantic response that completely misses the point. You can't deny that there wasn't any real, marketed involvement used by the top Internet companies to promote the cause. Yes, the execution of this topic's awareness was very lackluster, so what exactly is your point?
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Apologies for using a shorthand (Wiki) for something that was clearly referencing the parent post (Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.)... Sorry to ruffle your e-feathers over such a minor thing. For the record I wasn't 'complaining about words' I was pointing out that the lack of involvement by major players on the internet was a huge detriment to this cause because it failed to reach the 'less advanced' (and arguable majority of) users of the internet.
- mads 13y ago
  Classic HN answer
  - GrinningFool 13y ago
    I have to disagree. One of the things I like about HN is that grammar/usage nazi responses seeem to occur at a lower rate than just about anywhere else. Even better - the speed of downmodding is directly proportionate to the quantity of pedanticism present.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      +1 I know it because my English are poor.
      - wavefunction 13y ago
        I don't know, you used "poor" instead of "bad" so you've already got a leg-up on a lot of native speakers.
        atmosx 13y ago
        Oh that's a good thing[1], I guess :-). [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+leg+up+on http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+leg+up+on
- marincounty 13y ago
  Why is this comment blacked out? I don't know who it is but, i don't like censorship. Maybe--it something with my browser? I'm kinda a new user. I knew nothing about hell banning until I spent some time here.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Because it has been downvoted to oblivion. HN is a "community" and there are unwritten rules that apply. Being deliberately impolite, attacking another users grammar and not views (especially when the topic is not related to the English language) can have that effect. Generally speaking, HN promotes constructive criticism and bashes trolling in direct or indirect ways.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    The comment was down voted to the point that it is not 'visible' (you can highlight the text to read it). For more info check out: http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted The FAQ there may be useful for you as a new user in general. :) Enjoy HN
  - shultays 13y ago
    Grammar Nazis are not really that interesting.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
f_salmon 13y ago
> "If it was so important why didn't Google get involved?" Maybe because participating also means "telling people that they're constantly being monitored" (and further raising the perceived seriousness of the issue). And maybe the only solution to escape the madness is to simply drop big parts of the currently available technology. Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/AOL/etc are after your money, they only protect your rights if it means "more money", not if it threatens to impact their profit. So they have no ($$$) incentive to raise the issue. (Our culture is still immature, it favors money over ethical values.)
- bad_user 13y ago
  > Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/AOL/etc are after your money, they only protect your rights if it means "more money", not if it threatens to impact their profit. That's a wild generalization and baseless accusation. First of all, collaborating with the NSA brings nothing to their bottom line, only infrastructure costs. Second, they are forbidden to be honest about NSA's demands and therefore this has hurt their image in the international market-place. Maybe most of us were aware that our communications are intercepted, but we had no idea to what extent that happens. As a non-US citizen, I now think twice about collaborating with US-based companies. And it's not because I fear the NSA, I really don't, but rather because I'm thinking that the same backdoors these companies were forced to build can be discovered and used by other organizations that may be closer to home. And even worse than that - as a non-US citizen I am not represented by any of your officials and suing anybody in the US would be totally unfeasible because of costs. The only thing I can do is to loudly complain about it on the Internet or to my acquaintances and that's about it. If it were my own government doing this shit - at the very least I'd have other options. Make no mistake - the credibility of all US-based companies suffers and because of this you will see in the following years a lot of (1) proposals for country-wide Intranets, (2) governments switching to their own forks of open-source software and (3) businesses switching to local software providers and so on. You can already see signs of this happening and it's precisely companies like Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo that will take the biggest hit. And I fear that US citizens and officials aren't taking this seriously - as if us, non-US citizens should have expected this surveillance, without thinking that the US placed itself as the guardian of the Internet, that trust has now been eroded and the effects (e.g. country-wide Intranets, local software achieving monopoly by government intervention, etc) will be negative for everybody. EDIT: speak of the devil - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm
jebus989 13y ago
So the press has picked up Wikipedia didn't get involved but what actually happened was: * Jimmy Wales posted on his talk page inviting discussion on the issue [0] * There was support for having articles on the main page all be related in some way to the topic of mass surveillance [0] * A handful of editors then made a subpage and began plans for a request for comment (RfC)... [1] Then said handful of people made a series of bungles and strange decisions (like naming the proposal "Surveillance awareness day" instead of associating with the protest) and ultimately didn't bring the RfC to the community for proper discussion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_155#The_Day_We_Fight_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Surveillance_awarene... (see history, talk page) TL;DR Wikipedia didn't decide not to get involved in the protest, 2 or 3 editors dawdled and made bad decisions until we ran out of time to discuss it.
- eli 13y ago
  Every time I read something about "behind the scenes" at Wikipedia, I'm glad that I never really got involved.
  - blowski 13y ago
    I imagine 'behind the scenes' at most organisations is a nightmare. My experience of the folks at Wikipedia is that they are nice bunch of folks, achieving really amazing stuff with a minuscule budget. Due to their non-monetary goals, total reliance on volunteers, and transparent structure, they are more like the UN than Google, which inevitably leads to weird arguments.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      In 2013, Wikimedia got over $44M in contributions. I'd not call that minuscule. Of course, they have huge site, huge traffic, etc. - but that doesn't make $44M minuscule.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
saalweachter 13y ago
I don't like it when corporations interject themselves into politics. This goes for companies that support my politics as well as companies which oppose them.
- f_salmon 13y ago
  Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying", but is nothing other than corruption that's apparently accepted by the voter/citizen.)
  - davidw 13y ago
    > Corporations literally ARE the government Literally? I didn't know that. It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.
    - zipdog 13y ago
      Harmful to a few internet companies, but beneficial to other US companies. The leaks have identified that the NSA conducts industrial espionage to the benefit of US companies. That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        What are these "other, larger US companies"? Apple and Google are two of the largest US companies by market cap.
        zipdog 13y ago
        Good point. I was thinking in terms of workforce, influence and global reach, but Goog and Apple have that too. (Made edit to original)
mempko 13y ago
The problem is those companies are involved in mass spying, so I suspect they knew which side their toast is buttered.

