Its real. But while noble, the goal is to zero rate Wikipedia. And that helps foster and push the biases of the Wikipedia editors over the truth, because no alternative will be big enough to be zero rated. Its the same problem with zero rating anything - it immediately has a huge leg up on all competition. That will hurt competition. Its that simple.
You continue to apply the middle ground fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground You ignore all of the problems with the approach as suggested, those problems being lack of security, lack of anonymity, and likelihood for censorship.. You fail to understand that if facebook provides internet this way, it will disincentivize other companies from finding a different way. It is very likely to remain the only choice for the poor. AOL only failed because better options came along, and those options only came along because of the commercial benefits.
Subsidized rate- or data-limited access to the internet would achieve the same effects, could be done for similar cost. The significant difference is facebook won't be positioned to be the only ad provider to 2/3 of the world.
Thanks for admitting that internet.org is not the internet. As has been noted, subsidized free access has been done in the past. And nothing in that statement requires that facebook provide unlimited data or not perform reasonable network management. It only says that facebook shouldn't restrict what and how people try to view the internet. Its very important given Facebook's censorious past actions and the ease of censorship when there is a central gateway.
FACT: There are no ads within the Facebook experience on Internet.org. If revenue were the goal, Facebook would have focused resources on markets where online advertising is already thriving."
Note the weasel words. They are not saying there are not ads on internet.org, they are saying there are no ads on facebook on internet.org. But given all the site restrictions, I would bet getting your ads properly served is next to impossible. In fact this gem from the participation guidelines just about guarantees it:
But just because the internet.org Facebook is Ad-Free, doesn't mean Facebook isn't willing to offer their ad network to you.
That argument, besides being an ad hominim, is generally used to suggest that someone who could not replicate a result can not criticize someone who could. of course, just because I can't make complex dishes like a chef doesn't mean I can't tell you that there is too much pepper in the dish. The argument assumes that the result is objectively good, and that your subjective view is irrelevant. This fails because the result is often a subjective work, with subjective tastes being the only way to judge that work.
However, I fail to see how this argument applies, in any way, to the article at hand. Mike is commenting on a legal filing, and commenting on its merits.
A) have there been confirmations that the government has compromised a certificate Authority? B) Would a chinese of russian certificate authority neccisarily kowtow to the US Government? C) Without third party certification, How do we achieve security? Just taking the website's word for it wouldn't work...
WEll, to be realistic, if any time someone said a movie was 'Die Hard on a X' meant that movie was infringement, wed have a lot of infringement. (ref: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DieHardOnAnX) That's why initially Mike was thinking this was a non-infringement case.
The other 3 movies are only listed as a generic plot/story description, which is not infringement based on the idea/expression dichotomy. Godzilla is being considered infringed because all of the movie's promotion references Godzilla, and they used Godzilla in promotional art.
The Mazinger Z robot being used in the promotional image might also be infringement, particularly if that is the look they are going for and not just using it as a 'giant robot' placeholder.
My computer? Yeah it looks like I am running IPv4. both from the outside (google thinks i have an IPv4 address) and the inside (my computer and router are working IPv4, and have no IPv6 access). I mean if you had suggested a IPv4 VPN, maybe I might have been concerned, but too few ISPs even have IPv6 equipment, and have been dodging that upgrade for a decade.
Also, for your model to work, Id need to sign up with a Value added service vendor rather than my current ISP, I need to sign up for a plan that doesn't rate capacity, that vendor needs to somehow not be defined as an ISP by the FCC, And then that value added service provider needs to commit corporate seppuku by doing what ISPs have recognized is a bad idea, directly and obviously violate one of the 3 bright line tests. If ISPs really decided to only sell to VASPs, and require us to get the internet from those VASPs, either its going to be a competitive game, or a monopolistic one. If its a monopolistic one, the current FCC is unlikely to let that ride. If its a competitive one, someone is going to one up their competition by not violating the 3 'bright line' tests, and suddenly the entire dodge net neutrality game.
Again, what is hate speech? Mens rights activists attacking women in gaming certainly seems to qualify, but they will claim any discrimination against them is hate speech. Techdirt's "critics" claim that our calling the trolls is hate speech. Some would claim that criticizing the abusive policies enshrined in Shira law is hate speech. Some would claim that calling someone anti-choice is hate speech. The problem with "hate speech" is it is a subjective claim based on someone's feelings being hurt. To effectively outlaw hate speech without defining it as directed at a specific race or religion, you have to ban 'offensive' speech. And Techdirt and popehat has written again and again about the dangers of banning speech just because it is offensive.
Lying (aka false statements of fact) can be unprotected speech. See: libel and Defamation. Now, most of the time that is used, the speech is against a public figure for which there is a higher standard. And most of the 'lies' are actually protected statements of opinion no matter the subject of the lie.