5 ms·

While I agree with most of what you say, I'm not so sure "large majorities in favour of free communication over the internet" Do you have any data to back this

by gizzlon 15y ago

While I agree with most of what you say, I'm not so sure "large majorities in favour of free communication over the internet" Do you have any data to back this up? My guess is that if you frame it the right way, most people would vote for censoring the Internet

oelewapperke 15y ago
It's easy to get to the obvious point that a large worldwide majority favors censoring the internet. There has been a study showing that a large majority of Chinese are actually in favor of their internet control, over 90%. That's 1 billion people right there. Studies in muslim countries consistently show that there, too, large majorities want internet to be non-free (and in many countries it is). Again that's close to 1 billion people. And, again India supports it too. Assuming most Indian people agree with India's constitution that gives you a majority of "world citizens" without needing a single American or European vote. The sad fact is that it is obvious : a world government would be an a lot more repressive than the American government, a fact that can not seriously come as a surprise to anyone who watches UN decisions (e.g. the UN human rights council, consisting of China, Saudi arabia, Libya, ...), who derise Israel's rough treatment of 2 women at a border crossing, WHILE they are themselves comitting genocide on their own people. And, frankly, even most Europeans are in favor of outlawing "hate speech" (which basically means outlawing what are considered undesirable political movements. The problem is of course that 20%-30% (at least) of European citizens are members of these parties). I've lived in Europe for a long time, and the effects of this go from mildly-scary (such as the de-facto outlawing of research that might alter our ideas about global warming, including the study ways to fix it through "artificial" means, like artificially increasing or decreasing cloud cover (Euro governments really don't like the fact that global warming could be fixed with 5 planes, or a decent fleet of automated ships, spreading reflective particles in the athmosphere). There's also downright scary ways liberties are curtailed in Europe, such as EUCD enforcement, which is way worse than the DMCA ever will be (but even the EUCD is child's play compared to muslim, African, chinese, or Indian internet laws). America is the only country I've ever been where you can generally assume that someone you start talking to in the street is in favor of a completely free press, a completely free internet. The only one. But America is less than 5% of the world population. This is why you want internet control to remain in the US government's hands, against the "will of the people". All these countries, with the agreement of their citizens, would make the internet a tiny echo chamber that simply shows them how they were right all along. There's the hope that since Texas wants the internet to prove the earth is only 5000 year old, and Saudi Arabia want people beheaded that suggest evolution happened, or that show their own genocidal history (or is it the other way around ?), this will somehow "balance out". Frankly, I doubt it. The result will be quite the reverse, only non-offensive subjects will be allowed on the internet. Nothing even mildly suggestive. No history study at all, because most everyone objects to their own history (e.g. the American treatment of black slaves pales in comparison to the muslim treatment of black slaves. Then again, the holocaust pales in comparison to muslim treatment of black slaves). Things like GDP, that could be taken to "prove" that most countries (all except America and China) are worse than others, will be outlawed ... and so on and so forth. In general "truth" would be outlawed. Because facts hurt too many people's feelings.
Joakal 15y ago
Wiki article on Internet Censorship in Australia: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Opinion_Polling https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_cens...
nitrogen 15y ago
To interested readers: there is an interesting auto-killed response from oelewapperke that can only be read if you turn on showdead in your HN account settings. I suggest enabling showdead and reading the comment.
- Joakal 15y ago
  I read the comment, it seems heavily opinionated touting worldwide numbers with hyperbole and more. Overall it seems the poster has an axe to grind. I'm not sure if it was constructive. However, the parent poster was asking for sources.
- ignifero 15y ago
  I especially disagree with his/her views on Europeans. If anything, we are more sensitive on those matters than the US, that's why the world's dissidents seek refuge here.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- khafra 15y ago
  He definitely has an axe to grind, and the first Google result casts some doubt on the 90% figure: http://journal.webscience.org/138/ http://journal.webscience.org/138/ But his larger point remains intact: Freedom of the press/Internet is only an axiomatic good in educated America and Europe. It's on shaky ground in the rest of the world, which in a democratic referendum would make the educated population of America and Europe a rounding error.
marknutter 15y ago
If by favoring free communication over the internet you mean "my email will be private", I think you can safely assume large majorities will be in favor of it.
- jellicle 15y ago
  Not at all. If the question is "Should the government be able to access email to track down pornographers and terrorists?", the answer is that 99% of the population is in favor of it.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    That's quite the claim and I don't believe it for a second.
    - jm4 15y ago
      The greater point is getting lost in the BS statistic. Make no mistake; the debate could be skewed any which way if you start with the right question. There was an episode of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!"[1] where they talk to a pollster who does this for a living. He does a few demo polls where he basically starts by saying what result he wants and then asks the question that will produce exactly that. 1. Season 4, episode 9 "Numbers"
    - GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
      Should the government be allowed to stop you in the middle of the street and ask you to strip naked and cavity search you on the spot to ensure you don't have a bomb somewhere on you or in your body so that you don't walk into times square and blow the place up along with you. Ponder that. I doubt 99% of the pop will agree to this. Sure its maybe 1 step up from email. However some people would agree with what I just said because of fear. Fear is powerful. We must not let it control us.
    - d0ne 15y ago
      I'm with ^
  - 15y ago

