Posted on 10/30/2010 5:47:29 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
The first direct link above is to Soros' own web page. Many of you will choose not to click on it and well that's your choice. But some of you should actively look and see for yourself.
Open the PDF, scroll down to the year 2008.
Electronic Frontier Foundation got 300,000 dollars from Soros.
Now scroll down to the year 2007.
Another 100,000 dollars. So the total is 400k. And there is more. Let's take a look at who it is that sits on their various boards:
http://www.eff.org/about/advisoryboard
I am aware of Ethan Zuckerman being a Soros buddy because of a prior dig into some boards; namely wikipedia. For background, look to these threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2452070/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2509619/posts
As we continue on to the EFF's board of directors we see this:
http://www.eff.org/about/board
Pamela Samuelson is with the ACLU. And on their staffing page:
http://www.eff.org/about/staff
Right at the top, another ACLU person, Kevin Bankston. But some of these are simply because it's honestly and openly listed.
I know I'm not the only one who goes advisory board digging to see who the who's who are, I'm sure others of you who also do this will recognize other names that I'm not recognizing. If they already have at least one open society institute connected individual there along with some ACLU people........ AND they take money from the open society institute, they are absolutely dirty. I just don't know the full extent of what I'm looking at.
-—————Being that EFF ditched the Soros snake three years ago——————
Did they now?
On what basis do you make this claim?
No, no coopted by Soros, an ally, on this.
Soros may have contributed a few hundred grand to them, but that’s not going to make or break EFF, and EFF will still be around after Soros has gone to meet its maker.
-——————No, no coopted by Soros, an ally, on this.-——————
An ally, on limitting our freedom to speak online? An ally to the orwellian net neutrality?
If I’m reading you wrong, by all means correct me.
But one thing that’s irrefutable is that net neutrality is the fairness doctrine for the internet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2516189/posts
I take Cass at his word.
I think the Dune novels present many provocative ideas that remain very relevant today. Another interesting work is Fritz Lang's 1933 masterpiece "The Testament of Dr Mabuse." In this move, an insane Professor Moriarty like criminal mastermind orchestrates a series of seemingly pointless crimes in order to undermine society. He explains his goals:
"The Empire of Crime"
Humanity's soul must be shaken to its very depths, frightened by unfathomable and seemingly senseless crimes. Crimes that benefit no one, whose only objective is to inspire fear and terror. Because the ultimate purpose of crime is to establish the endless Empire of Crime. A state of complete insecurity and anarchy, founded upon the tainted ideals of a world doomed to annihilation. When humanity, subjugated by the terror of crime, has been driven insane by fear and horror and when chaos has become supreme law, then the time will have come for the empire of crime.
I see much in that parallels the increasingly nihilistic and anarchistic direction of the left. It makes no sense because it is fundamentally irrational.
The Soros donations was in support of his investment in Quanta Computers in their fight against Intel and method patents, where Quanta incorporated Intel parts with non-Intel memory, which Intel claimed violated Intel's method patents as well as intellectual property. The argument was made before SCOTUS in January 2008, and that concluded the Soros funding to EFF.
Oh, and FYI, EFF won the case, which maintained the right of consumers to repair their personal property, even if it violates the license electronic manufacturers try to apply, such as using a non-Apple hard drive in a Mac, or using a non-Tivo authorized harddrive upgrade.
It was a very limited arrangement in support of an investment, because if Quanta lost the suit, Soros' investment in the company would have been ruined.
I remember the founding of the EFF about 20 years ago. What does Soros have to do with it?
I don’t understand why people think that net neutrality poses any threat to anyone’s freedom to speak online, as opposed to preserving it.
—————I don’t understand why people think that net neutrality poses any threat to anyone’s freedom to speak online-——————
Cass told me, told you, told us all that he will silence us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2516189/posts
I take him at his word. You should too. He is in a position to make it happen.
Furthermore, look at the hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars that Soros is putting in to take our freedoms away. The vast majority of soros funded groups support net neutrality.
This isn’t hard to put together. If we don’t stand up, we will silence us.
Put it this way, you and I as freepers - we say a lot of unneutral things.
Alright, fair enough.
I find it suspect no matter what, but here is the thing:
How do you explain the soros and aclu people right there on the EFF’s boards?
