4 ms·

At least it's better than to let a KGB-run dictatorship have any say in the matter, especially considering their aggressive foreign policy.

gear54rus 10y ago
Always a matter of perspective. I get the dictatorship part, but it's certainly not US who can berate others for 'aggressive foreign policy'.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  Yeah. "Aggressive foreign policy" is probably not the right issue to be raising here for a variety of reasons. I would think that the real pressing issue is Internet censorship. And on this issue the U.S. really does have a very good track record compared to a lot of the other countries who might want to control ICANN. http://map.opennet.net/ http://map.opennet.net/
  - johansch 10y ago
    That good track record is because the US is so far ahead in pervasive large-scale Internet eavesdropping and intelligence gathering. It's counter-productive to block stuff when you want more data.
    - stephenhuey 10y ago
      As much as I dislike excessive surveillance, it's worth pointing out that defenders of free speech far outweigh proponents of gathering data for eavesdropping. Of course, the USA enjoyed free speech before the internet existed. It's one of our strongest values. I partly grew up abroad and have friends in numerous countries where people do not have the right to speak their mind, and this should not be taken lightly. Again, I am not a fan of the extensive surveillance, but the "good track record" does not have its foundation in eavesdropping.
    - r_smart 10y ago
      You're conflating two things here. The United States, despite it's many flaws (one of them being surveillance) has a pretty sterling record on freedom of speech. This predated the internet, and has survived, possibly even strengthened, in the face of a massive proliferation in the average person's ability to spread ideas and (mis)information. You can rightfully criticize the surveillance state that has arisen, but it's just wrong to try and paint freedom of speech as an offshoot of that. Or even, frankly, to criticize the US stance on freedom of speech (unless you think it's too broad).

gear54rus 10y ago

Always a matter of perspective. I get the dictatorship part, but it's certainly not US who can berate others for 'aggressive foreign policy'.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pdabbadabba 10y ago
Yeah. "Aggressive foreign policy" is probably not the right issue to be raising here for a variety of reasons. I would think that the real pressing issue is Internet censorship. And on this issue the U.S. really does have a very good track record compared to a lot of the other countries who might want to control ICANN. http://map.opennet.net/ http://map.opennet.net/
- johansch 10y ago
  That good track record is because the US is so far ahead in pervasive large-scale Internet eavesdropping and intelligence gathering. It's counter-productive to block stuff when you want more data.
  - stephenhuey 10y ago
    As much as I dislike excessive surveillance, it's worth pointing out that defenders of free speech far outweigh proponents of gathering data for eavesdropping. Of course, the USA enjoyed free speech before the internet existed. It's one of our strongest values. I partly grew up abroad and have friends in numerous countries where people do not have the right to speak their mind, and this should not be taken lightly. Again, I am not a fan of the extensive surveillance, but the "good track record" does not have its foundation in eavesdropping.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    You're conflating two things here. The United States, despite it's many flaws (one of them being surveillance) has a pretty sterling record on freedom of speech. This predated the internet, and has survived, possibly even strengthened, in the face of a massive proliferation in the average person's ability to spread ideas and (mis)information. You can rightfully criticize the surveillance state that has arisen, but it's just wrong to try and paint freedom of speech as an offshoot of that. Or even, frankly, to criticize the US stance on freedom of speech (unless you think it's too broad).