by gizzlon 15y ago

oelewapperke 15y ago

It's easy to get to the obvious point that a large worldwide majority favors censoring the internet. There has been a study showing that a large majority of Chinese are actually in favor of their internet control, over 90%. That's 1 billion people right there. Studies in muslim countries consistently show that there, too, large majorities want internet to be non-free (and in many countries it is). Again that's close to 1 billion people. And, again India supports it too. Assuming most Indian people agree with India's constitution that gives you a majority of "world citizens" without needing a single American or European vote. The sad fact is that it is obvious : a world government would be an a lot more repressive than the American government, a fact that can not seriously come as a surprise to anyone who watches UN decisions (e.g. the UN human rights council, consisting of China, Saudi arabia, Libya, ...), who derise Israel's rough treatment of 2 women at a border crossing, WHILE they are themselves comitting genocide on their own people. And, frankly, even most Europeans are in favor of outlawing "hate speech" (which basically means outlawing what are considered undesirable political movements. The problem is of course that 20%-30% (at least) of European citizens are members of these parties). I've lived in Europe for a long time, and the effects of this go from mildly-scary (such as the de-facto outlawing of research that might alter our ideas about global warming, including the study ways to fix it through "artificial" means, like artificially increasing or decreasing cloud cover (Euro governments really don't like the fact that global warming could be fixed with 5 planes, or a decent fleet of automated ships, spreading reflective particles in the athmosphere). There's also downright scary ways liberties are curtailed in Europe, such as EUCD enforcement, which is way worse than the DMCA ever will be (but even the EUCD is child's play compared to muslim, African, chinese, or Indian internet laws). America is the only country I've ever been where you can generally assume that someone you start talking to in the street is in favor of a completely free press, a completely free internet. The only one. But America is less than 5% of the world population. This is why you want internet control to remain in the US government's hands, against the "will of the people". All these countries, with the agreement of their citizens, would make the internet a tiny echo chamber that simply shows them how they were right all along. There's the hope that since Texas wants the internet to prove the earth is only 5000 year old, and Saudi Arabia want people beheaded that suggest evolution happened, or that show their own genocidal history (or is it the other way around ?), this will somehow "balance out". Frankly, I doubt it. The result will be quite the reverse, only non-offensive subjects will be allowed on the internet. Nothing even mildly suggestive. No history study at all, because most everyone objects to their own history (e.g. the American treatment of black slaves pales in comparison to the muslim treatment of black slaves. Then again, the holocaust pales in comparison to muslim treatment of black slaves). Things like GDP, that could be taken to "prove" that most countries (all except America and China) are worse than others, will be outlawed ... and so on and so forth. In general "truth" would be outlawed. Because facts hurt too many people's feelings.

Joakal 15y ago

Wiki article on Internet Censorship in Australia: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Opinion_Polling https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_cens...

nitrogen 15y ago

To interested readers: there is an interesting auto-killed response from oelewapperke that can only be read if you turn on showdead in your HN account settings. I suggest enabling showdead and reading the comment.

Joakal 15y ago
I read the comment, it seems heavily opinionated touting worldwide numbers with hyperbole and more. Overall it seems the poster has an axe to grind. I'm not sure if it was constructive. However, the parent poster was asking for sources.
ignifero 15y ago
I especially disagree with his/her views on Europeans. If anything, we are more sensitive on those matters than the US, that's why the world's dissidents seek refuge here.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
khafra 15y ago
He definitely has an axe to grind, and the first Google result casts some doubt on the 90% figure: http://journal.webscience.org/138/ http://journal.webscience.org/138/ But his larger point remains intact: Freedom of the press/Internet is only an axiomatic good in educated America and Europe. It's on shaky ground in the rest of the world, which in a democratic referendum would make the educated population of America and Europe a rounding error.

marknutter 15y ago

If by favoring free communication over the internet you mean "my email will be private", I think you can safely assume large majorities will be in favor of it.

jellicle 15y ago
Not at all. If the question is "Should the government be able to access email to track down pornographers and terrorists?", the answer is that 99% of the population is in favor of it.
- dantheman 15y ago
  That's quite the claim and I don't believe it for a second.
  - jm4 15y ago
    The greater point is getting lost in the BS statistic. Make no mistake; the debate could be skewed any which way if you start with the right question. There was an episode of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!"[1] where they talk to a pollster who does this for a living. He does a few demo polls where he basically starts by saying what result he wants and then asks the question that will produce exactly that. 1. Season 4, episode 9 "Numbers"
  - GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
    Should the government be allowed to stop you in the middle of the street and ask you to strip naked and cavity search you on the spot to ensure you don't have a bomb somewhere on you or in your body so that you don't walk into times square and blow the place up along with you. Ponder that. I doubt 99% of the pop will agree to this. Sure its maybe 1 step up from email. However some people would agree with what I just said because of fear. Fear is powerful. We must not let it control us.
  - d0ne 15y ago
    I'm with ^
- 15y ago