chriswarbo 13y ago

If you're going to complain about the meaning of words, you should at least try to use them properly yourself. Lowercase "internet" refers to any network of networks, for example a router which lets machines connected via Ethernet talk to machines connected via WiFi. Capitalised "Internet" is a proper noun referring to a particular network of networks which began life as the ARPANET. "Wiki" refers to user-generated Web sites in the style of WikiWikiWeb; since you put it in a list of Web sites/companies, I'll presume you meant "Wikipedia", which is a particular Wiki. So whilst AOL, Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Wikipedia aren't "The Internet", at least your hypothetical "Majority" have enough respect for the Internet to refer to it by name.

ne0codex 13y ago
That is a really pedantic response that completely misses the point. You can't deny that there wasn't any real, marketed involvement used by the top Internet companies to promote the cause. Yes, the execution of this topic's awareness was very lackluster, so what exactly is your point?
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Apologies for using a shorthand (Wiki) for something that was clearly referencing the parent post (Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc.)... Sorry to ruffle your e-feathers over such a minor thing. For the record I wasn't 'complaining about words' I was pointing out that the lack of involvement by major players on the internet was a huge detriment to this cause because it failed to reach the 'less advanced' (and arguable majority of) users of the internet.
mads 13y ago
Classic HN answer
- GrinningFool 13y ago
  I have to disagree. One of the things I like about HN is that grammar/usage nazi responses seeem to occur at a lower rate than just about anywhere else. Even better - the speed of downmodding is directly proportionate to the quantity of pedanticism present.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    +1 I know it because my English are poor.
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      I don't know, you used "poor" instead of "bad" so you've already got a leg-up on a lot of native speakers.
      - atmosx 13y ago
        Oh that's a good thing[1], I guess :-). [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+leg+up+on http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+leg+up+on
marincounty 13y ago
Why is this comment blacked out? I don't know who it is but, i don't like censorship. Maybe--it something with my browser? I'm kinda a new user. I knew nothing about hell banning until I spent some time here.
- atmosx 13y ago
  Because it has been downvoted to oblivion. HN is a "community" and there are unwritten rules that apply. Being deliberately impolite, attacking another users grammar and not views (especially when the topic is not related to the English language) can have that effect. Generally speaking, HN promotes constructive criticism and bashes trolling in direct or indirect ways.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  The comment was down voted to the point that it is not 'visible' (you can highlight the text to read it). For more info check out: http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+Unofficial+HN+FAQ#downvoted The FAQ there may be useful for you as a new user in general. :) Enjoy HN
- shultays 13y ago
  Grammar Nazis are not really that interesting.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

f_salmon 13y ago

> "If it was so important why didn't Google get involved?" Maybe because participating also means "telling people that they're constantly being monitored" (and further raising the perceived seriousness of the issue). And maybe the only solution to escape the madness is to simply drop big parts of the currently available technology. Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/AOL/etc are after your money, they only protect your rights if it means "more money", not if it threatens to impact their profit. So they have no ($$$) incentive to raise the issue. (Our culture is still immature, it favors money over ethical values.)

