3 ms·

South Korea's internet censorship has very little to do with their internet speeds. Saying "Well, if you want fast internet, it'll have to be censored" (as if o

South Korea's internet censorship has very little to do with their internet speeds. Saying "Well, if you want fast internet, it'll have to be censored" (as if our internet isn't fully monitored) is a false equivalence of the highest order.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Monitoring =/ censorship If the gov't views the internet as it's possession, then it can make sense for it to be both fast and censored.
- brenschluss 13y ago
  Well perhaps this may be the case in some scenarios, but that doesn't mean that the internet can't be censored when internet infrastructure is private, either. p = internet is public infrastructure q = censorship for some (but not all) p -> q for some (but not all) ¬p -> q q -> irrelevant It's irrelevant to the question of fast internet. To reiterate, you're saying that censorship and fast internet are a package deal, and if we want fast internet, we have to deal with censorship, amirite?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    I'm saying that the political process which leads to things like gov't required fast internet may also lead to greater encroachment upon said internet. It's an interesting way of thinking of things. Yesterday I listened to a discussion comparing the less regulated and more stable banking system of Canada to the heavily regulated and crash prone US banking system. Everyone in the US says that they want Canada's banking system, it's a common refrain. But do Americans want the political system which leads to such a banking system being implemented properly? As soon as you get to the Queen of England appointing US Senators, Americans tend to want to forget about the whole banking system thing. I suppose the point is this: If you tell the US political system to implement Korea style fast and cheap internet, what you're going to end up with is something much different from what you wanted. The same political forces which got you to your current location will filter this legislation as well. And you may end up with something far worse than the status quo.
    - reversi_online 13y ago
      Canada's banks were still under the equivalent of Glass-Steagall restrictions at the time, and the government had kept them on a very short leash in many other respects. Your analysis is 180 degrees removed fom reality. I don't know where the heck you're getting the nonsense about the Queen from either, the Canadian Prime Minister selects senators at his own discretion and the royal involvment in the process is just ceremonial.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Time for you to crack open our nation's history books!

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Monitoring =/ censorship If the gov't views the internet as it's possession, then it can make sense for it to be both fast and censored.

brenschluss 13y ago
Well perhaps this may be the case in some scenarios, but that doesn't mean that the internet can't be censored when internet infrastructure is private, either. p = internet is public infrastructure q = censorship for some (but not all) p -> q for some (but not all) ¬p -> q q -> irrelevant It's irrelevant to the question of fast internet. To reiterate, you're saying that censorship and fast internet are a package deal, and if we want fast internet, we have to deal with censorship, amirite?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  I'm saying that the political process which leads to things like gov't required fast internet may also lead to greater encroachment upon said internet. It's an interesting way of thinking of things. Yesterday I listened to a discussion comparing the less regulated and more stable banking system of Canada to the heavily regulated and crash prone US banking system. Everyone in the US says that they want Canada's banking system, it's a common refrain. But do Americans want the political system which leads to such a banking system being implemented properly? As soon as you get to the Queen of England appointing US Senators, Americans tend to want to forget about the whole banking system thing. I suppose the point is this: If you tell the US political system to implement Korea style fast and cheap internet, what you're going to end up with is something much different from what you wanted. The same political forces which got you to your current location will filter this legislation as well. And you may end up with something far worse than the status quo.
  - reversi_online 13y ago
    Canada's banks were still under the equivalent of Glass-Steagall restrictions at the time, and the government had kept them on a very short leash in many other respects. Your analysis is 180 degrees removed fom reality. I don't know where the heck you're getting the nonsense about the Queen from either, the Canadian Prime Minister selects senators at his own discretion and the royal involvment in the process is just ceremonial.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Time for you to crack open our nation's history books!