I just read of a document published by FreePress and the Harmony Institute regarding their plan to sell Net Neutrality to minorities (“telenovela” style). I’m giving you a quick peek about the issue in this post, and I promise to have a longer one tomorrow. But here are the highlights.
From Page 16:
“Currently the public likes the way the Internet works. Internet users and businesses generally have a positive relation- ship with their ISP and believe they can access what they want, when they want it.
Thus, “prevention” focused words should be at the core of a communications campaign. Messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly to “prevent” or “minimize” the potential for a centrally controlled Internet. Given that survey respondents did not respond well to government intervention and policymaking, framing legislative activity as a “public responsibility” may persuade more people to contact their legislators.”
How do you like that? No wonder they have been using apocalyptic messages all along. They have equated the net neutrality debate to the Gulf Oil Spill, to Wall Street’s meltdown, and most recently they even called it a Civil Rights Issue. SHAME ON THEM!
The killer is in Page 12:
“Based on the survey and its corresponding demographic information, two groups stand out as most likely to support net neutrality.” They call the first group “core supporters” of net neutrality “because of their comfort and facility with the Internet…” They are classified as affluent whites.
The other group, are called the “persuadables” or, let me paraphrase, “the poor, ignorant minorities that have no clue about the issue, but we can trick into following our lead.” The document states that “this group (“the persuadables”) did not identify net neutrality as either a problem or a solution until exposed to a measured debate on the issue. But after learning about net neutrality and the case for an open internet, this group responded with full support. Demographically, persuadables tend to be African Americans and/or women, unmarried and liberal. [...] A significan number of those outlined above reside in the souther region of the US or in rural areas. Persuadables make annual household incomes ($30-$50k) that are considerably lower than core supporters.”
So, if you are from the south, black and poor, Free Press thinks that you are so dumb, that they can easily convince you to join their cause. This is repulsive and should be repudiated in the strongest possible language.
This is SB 1070 all over again, but instead of doing it to your face, they are profiling you, and then taking advantage of you because of your race.
Free Press owes me and every other member of the “persuadables” a profound and sincere apology.
I will not let this one stand.
Interesting information on the issue. I am in full agreement with you on the issue of Net Neutrality and am equally appalled by organizations, such as “Free Press” (quite the ironic name if you ask me) who try to categorize the population based on their potential for manipulation. In this case, trying to convince the American people that our already overwhelmed government has the ability to also regulate the vast and virtually unlimited world of the internet in order to ensure “free and open access for all” is going to be an uphill battle. I look forward to more insights on the issue.
Justin:
Thanks for visiting the site and sharing your thoughts!
I would like to exchange links with your site latinointernetjustice.com
Is this possible?
Is shooting the messenger, the Free Press, always a bad thing? Recently I read a piece by Danny Bakewell, Jr., expressing his outrage that the Free Press admitted to using manipulative, subliminal techniques to influence public opinion on the lower rungs of the American voting ladder, to wit, poor minorities. The subject was Net Neutrality (something everyone loves, right?) where the thrust was to prevent large private companies like Comcast and A T and T from kinking up the free Internet that we all know and love. The Free Press abhors these giant Internet Providers limiting usage of the Internet. So far, so good. The large Internet Providers seek to charge customers more based upon higher tiers of services at higher prices. Bummer. That eliminates the lower-income minorities and women, Bakewell says. Bakewell does not object to the Internet should remaining free for all users anymore than President Obama does, who happens to be a strong supporter of Net Neutrality, or a free Internet. What Bakewell, president of the NNPA (National Newspapers Publishers Association), says is that the Free Press seeks openly to manipulate poor minorities and black women through deliberate psychological manipulation designed to scare them into believing that their Internet privileges are in peril from the big Internet Providers. The message that the Internet should remain forever free and accessible to all is a good message. But it is the deliberately manipulative means of achieving the end that Bakewell challenges as racist. He contends that because many of the minority voters targeted by the Free Press as too dumb to get it without cartoons and story-telling, the Free Press presentation of net neutrality is not only insulting, but racist as well.
So is the Free Press racist for their déjà vue cartoon with a big, modern public drinking fountain labeled ‘Premium Users’ and a small drinking fountain labeled ‘Everyone Else?’ Is there a subconscious hook to the ‘White’ and ‘Colored’ drinking fountains of yesteryear? It feels like it to me. And the Free Press openly-revealed plan to manipulate through story-telling techniques instead of sticking to the issues seems a bit Goebbels-inspired to me.
Wow, way to put words into the free press’ mouth. The issue of net neutrality is very poorly covered in the MSM (this is why you get no traffic). The Free Press was stating that certain types of people would side with Net Neutrality advocates if they were actually exposed to the issue. Just like certain types of people would oppose Net Neutrality if they were paid lots of money by ISPs to be, I don’t know, their attorney let’s say.