6 ms·
> "The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, includin
by messe 10y ago
> "The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.
For those of us in foreign (to the US) countries, I don't quite see the issue here.
- analogmemory 10y agoI don't know why they wasted space quoting the obnoxious gasbag known as Ted Cruz.
- gumby 10y agoThey presumably had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find someone to make a negative comment at this point.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoHistory I guess. After inventing it, inventing and deploying many of the devices and technologies it depends upon (including satellite communications and undersea cables), all that engenders a proprietary interest in its future. America may look dimly on letting Lichtenstein etc. have a say in its future.
- Symbiote 10y agoThis is only about DNS, which has little to do with satellites and undersea cables.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoAnd a 'proprietary interest' is about ownership. Yeah its my car, but everybody wants to drive it.
- brockers 10y agoBut DNS is the keys to the kingdom. After beginning most of what we now call "the internet" hanging on to one last key doesn't seem like to much to ask. Can someone imagine France giving up the right determine if certain wines are Bordeaux? Or the Swedish Academy of Sciences getting final say on who wins the Nobel Peace prize?
- dagw 10y agoSwedish Academy of Sciences getting final say on who wins the Nobel Peace prize? Bad example, since they 'gave that up' (in the sense you can give up something you never had) at the prize's founding.
- allendoerfer 10y agoThe example is even worse than OP thinks, because American universities through better cooperation de-facto have control over the memorial prize in economics.
- qw 10y agoThe key is only useful if you have something to unlock. The web is responsible for the extreme number of users we see today, and it was invented by a British guy. The funding came from an European laboratory.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThat's the World Wide Web (html and browsers). The Internet was a DARPA project, entirely American.
- pdabbadabba 10y agoDepends on the country! It's easy not to see the problem when one's home country's policies about permissible Internet content are no more liberal than those of the country that controls ICANN. But I can imagine some friction if the situation were flipped. If, say, China were to control ICANN, I think a lot of people should be concerned given its pervasive efforts to control Internet content. Other countries like Russia and India, while not in China's league, could also present censorship issues. Maybe they would have the good sense not to enforce these policies at the ICANN level...but they also might not.
- mhurron 10y ago> I don't quite see the issue here. Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law. In reality, any country can abuse it's position, but in regards the internet it doesn't really appear that it has ever happened. This is very much change for change sake without any real benefit to be seen.
- woah 10y ago> Well there really is only one country in the world that has 'Freedom of Speech' codified into law. What?? America's freedom of speech protections are strong and admirable, but this is surely an empty claim that you are unable and unwilling to defend.
- mhurron 10y agoName one country that has similar laws. I very literally know of no other country. Britain, Canada, the EU and Japan all have Hate Speech laws. Hate speech laws are laws restricting speech for being nothing more than speech.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- serge2k 10y agoThe US accepts limitations on free speech as well.
- briandear 10y agoOnly when that speech creates an imminent threat of harm. Not simply because of an idea being expressed.
- mahranch 10y agoI hate this statement because it usually means the person making it doesn't know very much about free speech laws. As another user points out, the limits placed on our free speech are all directly related to actions that can harm other people. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater. That can/will result in a stampede which will hurt or even kill other people. It isn't limiting what you're saying because it's some dislike political opinion, it's limiting what you can say so you don't kill people. There's a huge, huge difference.