Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller at MyDD wrote a blog post titled “Please lie to me about Net Neutrality” in which he repeated Tom Foremski’s statement about Cox blocking Craigslist with a “blacklist,” even though he was already aware that the issue had nothing to do with a blacklist. Now that the facts are well-known and accepted (including by Craig Newmark), he now insists that he never said anything to imply that Cox was intentionally blocking Craigslist, contrary to the written record, and accuses George Ou and David Berling at ZDNet of being “lying liars." Look, Matt–why don’t you just show some integrity and admit that you were mistaken to continue to repeat Foremski’s statement after you knew there was no blacklist, and mistaken to claim that this issue has something to do with the kind of discrimination that network neutrality regulations intend to prohibit. When caught uttering falsehoods that you should have known were falsehoods, you should come clean and apologize, rather than engage in ad hominem arguments against those who point it out. Your continued demonization of your adversaries damages your credibility.

Matt Stoller has a post up at MyDD dated June 14 titled (with ironic accuracy) “Please lie to me about Net Neutrality” in which he gives the following as an example of unwarranted site blocking that shows the need for net neutrality regulations: There’s a pervasive myth that there has been no discrimination on the internet against content companies. That is simply untrue. For one, Craigslist has been blocked for three months from Cox customers because of security software malfunctions. ...

Ed Brayton’s Dispatches from the Culture Wars has an excerpt from an article in Christianity Today by Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter, a well-known black Christian conservative who authored the book Confessions of an Affirmative Action Baby. In the article, Carter is arguing against the common demonization of the ACLU by Christians, pointing out that while he disagrees with the ACLU on the establishment clause, they are also a big defender of the free exercise clause and have consistently supported Christians in free exercise court cases: More to the point, the ACLU is often right about the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, taking on fights that others refuse. It might surprise some critics that the ACLU defends the free speech and free exercise rights of, well, Christians.The larger point of the article, however, is to condemn the mode of argument that characterizes those who disagree as irrational, dishonest, or evil simply in virtue of that disagreement: I am more concerned about a habit of mind that seems to be growing among my fellow Christians, both political liberals and conservatives. That is, we seem to mimic the secular world’s conflation of disagreement with wickedness, as if not sharing my worldview places my critic outside the realm of rational discourse…I’ve seen similar habits expressed by people on both sides of the net neutrality debate. For example, in Matt Stoller’s presentation at the YearlyKos convention, he admits that he doesn’t understand the relevant technical issues (and proceeds to demonstrate it by suggesting that “non-neutrality” will cause dropped calls, when in fact it’s non-neutral QoS that will prevent them). He asserts that it is fun to beat up on “these bad people” and that it is very important that Mike McCurry be personally vilified. That’s explicit endorsement of irrationality, of emotional demogoguery over fact and reason, and should be condemned by everyone in this debate. Ed Brayton concludes: But rational people, people who care about truth and accuracy, must fight this tendency. We must try and evaluate every claim using the same criteria. Does the evidence support it? Are the conclusions drawn from the evidence logical? Any claim that fails to meet those criteria should be rejected, regardless of whether it supports our agenda or not. Likewise, any claim that withstands that scrutiny should be accepted as valid, regardless of whether it supports our agenda or not. None of us will ever be Mr. Spock, but we should strive to evaluate all arguments as though we have no stake in the outcome. Some, like the STACLU crowd, make no attempt at all to do so; we should not emulate them.I agree.

Matthew Yglesias, covering for Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo, writes of Mike McCurry’s battle with bloggers over net neutrality: People disagreed with McCurry about the net neutrality issue because people disagree about issues. People got so mad at him precisely because of this kind of patronizing attitude. He was peddling flimsy arguments as if it never occurred to him that the blogosphere is full of people who know a lot about the internet and could handle a grown-up argument (see a non-flimsy, though ultimately unpersuasive, anti-neutrality piece if you’re interested). ...

Adam Green, responding to Mike McCurry, writes (following Matt Stoller at MyDD) that: Lie #1: McCurry knows the Internet is not “absent regulation” yet he’s willing to deceive the public if it helps his clients. As Matt Stoller points out on MyDD: What McCurry did not tell the public was that during the Clinton years, the FCC actively enforced net neutrality – the Internet’s First Amendment – against his telecom clients. Common carrier statutes have in fact been a bedrock principle of telecommunications law since 1934, and in 1996 Congress ratified that with a commitment to network neutrality. ...