4 ms·

ICANN Is Not the Internet Content Police (2015)

69 points by nerdo 3y ago

darig 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sackfield 3y ago
It's refreshing to see an organisation act with restraint. It's easy to overstep authority by acting like a benevolent dictator, especially when people try and compress a complex topic down to "good vs bad", so it's great that not only recognise the complexity of the issue but refuse to act rashly.
zokier 3y ago
This is bit of a self-inflicted problem for the internet (although not really ICANNs fault for once). ccTLDs would make is extremely clear what jurisdiction applies and where the authority is. I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that ICANN should suspend domains under ccTLDs. In contrast the gtlds we use do leave the door open for this debate to drag on, and because gtlds are run by private companies the whole discussion becomes more complicated.
bitwize 3y ago
2015 precedes the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum, watershed moments when we started to really worry about the kinds of things we allow to proliferate online. We have a different internet now, and content policing by providers of various network services is very much on the table.
- 123yawaworht456 3y ago
  "we" who?
- nerdo 3y ago
  What “kinds of things” are “we” really worried about? Representative government, public referendums? Very much on what table?
  - bitwize 3y ago
    Right-wing misinformation that can tip public opinion in favor of electing Trump or voting for Brexit. That's the danger.
    - zrn900 3y ago
      So 'misinformation' about nonexistent WMDs were all ok. Despite having been propagated by the 'most trustworthy' organizations and media outlets who are today ironically being used as 'fact checkers'.
    - kbolino 3y ago
      Forcing consensus upon a heterogeneous electorate raises the question of whether liberal democracy itself is the right model of governance.
    - monsecchris 3y ago
      An abundance of left wing disinformation is fine though
      - neverrroot 3y ago
        I'm trying to learn more about what disinformation is, could you please post your thoughts under the following Ask HN post? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369
- pyuser583 3y ago
  “We” were worrying about misinformation far before those events. “Misinformation” was pretty much a canned response to Brexit and the Trump election, neither of which were heavily influenced by misinformation.
Devasta 3y ago
[flagged]
- 1234554321a 3y ago
  They come down in London
aussieguy1234 3y ago
DNS is an open protocol. If they ever tried being the internet police, expect some "Freedom DNS" entity to form. Nothing would prevent users from switching over to get the uncensored version of the internet.
miki123211 3y ago
ICANN (and more worryingly Let's Encrypt) is not going to be the content police only for as long as the US government allows them not to be the content police.

69 points by nerdo 3y ago

darig 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sackfield 3y ago

It's refreshing to see an organisation act with restraint. It's easy to overstep authority by acting like a benevolent dictator, especially when people try and compress a complex topic down to "good vs bad", so it's great that not only recognise the complexity of the issue but refuse to act rashly.

zokier 3y ago

This is bit of a self-inflicted problem for the internet (although not really ICANNs fault for once). ccTLDs would make is extremely clear what jurisdiction applies and where the authority is. I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that ICANN should suspend domains under ccTLDs. In contrast the gtlds we use do leave the door open for this debate to drag on, and because gtlds are run by private companies the whole discussion becomes more complicated.

bitwize 3y ago

2015 precedes the election of Trump and the Brexit referendum, watershed moments when we started to really worry about the kinds of things we allow to proliferate online. We have a different internet now, and content policing by providers of various network services is very much on the table.

123yawaworht456 3y ago
"we" who?
nerdo 3y ago
What “kinds of things” are “we” really worried about? Representative government, public referendums? Very much on what table?
- bitwize 3y ago
  Right-wing misinformation that can tip public opinion in favor of electing Trump or voting for Brexit. That's the danger.
  - zrn900 3y ago
    So 'misinformation' about nonexistent WMDs were all ok. Despite having been propagated by the 'most trustworthy' organizations and media outlets who are today ironically being used as 'fact checkers'.
  - kbolino 3y ago
    Forcing consensus upon a heterogeneous electorate raises the question of whether liberal democracy itself is the right model of governance.
  - monsecchris 3y ago
    An abundance of left wing disinformation is fine though
    - neverrroot 3y ago
      I'm trying to learn more about what disinformation is, could you please post your thoughts under the following Ask HN post? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554369
pyuser583 3y ago
“We” were worrying about misinformation far before those events. “Misinformation” was pretty much a canned response to Brexit and the Trump election, neither of which were heavily influenced by misinformation.

Devasta 3y ago

[flagged]

1234554321a 3y ago
They come down in London

aussieguy1234 3y ago

DNS is an open protocol. If they ever tried being the internet police, expect some "Freedom DNS" entity to form. Nothing would prevent users from switching over to get the uncensored version of the internet.

miki123211 3y ago

ICANN (and more worryingly Let's Encrypt) is not going to be the content police only for as long as the US government allows them not to be the content police.