bad_user 13y ago
> Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/AOL/etc are after your money, they only protect your rights if it means "more money", not if it threatens to impact their profit. That's a wild generalization and baseless accusation. First of all, collaborating with the NSA brings nothing to their bottom line, only infrastructure costs. Second, they are forbidden to be honest about NSA's demands and therefore this has hurt their image in the international market-place. Maybe most of us were aware that our communications are intercepted, but we had no idea to what extent that happens. As a non-US citizen, I now think twice about collaborating with US-based companies. And it's not because I fear the NSA, I really don't, but rather because I'm thinking that the same backdoors these companies were forced to build can be discovered and used by other organizations that may be closer to home. And even worse than that - as a non-US citizen I am not represented by any of your officials and suing anybody in the US would be totally unfeasible because of costs. The only thing I can do is to loudly complain about it on the Internet or to my acquaintances and that's about it. If it were my own government doing this shit - at the very least I'd have other options. Make no mistake - the credibility of all US-based companies suffers and because of this you will see in the following years a lot of (1) proposals for country-wide Intranets, (2) governments switching to their own forks of open-source software and (3) businesses switching to local software providers and so on. You can already see signs of this happening and it's precisely companies like Apple/Google/Microsoft/Yahoo that will take the biggest hit. And I fear that US citizens and officials aren't taking this seriously - as if us, non-US citizens should have expected this surveillance, without thinking that the US placed itself as the guardian of the Internet, that trust has now been eroded and the effects (e.g. country-wide Intranets, local software achieving monopoly by government intervention, etc) will be negative for everybody. EDIT: speak of the devil - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm

jebus989 13y ago

So the press has picked up Wikipedia didn't get involved but what actually happened was: * Jimmy Wales posted on his talk page inviting discussion on the issue [0] * There was support for having articles on the main page all be related in some way to the topic of mass surveillance [0] * A handful of editors then made a subpage and began plans for a request for comment (RfC)... [1] Then said handful of people made a series of bungles and strange decisions (like naming the proposal "Surveillance awareness day" instead of associating with the protest) and ultimately didn't bring the RfC to the community for proper discussion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_155#The_Day_We_Fight_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Surveillance_awareness_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Surveillance_awarene... (see history, talk page) TL;DR Wikipedia didn't decide not to get involved in the protest, 2 or 3 editors dawdled and made bad decisions until we ran out of time to discuss it.

eli 13y ago
Every time I read something about "behind the scenes" at Wikipedia, I'm glad that I never really got involved.
- blowski 13y ago
  I imagine 'behind the scenes' at most organisations is a nightmare. My experience of the folks at Wikipedia is that they are nice bunch of folks, achieving really amazing stuff with a minuscule budget. Due to their non-monetary goals, total reliance on volunteers, and transparent structure, they are more like the UN than Google, which inevitably leads to weird arguments.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    In 2013, Wikimedia got over $44M in contributions. I'd not call that minuscule. Of course, they have huge site, huge traffic, etc. - but that doesn't make $44M minuscule.
ItendToDisagree 13y ago

saalweachter 13y ago

I don't like it when corporations interject themselves into politics. This goes for companies that support my politics as well as companies which oppose them.

f_salmon 13y ago
Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying", but is nothing other than corruption that's apparently accepted by the voter/citizen.)
- davidw 13y ago
  > Corporations literally ARE the government Literally? I didn't know that. It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.
  - zipdog 13y ago
    Harmful to a few internet companies, but beneficial to other US companies. The leaks have identified that the NSA conducts industrial espionage to the benefit of US companies. That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      What are these "other, larger US companies"? Apple and Google are two of the largest US companies by market cap.
      - zipdog 13y ago
        Good point. I was thinking in terms of workforce, influence and global reach, but Goog and Apple have that too. (Made edit to original)

mempko 13y ago

The problem is those companies are involved in mass spying, so I suspect they knew which side their toast is buttered.