The ALA is a member of the Open Internet Coalition and SaveTheInternet.com that both support net neutrality. A Google search on "net neutrality" pulls up Network Neutrality on Wikipedia as the top hit. (The second highest hit is SaveTheInternet.com.) On that most visible of all web sites on the subject, a site that is the eighth most popular site, the ALA has anonymously made self-serving statements about net neutrality on the Internet Censorship discussion page and added therein promotional links to SaveTheInternet.com as well. Here is what the ALA Deputy Director wrote as "Anon":
Net neutrality, or the lack of it, enables internet censorship; it permits corporations that control access points to the Internet to extract additional costs from those wanting to publish on the Internet or face loss of access; if a corporate access provider decides that it doesn't like a particular publisher's message, it could block access to that website if there isn't an obligation to provide common carriage without discrimination. In particular, minority voices are often silenced; note that not only so-called liberal groups are concerned with this threat, but also conservative Christian groups, who fear that their message may be silenced if net neutrality is not preserved. -- Anon.
Source: Talk:Internet censorship, 03:39, 30 April 2007, by 188.8.131.52.
What she said is not true, but that's the essence of propaganda.
That edit was made by "184.108.40.206," the disguise that day for Deborah-Caldwell Stone, Deputy Director and former Acting Director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom. Yes, the Office for Intellectual Freedom. The Office has few members but it has a huge effect. "More than any other activity, ALA's work on intellectual freedom ... has captured national attention and given ALA and librarianship huge prestige throughout the world." Deborah-Caldwell Stone's actions should give it a huge black eye.
Here is the ALA anonymously promoting SaveTheInternet.org, again and again.
She knows this is wrong because an "edit summary" of hers says, "one need only look at LAEC's own safelibraries.org to discover the definition of conflict of interest when it comes to this topic." She is fully aware of the significance of conflicts of interest, and even excoriates "LAEC," although LAEC disclosed his potential conflicts or she would not have known of them.
I'm LAEC, short for LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, and I'm a Wikipedia editor with years of experience and almost 10,000 edits. I call myself that name in respect of US v. ALA where the US Supreme Court said, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." The ALA does not agree.
The ALA leader's actions to hide behind a shield of anonymity on Wikipedia are intentional. She wrote her name as "Anon," as shown above. Also, when I exposed her true identity on Wikipedia, something I learned later I should not have done, she remarked:
The association between my user name, my real name and workplace was not known at all until he posted it in the edit summary. It is not published elsewhere, and I have taken pains to keep it that way. I ... would like the association between my user name and my actual identity/workplace to remain private.
Source: User talk:Dcs47, 22:37, 1 November 2005, by Dcs47.
Note it is expected that people wish to remain private on Wikipedia, but it is not expected that they use Wikipedia to promote their own soapbox.
Deborah Caldwell-Stone, aka Dcs47, then began or continued a pattern of editing under Dcs47 for certain things and under dozens of other names or numbers to propagandize in favor of net neutrality, etc. One more example? Here she is adding links on Wikipedia to the ALA Store.
There is extensive evidence tying Deborah Caldwell-Stone to dozens of anonymous Wikipedia identities addressing more dozens of ALA and politically-related Wikipedia pages. The evidence to support these claims is a matter of public record in the possession of Wikipedia and is available to anyone with a web browser. My role would be in connecting the dots in the public record. Connecting the dots is too voluminous for this blog post, but here are the dots to be connected:
User: Dcs47 (DCS are the initials for Deborah Caldwell-Stone)
User: 220.127.116.11 - Geolocate
User: 18.104.22.168 - Geolocate
User: 22.214.171.124 - Geolocate
User: 126.96.36.199 - Geolocate
User: 188.8.131.52 - Geolocate
User: 184.108.40.206 - Geolocate
User: 220.127.116.11 - Geolocate
User: 18.104.22.168 - Geolocate
User: 22.214.171.124 - Geolocate
User: 126.96.36.199 - Geolocate
User: 188.8.131.52 - Geolocate
User: 184.108.40.206 - Geolocate
User: 220.127.116.11 - Geolocate
User: 18.104.22.168 - Geolocate
User: 22.214.171.124 - Geolocate
User: 126.96.36.199 - Geolocate
User: 188.8.131.52 - Geolocate
User: 184.108.40.206 - Geolocate
User: 220.127.116.11 - Geolocate
User: 18.104.22.168 - Geolocate
User: 22.214.171.124 - Geolocate
The ALA must look into whether Deborah Caldwell-Stone has violated the ALA Code of Ethics or jeopardized the ALA's 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If it takes no action or simply applies a slap on the wrist, that would reflect on the ALA generally.
