2 ms·

> Its a bit ironic, China didn't want to be beholden to anyone and buggered off and built their own... meanwhile, the rest of the world whines - but doesn't see

> Its a bit ironic, China didn't want to be beholden to anyone and buggered off and built their own... meanwhile, the rest of the world whines - but doesn't seem to be interested in building anything similar for national infrastructure. Maybe the alphabets, the culture, the political regime and the available funds make it possibly successful for China. Most of the time, the “there can be only one” rule seems to apply. We may live to see the day where the giant US proprietary networks morph into some kind of federated “national” networks, with different set of legal rules. Somehow reminiscent of email, dns, xmpp... There doesn’t seem to be an easy fix or alternatives to Twitter or Facebook.

mech422 6y ago
>>Most of the time, the “there can be only one” rule seems to apply. I don't think thats an issue given we have FB, Twitter, Insta, Snapchat, Reddit, etc etc. I think even myspace is still around.. >>giant US proprietary networks morph into some kind of federated “national” networks, with different set of legal rules. I just don't think US _companies_ should morph into 'national' anything.. If you feel freedom of opinion/speech is so important, and you're counting on private companies in foreign countries to provide it - you've failed your citizens. Germany has its own armed forces, because they consider that key to the peace and sovereignty of their nation. Wouldn't a similar approach to digital infrastructure be prudent?
- jeromenerf 6y ago
  > I just don't think US _companies_ should morph into 'national' anything.. My wording wasn’t clear sorry. I was imagining the whole system morphing, not the company being themselves morphed in public services. Facebook could be the pRivately owned US social network and the hypothetical Francebook a public service, both exchanging in a federated fashion over some kind of agreed upon protocol.
  - mech422 6y ago
    yeah - that really would be challenging...the data streams would have to be checked for compliance with local law in both directions, in real time? Of course, that's assuming they could ever agree on a protocol. :-P
    - jeromenerf 6y ago
      Comparable to the efforts spent for the international stock and trade markets I guess. Standards, treaties, taxes, lots of quirks and paperwork.

mech422 6y ago

>>Most of the time, the “there can be only one” rule seems to apply. I don't think thats an issue given we have FB, Twitter, Insta, Snapchat, Reddit, etc etc. I think even myspace is still around.. >>giant US proprietary networks morph into some kind of federated “national” networks, with different set of legal rules. I just don't think US _companies_ should morph into 'national' anything.. If you feel freedom of opinion/speech is so important, and you're counting on private companies in foreign countries to provide it - you've failed your citizens. Germany has its own armed forces, because they consider that key to the peace and sovereignty of their nation. Wouldn't a similar approach to digital infrastructure be prudent?

jeromenerf 6y ago
> I just don't think US _companies_ should morph into 'national' anything.. My wording wasn’t clear sorry. I was imagining the whole system morphing, not the company being themselves morphed in public services. Facebook could be the pRivately owned US social network and the hypothetical Francebook a public service, both exchanging in a federated fashion over some kind of agreed upon protocol.
- mech422 6y ago
  yeah - that really would be challenging...the data streams would have to be checked for compliance with local law in both directions, in real time? Of course, that's assuming they could ever agree on a protocol. :-P
  - jeromenerf 6y ago
    Comparable to the efforts spent for the international stock and trade markets I guess. Standards, treaties, taxes, lots of quirks and paperwork.