Astroturf hurts: leadership resigns after GLAAD supports T-Mobile sale | Hacker News Reader

Astroturf hurts: leadership resigns after GLAAD supports T-Mobile sale

arstechnica.com

45 pointsjoelhaus21 comments

This is nauseating. It would be nice to see some investment in the network rather than in their vast lobby. It is heartening to see at least one non-profit hold their leadership accountable though.

> And when the FCC considered its net neutrality rules, the nonprofit commentaries flowed like high speed data. Our examination of a letter written by 19 civil rights groups questioning open Internet rules found that most were recipients of Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon money. In the case of LULAC, a single grant came to $1.5 million. Groups that we have spoken with always deny any sort of outright opinion selling.

They wouldn't need a lobby if they weren't put in a position where they had to spend a lot of money-- essentially paying off politicians-- to conduct basic operations of their business, such as offering new products or engaging in a merger.

Exactly, because lobbying to allow a merger that would reduce competition & lobbying to block things like net neutrality are really essential to providing quality service. Maybe we should just give AT&T their monopoly back.

Corporations, especially old school blue-chip ones, will generally follow the path of least resistance to profits.

Also known as fiduciary duty.

Also known as morally questionable & gaming the market.

Also known as the nature of capitalism.

Capitalism is not a physical law. We have the power to implement it how we choose.

Bingo. Also, "fiduciary responsibility" can justify absolutely anything, provided your timeframe is short enough. Bouncing paychecks, for instance, will do wonders for a company's cash position - provided your business plans don't extend further than the middle of next week.

Why is getting paid to express an opinion morally questionable?

When GLAAD's members pay them to express positions in support of gay rights, is that morally questionable? Or is it only morally questionable when they express opinions that you do not like?

I suspect the conversation between GLAAD, AT&T, and their membership will go something like this:

  Members: You're losing $500K per year
  GLAAD: AT&T can you match this?
  AT&T: Will $600K suffice?
  GLAAD: OK.

They are not only paid to express opinions, but to credibly do it. When they throw their credibility out the window by accepting money to express anything, they cease to be effective in supporting gay and lesbian interests.

What GLAAD or other non-profits did technically should be illegal. They are no longer a non-profit activist group, they are an advertising/lobbying agency.

Fuck everything about this attitude. I don't know where it started, but this sort of uber-Rand-ism is just flat out wrong. It is this same sort of short-sightedness with regards to morals vs profits that caused Alan Greenspan to famously state: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity – myself especially – are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Disbelief my ass! "Fiduciary duty" is not an excuse for corporate raping and pillaging of a society (which, in effect, is what this is). Any student of economics who understands the concept of Pareto efficiency should understand that any action which causes an overall detriment to the economy or the society at large cannot lead to sustainable profits for the company involved. Sure, you can make a lot of short-term gains walking down the street and robbing everyone you see, but it's not a sound formula for long-term profits.

Fiduciary duty is no excuse here. What these companies have done is reprehensible on its face and it is a shame that it is not outright illegal! (Consequently, before anyone cries "First Amendment!", I would add that this type of situation is also a good reason why corporations should not enjoy the same status as individuals under the law.)

Just be careful with short-term thinking.

>> GLAAD's letter declared. "What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger."

So let me guess this straight: a merger that reduces competition by reducing the number of market players will get you competitive pricing, more access and faster service. Don't make me laugh.

The government set up the original digital spectrum auctions to establish three carriers in each geographic region. I'm not sure what following auctions have done, but this essentially set out the competitive landscape to be (what eventually became the companies) of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.

Given that spread spectrum does not require allocation of bands, these auctions of spectrum essentially limit competition. They are near monopoly grants (triopoly, specifically.) If every operator were allowed to use the entire spectrum range, using spread spectrum signaling, with straightforward regulations on power, placement, etc, the cellular carrier landscape could consist of dozens or hundreds of operators-- however many the market would bear.

Given that, at the spectrum level, competition is limited by the government, the idea of worrying about there not being enough competition is kinda funny.

For anyone other than the three ordained spectrum holders to operate, they have to do deals with the three majors. Many of these smaller companies are already essentially owned by the majors. This merger is just a consolidation of the two carries using the same protocol.

GLAAD doesn't represent me, even though I am queer. And if they took money for this, then I don't really have a problem. This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.

I'm less worried about the lack of competition than the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.

> the lack of government oversight on behalf of the public or consumers.

Ah, a visitor from a universe without regulatory capture.

  > This is no different than anyone being paid to advertise.

Really? I find that hard to believe. They are using (abusing) their position as a respected non-profit to further the goals of their benefactors. Now, there might be nothing illegal about this, but I posit that if we live in a society that largely accepts this as par for the course, then the FCC should be largely disregarding whatever these groups are saying, rather than taking them into account.

Personally, I find this to be a form of fraud. They were being paid to have a particular opinion, while obfuscating the fact that they didn't reach that opinion on their own and without coercion in the form of money donations (or the real/perceived threat of receiving no future donations). Let's face it, their 'opinion' would be much less effective had they disclosed that they were being paid to have it.

"What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger."

I do believe that someone can write a grand satire of this whole circus. "The Marriage of T-Mobile." Do I smell a Tony?

They could call it "Rent: Seeking"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com