Net Neutrality Payola

Got an opinion about Google’s “net neutrality” regulations? It could be worth money to you, as it has been to Legal Fiction’s Publius:

To avoid any future Armando situations, I should disclose that I am currently working on behalf of pro-net neutrality clients. At the time I wrote about net neutrality, I wasn’t. But now I am. So I’m probably going to stay away from it altogether on the blog, which is unfortunate because I have better things to say now. But anyway – take it for what it’s worth.

How many bloggers have been paid to spin this issue? I’m already aware of Tim Karr and have my suspicions about Jerome Armstrong’s boy Matt Stoller as well as a few others, so we’ll have to see. (note: this paragraph revised because I don’t want to get sued by one of the unemployed lawyers in the Kosola Krowd).

UPDATE: Stoller claims nobody’s paying him to spin the fables he’s spun about Cox Cable and others. Which is worse, spreading a pack of lies for the fun of it, or doing it because you’ve been paid? It’s reasonably clear that the Armstrong/Kos Krowd is in this fight because they’re relentlessly searching for an issue they can win. All their candidates have lost, so how best to hang on the illusion of influence they’re trying to create than by getting behind an issue that taps into the emotional echo-chamber that is the blogosphere? As Stoller said at “Yearly Kos” he doesn’t understand the issue, he just wants to be on the winning side for a change.

Then again, it could be something to do with astrology.

9 thoughts on “Net Neutrality Payola”

  1. It is a joy to hear Senator Ted Stevens:
    Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska told a group of cable executives last week, “The more I seek to find what the problem is, the harder job I have of trying to define it.”

    I understand that he won’t support legislation that is using terms that are incapable of being defined – meaning game over for the whole ridiculous concept of “net neutrality”. Of course he is a politician – so that is subject to change.
    See eWeek article for details.

  2. Hi Richard, very interesting stuff. The pro-neutrality folks love to claim “astroturf” about anyone who’s being paid to advocate a position. I’ve got no problem with the practice (it’s no different than retaining an attorney), though disclosure is helpful and increases credibility. My anti-neutrality arguments are free of charge. 🙂

    Anyway, do you have some documentation on Stoller and Karr on this?

  3. Karr is an employee of Free Press, the lead organization in the Astroturf Save The Internet campaign. He admits they pay him to edit the Save the Internet blog.

    It seems obvious that somebody is paying Stoller, but I don’t have the documentation.

  4. “It seems obvious that somebody is paying Stoller,” you say. Do you realize a comment like that, which is unfounded in fact, is potentially libelous?

    Get a clue: bloggers blog. That’s what we do.

  5. You work for Jerome Armstrong, don’t you Matt? And you claimed that Cox Cable was “discriminating” against Craig’s List, didn’t you? I’m just putting two and two together.

    I’d have more respect for you if you were getting paid, frankly.

    And Sean, bloggers of high reputation only blog about issues they understand.

  6. I agree that all anti-net neutrality politicans are being bribed by telcos or telco lobbyists.

    And I agree that all anti-net neutrality bloggers are being paid or making money posting against net neutrality.

  7. You said it yourself, Richard: “Bloggers of high reputation only blog about issues they understand.” That statment is just stupid on its own merits. But let’s hold you to your own fool-hardy standards.

    So Richard, where’s your documentation? What about that question didn’t you “understand”? Or is your reputation less than high?

    You have also claimed that MoveOn takes money from Google. Still waiting on that proof as well. Enlighten us oh wise “original blogger,’ you.

Comments are closed.