I found the response acceptable. I find your self-righteous power-trip mob-raising rebuttal more objectionable. Enjoy your last few days here, and I'll enjoy each day after that.

A fan who receives gifts or money in exchange for positive public relations work, and doesn't disclose this, is a shill.

So no, it's really easy to tell the difference - unless there is intent to deceive.

I have a hard time calling it "immoral" though, in the sense that we're talking about the Free Market, where such fancy ideas such as morality evidently bear no relevance. Put it in the big pile of "badwrong" by the door.

When talk turns to conspiracy theories, it's generally the end of intelligent conversation. But you're in luck, since I'm perfectly willing to pick up your slack on this one.

When I'm checking my gmail - shit, 10 years this April - and I see an AdWords related to the content, then my absolute privacy has been violated. I'm going to borrow from Timothy Leary and analyze this transaction in terms of entities in space/time and the signals being sent between them. Given that we are talking about the internet, and units of privacy, this seems quite apt. I have to either trust Google when it tells me that the advertisers don't receive demographic or other personally identifiable data about me, that the extent of the violation is safe within the Google cloud - or - stop using a service which doesn't offer 100% privacy. In order to make that choice properly, you need to be aware of the actors you are interacting with.

Which, until certain overdue changes are made to the US Legal System, is a utopian dream. My private data is not safe anywhere online, or even on any computer I own even if I don't connect it to the internet, apparently. In other words, as soon as I attract the attention of any intelligence agency, my personal life - as documented in 10 years and 3.06gb of uncensored gmail data - is freely available to any NSA agent without the integrity of Snowden. I really don't want the remote risk that my life is about to become more interesting.

Look at my comment history - I've defended Google in years past, and most recently in vocal support of wikileaks. It's also not-exactly-progress that I can't debate political and social issues online without the fear of losing all of my privacy and potential freedom to the US Government, because my views aren't the "right" ones.

But the recent promise by Obama to scrap no-challenge/no-inform NSA orders is significant in one way - as a longtime customer of Google, I trust them to do everything they can to defend my private data.

As a consumer you make choices about how and where you spend your privacy, or you lose out on a lot of useful services by refusing them all. The internet equivalent of hiding behind the curtains at a party. Given their past record, and (most of) their corporate ideology/political activity - I believe Google is a company with a lot of good intentions which still fucks up occasionally. But when making privacy decisions, the motivations of the other party is a very large factor for me.

Which is to say I'm happy with the consumer bargain I've struck with Google - I'm more than happy to defend them when I think they deserve it - it's not-exactly-progress that you can't say anything positive in a situation like this about a corporation, without becoming part of The Greater Google Conspiracy.

Where have I been for the last few years? Ooooh!

I'm sure that you're not as ignorant of this event as your sarcasm suggests - they refused a FOIA request to release the video on grounds of political expediency.

That's a cover up.

Is it Watergate? No. It's worse. Innocent people were murdered.

The military report described in that article identifies Wikileaks as an operational threat, and describes several methods which could be used to "damage or destroy" the trust and reputation of Wikileaks.

That report is two years old and the military have been using those tactics against Wikileaks since.

But nice attempt trying to discredit me as a truther. And fuck you, too.

Sure

There is evidence for that, too.

But judging from your condescending tone, I don't expect fact to sway your opinion, so please continue.

This argument would have more weight if it were not for the fact that because of Wikileaks we have been made more aware of conspiracies to cover up illegal activities, and that some of those groups whose actions have been uncovered are actively trying to discredit Wikileaks and limit its ability to function.

..and the Streisand effect they are now creating ensures that the redacted information is rapidly identified and disseminated?

Wow. This is insanely delusional.

Considering that this proposal does not change the status-quo with regards wireless networks, this makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, it really isn't.

Explain how, after making no legislative change to the way wireless networks are regulated, Google is suddenly granted potential super powers which it doesn't already have today.

Okay, sure.

What? Where? When? ... Huh?

You've lost me.

Uh huh. How about hating on Google for the things they do screw up on, rather than all this conspiracy theory paranoid what-if rabbit-holing?

Ah, so it's an ideological purity issue -- compromise is evil!

Now I understand.

I think you're reading too much into it. They've been accused of "trying to eliminate net neutrality" over wireless, and they're responding to the rumour mill, using the same language. If that was a conspiracy to confuse, then yes - I agree that would be evil.

You seem to be saying that I can't logically support issue X if I also agree to a compromise that X only be applied to Y now and defer the decision on Z. I don't understand this all-or-nothing attitude, as it does not seem to hold any realistic chance of success.

Once net neutrality is enshrined into law for wireline networks, won't it be easier to apply that precedent to wireless?

Do you mean this?

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

I don't see dishonesty. If there is no net neutrality for wireless now, how can it be eliminated?

You failed to answer the question.

Why is it evil to try a path to enshrine net neutrality into law for wireline traffic? The only argument I've seen - that they should also try (and fail) to get consensus for net neutrality for wireless networks _now_, seems naive to me.

I don't see anything in the proposal which would prevent future legislation for wireless networks.

Where is the evil?