|
|
What He Said
Since it tends to take me 100 words just to clear my metaphorical throat, I figured I'd let Jason explain why I think it would be a damned stupid idea to turn control of the Internet over to an international body:
The U.S. should tell Iran and everyone else to go fuck themselves. That includes the E.U. The ONLY reason they want control is to restrict the freedom of expression of their people. There is no other possible explaination.
If they want a globe-spanning network capable of connecting any digital device to any other digital device which they control, there's nothing stopping them from building it. After all, that's what we did.
Until that time, they are pleased to be sitting down and shutting the hell up.
You go Jason! I couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: Pat on October 7, 2005 01:19 PMAmen, brothers! Look what's happening in China right now, and that would be the future of the internet as we know it if the U.N. takes over. WAY too political a body to be trusted with freedom of speech.
Don't they have better things to do, anyhow? Like, uh - that pesky SLAVERY problem in Sudan?
Posted by: Rob on October 8, 2005 12:43 AMThey can't solve the pesky slavery problem in Sudan without getting all violent, and they are too deeply invested in the belief that "war is never the answer" to do that. What they can do, using peaceful methods, is cover it up. That's the real reason for the power grab.
And it may work, too. Google and Microsoft have already started filtering search requests from China, reducing the access that people have to information that might prove damaging to China's authority. What would happen if one the software giants, with UN backing, simply purchased the root servers outright, giving them the power to completely deny internet access to any site judged inflammatory by any country's laws?
LGF, Powerline, MEMRI, maybe even this blog... they would all quietly disappear, and any attempt to return them to the internet would simply be denied by its new multiculturalist corporate masters, citing some high-minded ideal like "eliminating hate speech."
I wonder what we would do then? Could WE create an alternative to the Internet? Would it achieve enough commercial success to be largely self-supporting, or would it just like the underground newspaper / comic books nobody reads?
If I'm correct, if you built it and don't sell it, you own it. Fairly plain and simple, one would think.
And actually, I would say that there might be ulterior motives aside from limiting freedom of expression - trying to cut into US profits would be what I'd think...
Posted by: ronaprhys on October 8, 2005 10:10 PM