That A) they have huge leftists right within their organization, that B) they support free-speech killing net neutrality scheme and C) they take money from open society institute..........
At some point you have to say “no, there’s not really coincedences here”.
What something was and what something is don’t necessarily end up being the same.
EFF is an ally with Soros on this matter. And, it sometimes allies itself with other lefty matters. I’m not a big friend of the EFF, I was only trying to make sure that people understood that EFF and Soros are only incidental allies, not joined at the hip.
I think Rush is pretty confused about what net neutrality actually means. Imposing some sort of “fairness doctrine” on the Internet is absolutely NOT what “net neutrality” means.
“Net neutrality” is the idea that Comcast, which provides VoIP telephone services as well as Internet connection services, should not be allowed to disrupt or block the VoIP telephone services of their competitors for the customers of their Internet connection service, for example.
Undoubtedly Comcast and other big media companies would love to use their Internet services as a tool to protect and enlarge their market share, but that’s what “net neutrality” stands opposed to.
The position is that network services should be “content neutral,” which is where “neutrality” in “net neutrality” comes from.
Fair enough.
———————I think Rush is pretty confused about what net neutrality actually means.———————
Cass Sunstein and others in government (and it’s marxist supporters) are making it clear what net neutrality actually means.
Did you see what Cass said? With that, it’s unlikely that Rush got it wrong.
————————Imposing some sort of “fairness doctrine” on the Internet is absolutely NOT what “net neutrality” means.-—————
Then you don’t realize how big of a threat Cass is to you.
He means what he says.
-————“Net neutrality” is the idea that Comcast, which provides VoIP telephone services as well as Internet connection services, should not be allowed to disrupt or block the VoIP telephone services of their competitors for the customers of their Internet connection service, for example.——————
That’s the sales pitch, yes. But unfortunately, you have people in washington who CLEARLY have a different definition.
Do you say a lot of unneutral things online?
Better question:
Would our regulatory czar consider what you have to say unneutral? (just to be clear, that’s sunstein)
I know I say a lot of unneutral things. And I want to keep saying them.
He's not talking about net neutrality, he's talking about an online fairness doctrine. Those are two entirely different things.
Of course I say and do non-neutral things online, as everyone does, but a regulatory czar over online speech has nothing to do with "net neutrality" requiring Comcast to allow me to access a competing video content provider like Hulu or a competing telephone service provider like Vonage.
——————He’s not talking about net neutrality, he’s talking about an online fairness doctrine.-—————
It’s the classic progressive word game that...........
You mean to tell me that you can’t see through this?
After the century of garbage that progressives have put americans through.
—————a regulatory czar over online speech has nothing to do with “net neutrality” requiring Comcast-——————
Read his writings. He cares nothing for comcast. That’s the ruse to...........
Man, we’ve had a full century of progressive garbage........
How come you can’t see through this? Really? No...... Really?
Is it simply because of the title?
Had they called it the “neutrality doctrine” for the internet, or called it “net fairness” so that the titles were a little closer, would that work?
I just........... I can’t believe this. I’m flabbergasted.
I mean, I could see their sales pitches working on your average ny slimes reader, but we’re freepers. Shouldn’t more of us be immune to this rebranding stuff?
For anybody who may stumble upon this in the future, the following thread may be useful:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711488/posts
Why was the EFF so willing to take soros money? It could be that the Berkman Center is highly activist, and so many people within the EFF come from Berkman, and Berkman/EFF are very friendly organizations.
I’m doing research right now - I figured a follow up to this thread was good enough, instead of a new discussion.
The electronic frontier foundation is very friendly with the berkman center. Ok. So who funds the Berkman center?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/about/support
Look at the list. It’s a who’s-who of left wing foundations and left wing corporations. Such as Microsoft, the John D/Catherine T Foundation, John S/James L Knight foundation, the Ford foundation(All freepers should be well acquainted with the ford foundation by now) the leftists at Google support them, and yes, the Open Society Institute(Soros) also supports Berkman. Al-Reuters is on the list, as is Viacom. The drive by media supports Berkman!
My fellow freepers, the internet is a target. We should know who our enemies are. Berkman and the EFF are not our friends if we wish to retain our freedoms.
Look at their own website. No other conclusion to come to.
Thanks for the follow-up. The truth has been revealed in enough places. EFF is dead to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.