<div dir="ltr">Interesting, Catherine. I appreciate your perspective. In your opinion, what's the solution to this problem?<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Yosem</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:47 AM Catherine Fitzpatrick <<a href="mailto:catfitz@verizon.net">catfitz@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">This "contract" was likely drafted by the NGO Access Now, which has worked on this for years and is associated with this effort. Access now is led by Andrew McLaughlin, formerly of Google, and Berkman and the Obama Administration and many other things, and Brett Solomon, the other Australian, who has been promoting these fuzzy but extremist views for years with little criticism.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">It is not a democratic exercise by any stretch of the imagination as NGOs, however much they are needed in society, are advocacy organizations, not democratic organizations, and this is not a legislative exercise by a democratically-elected Congress in a liberal democracy under the rule of law. I would prefer Congress as a drafting body than a group of hackers who support Snowden.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">In that sense, it's very good it is not binding because it comes out of the Benevolent Dictatorship hacker culture and warmed-over Google opportunism.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">There is nothing about protecting private property and copyright which are actually what made the Internet viable, such as it is.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Any effort involving "an Internet Bill of Rights" or "Guiding Principles" that sound like the UN should not succeed because it is not democratic or legitimate.</div><div dir="ltr"><br>Tim Berners-Lee engineered into the Internet its very flaws bothering people so much today: collectivism, lack of private property and copyright protection, "sharing of knowledge" uber alles, and</div><div dir="ltr">lack of privacy. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Catherine Fitzpatrick</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="gmail-m_5380592422558548218ydp3ccabf2ayahoo_quoted_5707054613">
<div style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(38,40,42)">
<div>
On Thursday, November 28, 2019, 12:19:55 PM EST, Thomas Delrue <<a href="mailto:thomas@epistulae.net" target="_blank">thomas@epistulae.net</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">On 11/24/19 10:31 PM, Yosem Companys wrote:<br clear="none">> The contract is non-binding, however. And funders and partners in the<br clear="none">> endeavor include Google and Facebook, whose data-collecting business<br clear="none">> models and sensation-rewarding algorithms have been blamed for<br clear="none">> exacerbating online toxicity.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I'm a little confused by the choice of words in the term "contract for<br clear="none">the web"... Can someone explain to me what exactly a non-binding<div id="gmail-m_5380592422558548218ydp3ccabf2ayqtfd47783"><br clear="none">contract is?</div><br clear="none">The first 7 words of the Wikipedia entry for 'contract' are literally "A<br clear="none">contract is a legally binding agreement". How can a 'legally binding<br clear="none">agreement' be non-binding?<br clear="none">MW has as its first entry for 'contract' the following "a binding<br clear="none">agreement between two or more persons or parties especially : one<br clear="none">legally enforceable".<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly will this do or accomplish if it<br clear="none">isn't binding, except to make some folks feel warm and fuzzy for signing<br clear="none">something that will be forgotten in a heartbeat?<br clear="none">Surely, this is nothing more than a PR stunt? It's about as vacuous as<br clear="none">the statement "Don't be evil" (by google) or "We care about your<br clear="none">privacy" (by facebook), no?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that TBL has started this conversation, as<br clear="none">it is one to be had. However, without the binding-ness, the good<br clear="none">intentions and desires, outlined in the 'contract', will go no-where.<br clear="none">Unfortunately, we don't need more conversation on this subject, we need<br clear="none">actual change, and that requires enforceability.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">If the purpose of making it non-enforceable was to make sure entities<br clear="none">like google or facebook signed as well, then I ask "why? Why do they<br clear="none">have to sign as well"? Especially if they are the highest probability<br clear="none">candidates to violate the intention of the document. Why would it have<br clear="none">been important for them to sign something that will make no difference?<br clear="none">Why not leave them excluded and let them be on display for the predatory<br clear="none">entities that they are?<div id="gmail-m_5380592422558548218ydp3ccabf2ayqtfd89835"><br clear="none"></div></div><div id="gmail-m_5380592422558548218ydp3ccabf2ayqtfd80696">-- <br clear="none">Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: <a shape="rect" href="https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. </a>Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing <a shape="rect" href="mailto:lt-owner@lists.liberationtech.org." rel="nofollow" target="_blank">lt-owner@lists.liberationtech.org.</a></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div>