If the ALA takes no action in response to this blog post (that I know it reads), then the ALA itself may be just as guilty as is Deborah Caldwell-Stone. Indeed, promoters of net neutrality should consider distancing themselves from the ALA if the ALA does not take appropriate action.
I am sending a copy of this to the FCC Commissioners.
Please comment below on my opinion above.
NOTE ADDED 22 DECEMBER 2010:
Apparently, the ALA's actions described above are more sinister than I originally thought. Recall how the ALA surreptitiously promoted SaveTheInternet.org of which it is a member. That's a Free Press creation. Take a look at this:
"The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010.
The ALA is complicit.
NOTE ADDED 28 DECEMBER 2010:
This just in:
"Tech at Night: Net Neutrality Reactions Continue, ALA, Copyright, Trademark, the New Madden Curse," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 28 December 2010.
It turns out the fraud behind the Net Neutrality movement runs ever deeper than we knew: The ALA has been astroturfing for Free Press and its front group Save the Internet, over on Wikipedia. Can we please just make Wikipedia run ads already, forcing the site to bend to the will of market forces instead of its army of astroturfers and shills?
NOTE ADDED 29 DECEMBER 2010:
As a result of the publication of this blog post, apparent ALA supporters, if not ALA members or the OIF itself, have initiated action at Wikipedia that resulting in efforts to stop my editing there or to have me remove this blog post. Self-censorship, as the ALA would call it. At this moment, I have been indefinitely blocked from editing, likely in part because I have not removed this blog post. It is claimed I "outed" Wikipedia editor Deborah Caldwell-Stone, although the actual "outing" I discussed above occurred over five years ago.
But my main reason to write this note is that information I linked in this blog post is being, what, censored? Look at the struck out language from this page that I had linked above to see the Dcs47 name and her edit summary removed:
|Text Struck From Wikipedia Following Publication of This Blog Post|
While it may have been the right thing to do, its being done five years after the fact and only after I linked to it is unusual enough for me to bring it to your attention, particularly since it occurred as a result of what seems like an ALA censorship attempt. (Perhaps people should archive SafeLibraries.org and this SafeLibraries blog before the ALA gets them removed.)
Let me be clear Wikipedia itself is in no way responsible for this incident (and neither am I sure the ALA is). The volunteer editors like myself may be, but not Wikipedia. Certainly Wikipedia would not condone censorship to protect guilty parties (but the ALA would and has—Robert Spencer and Scott Savage come to mind).
SECOND NOTE ADDED 29 DECEMBER 2010:
As of now, additional information has been removed from Wikipedia. For example, the graphic above now contains censored material no longer visible at the site. Go look and compare.
NOTE ADDED 30 DECEMBER 2010:
This just in:
"Tech at Night: ALA, Wikipedia, Astroturf, Net Neutrality," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 30 December 2010.
On the heels of this story about ALA astroturfing on Wikipedia, the ALA is attempting retaliation. They are attempting to block the Safe Libraries author from having any further access to edit Wikipedia unless his article is censored.
And in case the core issue is lost: Wikipedia is helping cover up political activities by the ALA that could constitute illegal activity for a non-profit like the ALA. Whether this is conscious bias by Wikipedia, or a case of the ALA duping good faith Wikipedia administrators, it's not yet clear.
SECOND NOTE ADDED 30 DECEMBER 2010:
This is unbelievable. Free Press is now directly advertising on this very blog post! In a Google Ad! The Google Ad links to SaveTheInternet.com, the very site the ALA, a member of the site, was anonymously pushing on Wikipedia in possible violation of federal tax code! Here's a screen shot, with surrounding material for context:
|Free Press Advertisement on SafeLibraries!|
The Link Went to Site ALA was Astroturfing!
NOTE ADDED 18 MAY 2011:
Since the ALA has anonymously astroturfed for Free Press, the following about government takeover of the Internet may be of interest, especially since this goes against the very free speech the ALA claims to support (and watch Seton Motley explain why "Net Neutrality" is "terrible"):
- "Free Press – The Loneliest of the Lonely Media Marxists," by Seton Motley, The Washington Examiner, 18 May 2011.
On just the last absurd Media Marxist push – Network Neutrality – Free Press, Public Knowledge and the Media Access Project were all happily hand in hand.
NOTE ADDED 10 SEPTEMBER 2013:
Regarding the ALA's continued political activity to promote net neutrality, and recommending unconstitutional action, no less, I wrote this:
- "Violating Constitutional Separation of Powers is American Library Association's Latest Move for Net Neutrality," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 8 September 2013.
And that was cited here:
- "Tech at Night: Net Neutrality Oral Arguments Were Today. NSA Smashes Tor," by Neil Stevens, RedState, 9 September 2013.