The pledge really bears commenting on, point by point:
> Net Neutrality
> I will support legislation and measures that ensure the protection of net neutrality principles and that remove any registration or other restrictive
> requirements on the provisioning of Internet content or services.
Now, this is a fine-sounding statement, and it's something that even the top execs at the biggest ISPs could support sincerely, without so much as a twinge of conscience, or concern for the next stockholder's meeting. It is also meaningless without a concrete definition. The FCC attempt in 2015 to define net neutrality was less about ensuring competition and free access than entrenching monopolies, mediating corporate turf wars, advancing censorship, and establishing a new bureaucracy for the new era upon us wherein everything, including POTS, is digital. If that's really what anyone wants, get Congress to have the balls to make it law instead of passing the buck. It could, of course, be that this pledge is intended to filter up to that level and provide our selfless, noble legislators with the cover they need to regulate content, ie. speech, or to import concepts like "social credit" to promote political hygiene, but it still doesn't define anything in any way that anyone could be held to.
> Ethical Campaign Donations
> I will never accept campaign contributions from any company or individual that has lobbied for the removal of net neutrality regulations or for
> restrictions on municipalities to create broadband networks.
Oh, this is choice. Conflating ethics with politics. Why not add "I will never pander to a constituency" while you're at it. By the way, do you really think Big Telecom, Big Cable, or Big Content, were any of them actually AGAINST "Net Neutrality". Well, think again. At most, their bases are covered both ways.
> Municipal Broadband
> I will support legislation and measures to create publicly-owned and managed municipal fiber networks, built to serve the residents and businesses
> of my community.
Why, who could be against serving residents and businesses of the community? That is the main excuse...er, reason, for our municipal charter, to begin with. Why, we could even support legislation and measures to eventually ensure that all housing and all food production is publicly owned and managed too, while we're at it.
Look, if you really want socialism, please just do a Bernie and come out and say it. On the other hand, you want the city to be a business, why not be honest, issue voting shares, and be done with the pretense of government as opposed to management of a corporate monopoly. It might be easier to follow the money at least, and maybe get dividends from all the tax-farming.
> Government Transparency
> I will support legislation and measures that promote the availability of government data to residents, as well as the usage of open formats and open
> standards in government.
This sounds good, and it should be common sense, but realize that the same manager or purchasing agent that owes his or her job to industry trade councils behind the municipal government associations and suchlike that provide template ordinances for such things, recommended bidding practices, IT guidance, etc. is not particularly likely to go beyond them, and especially not against them, if it impedes getting their job done, whatever the high-sounding, but essentially meaningless platitudes that are espoused. And like all politicians, mayors and council members are past masters at saying one thing but doing another.
Or is this a setup for the template providers to circulate an official approved policy on this matter, that otherwise might be a hard sell, like the model zoning ordinances that expand city rights on private property? I really do wonder.
> Open Access To Knowledge
> I will advocate for freedom of communication and access to knowledge, and I will support initiatives to ensure that publicly-funded intellectual property > is made available in the public domain.
As long as it doesn't violate GDPR ;-) Removing tongue from cheek, remember that publicly funded frequently still means privately contracted, and even the government has to abide by its own idiotic IP laws. Good luck with that. It's a good idea and already more widely implemented that seems to be given credit for here, but again, good luck.
>Freedom from Surveillance
>I will not support any proposal for storage or surveillance of communications data that has not been subjected to credible, independent assessment for >necessity and proportionality or that is not subject to regular review to ensure compliance with these criteria.
Oh, you mean, like a FISA court? *chortle* All you're doing here is asking municipalities to endorse the whole concept of massive government surveillance. As if they need any encouragement.
> User Privacy and Data Protection
> I will support legislation and measures that promote and protect the fundamental right of individuals to privacy and data protection, and the use of
> encryption and other privacy-enhancing technologies.
Read that: I support the right of government to oversee and/or administrate the collection and distribution of private and personal data under the guise of protecting a non-existent right. How about pushing for your municipality to respect the US 4th amendment, and having its state officially, explicitly amend its constitution to include the Bill of Rights, instead.
But I get the feeling that's really not the agenda that's being pushed behind all the mom and apple pie here. People, you're being used.
