Want a reason why the US should keep control of the Internet?

[DragonMasterAlex]

Iran, Cuba, Africa say that the Internet Allows too much Freedom[/1].

How safe would the Internet be in the hands of men like Fidel Castro, whose government disallows ANYONE from using the internet without government PERMISSION? How safe is Freedom itself when online writers are imprisoned for writing what they think and/or believe?

A recent thread here discussed this very topic, and I don't recall seeing any really great reasons why we shouldn't allow other countries to manage the internet. Well, here's a great one, and it ought to be the only reason you need.

Jason

 

[Stunt]

Why do we need another one??

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Let's see...because it's too important of an issue to get buried in the bullsh1t from the old thread?

Jason

 

[Stunt]

Your article is pretty crap.

It doesn't really outline the concerns of these nations...They are not advocating Internet run by Fidel or other extremist regimes like Iran, but "a multinational democratic (institution) which administers this network of networks" as explained by the Cuban spokesperson.

The final paragraph seems out of place, while I support the US's control over the internet (as I feel it is the most Constitutionally free nation in the world), the "economic freedom index" is nothing more than a bias towards property rights, monetary poicy and taxation; nothing to do with the idea of governing content on the Internet.

I agree with these nations that the current Internet has been 'too free' in the sense that spammers and hackers roam free and this has been a huge pitfall the US has utterly failed at. Maybe some restriction is needed, things that can only be offered through an international system, much like intelligence networks.

I don't have a solution to the Internet's issues, but taking this opportunity to bash countries with valid concerns is unreasonable.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

First amendment no big deal to high school students

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes ?too far? in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

?These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,? said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. ?Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation?s future.?

Yep, the US is definitely the best for the Internet.:roll:

US adults almost as weak as their kids

Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll.

As for the OP, last I checked . . . Africa wasn't a country. Many of the people in Iran and Cuba are eager for more personal freedoms. It's quite perilous to associate the views of small minded leadership (Ahmadinejad, Bush, Castro) with that of the people.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Your article is pretty crap.

It doesn't really outline the concerns of these nations...They are not advocating Internet run by Fidel or other extremist regimes like Iran, but "a multinational democratic (institution) which administers this network of networks" as explained by the Cuban spokesperson.

The final paragraph seems out of place, while I support the US's control over the internet (as I feel it is the most Constitutionally free nation in the world), the "economic freedom index" is nothing more than a bias towards property rights, monetary poicy and taxation; nothing to do with the idea of governing content on the Internet.

I agree with these nations that the current Internet has been 'too free' in the sense that spammers and hackers roam free and this has been a huge pitfall the US has utterly failed at. Maybe some restriction is needed, things that can only be offered through an international system, much like intelligence networks.

I don't have a solution to the Internet's issues, but taking this opportunity to bash countries with valid concerns is unreasonable.

A bias toward property rights? You mean, free countries are biased toward the very thing that ENABLES freedom to exist?! GASP! What a shocker! What other revelations can you give us?

There is NOTHING to be gained by creating an "international system" when the majority of "international interests" are run by tyrants, thugs and dictators.

When the rest of the world learns to RESPECT private property rights, free speech and action rights, etc., then we'll talk.

Jason

 

[RabidMongoose]

Here's another reason: It invented the Internet and started it up.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
First amendment no big deal to high school students

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes ?too far? in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

?These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,? said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. ?Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation?s future.?

Yep, the US is definitely the best for the Internet.:roll:

US adults almost as weak as their kids

Support for the First Amendment has eroded significantly since Sept. 11 and nearly half of Americans now think the constitutional amendment on free speech goes too far in the rights it guarantees, according to a new poll.

As for the OP, last I checked . . . Africa wasn't a country. Many of the people in Iran and Cuba are eager for more personal freedoms. It's quite perilous to associate the views of small minded leadership (Ahmadinejad, Bush, Castro) with that of the people.

And yet, that's *precisely* the position that these "leaders" are trying to posit: that THEIR view is the view of "the people". I agree that the people of these other nations are, largely, eager for the kinds of freedoms US citizens take for granted (if that weren't so, we wouldn't have so many refugees from the likes of Cuba, assorted middle eastern nations, China, etc. coming in every year. If Economic Rights weren't an issue, we wouldn't have millions of illegal Mexicans streaming over our southern borders every year, either.)

I agree and realize (and FEAR) that support for the first amendment, indeed, for freedom *at all*, has eroded since 9/11 and the start of the "war on terror". The article you posted is indicative of the failure of our educational system in the US to teach people WHY the Constitution is important, how UNUSUAL it is in the history of the world and how today our very own politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, work *tirelessly* to undermine the very framework that made the United States the freest nation in the world.

Sad, really.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Here's another reason: It invented the Internet and started it up.

I agree that's a legitimate reason. Of course, the lack of respect for (gasp!) prive property rights or intellectual property rights by most of the world is precisely the reason why they think they have a right to put their hands in and "manage" it.

The sole reason these nations want the internet censored is simple: When free ideas are exchanged as readily as they are on the internet, they tend to gain a life far greater than what they would if that communication weren't there. They're afraid of losing their POWER, period.

Jason

 

[Kibbo86]

I agree that the internet should only be controlled by countries who have a history of protecting free speech. I also agree that the US does get first say in how it distributes the decision-making powers, since they invented it.

Thing is, it wouldn't take much work to set up a parallel system of protocols, and if Europe and other rich countries started thinking that it would be in their best interest to do so, then the internet may experience competition.

The question is, what do you want?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
When the rest of the world learns to RESPECT private property rights, free speech and action rights, etc., then we'll talk.

Just drawing the distinction between private property rights and free speech rights...

I am all for free speech rights, but the economic freedom index is not representative of that...not even to mention the US ranks 13th. It's odd you support such a claim that actually hurts your argument...

Can you also not admit that the Internet has way too many freedoms: in the forms of hacking and spamming? Or do you support that too?

 

[imported_alp]

THe only problem with the US keeping control is I worry it will try to apply US laws (especially the DMCA) to the internet as a whole, and therefore also restrict freedom (but not nearly as much as cuba, iran, china etc. would, of course; not in a political sense just a pro-entertainment industry sense)

 

[episodic]

I say fark em. If they want to make their own internet, fine. I've never particularly been fond of french or polish internet sites myself.

I can do without it.