71–80 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this. I like being able to know that a site is trustworthy based on it having a .gov domain name.
I mean... do you really want to have to guess whether congress.gov is run by the government, or some random country which decided to sell of .gov TLDs for extra cash? Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that we're among them as much as we'd like to think. Certainly if your speech is "Whistleblowing", you don't want to be in the US.
Well if you whistleblow in the US, you end up in front of a judge (after a probably very unpleasant stay in a cell for a bit). You end up in prison forever. Really bad time. As for the journalists who published what you leaked? Free speech yo! Whisleblow in China. You don't end up in front of a judge, you end up at the bottom of the ocean. And the journalists who published what you whistleblew? Likewise. And the peop…
While this seems rational, is this a play for them to gain some 'net credibility to start pushing harder to kill Net Neutrality? Aren't the players coming out in favour of this bill the same ones who have been arguing against NN? [1] I'd be wary of letting any of these folks have a say on the future of the internet. [1] ie: Heritage Action: http://heritageaction.com/agenda/strong-economy/internet-fre... TechFreedom:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean... do you really want to have to guess whether congress.gov is run by the government, or some random country which decided to sell of .gov TLDs for extra cash? Or, potentially more deceptively to consumers, "healthcare.gov", etc.
The other option is not giving it over to some random country. As I understand it, the other option would be giving the assignment of top-level domains to ITU or some similar agency within UN, which would then delegate .gov and .mil and other things to US.
I'm generally less critical of the UN, but I would agree that the UN is pretty much the last body that should be invested with any sorts of power.
This seems to be less a free speech vs. government censorship issue, and more of an international control vs. one-nation control issue. Whether managed by the ICANN or the NTIA, some government is going to be regulating these standards and domains.
Doesn't the president have veto power? Seems kind of silly to make a law that says Obama can't do something when he can just veto said law.
Cruz fighting for internet freedom, Obama expanding social welfare after cutting it, Clinton fighting for healthcare and minimum wage. I'm not trying to make this political but thank you Bernie Sanders. After the success of Bernie's grassroots movement traditional politicians are trying to appeal to the more progressive portion of the population since Trump controls the angry.
Eh, the very first paragraph dispels that notion. It's not fighting for Internet freedom, it's fighting for freedom of the Internet to be controlled by Americans. While I agree that up to now ICANN and IANA have done their work reasonably well, I wouldn't want them to be under influence of a single geopolitical entity. Then again, I certainly don't want them to be under the influence of all geopolitical entities, and…
So do I trust unelected international organizations or the US government less... That's a tough one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's ours. We created it. We've allowed other countries to use it because it benefits us to do so. I realize this is probably not the popular opinion, but I'm not sure it makes any sense really to give up control over it.
Also, they have a point about the free speech. For a system in which free speech is indispensable (the internet), there is actually only a handful of countries that seem to get the whole "free speech" thing correct, the US among them.
I have to wonder about that, especially with the fight over net neutrality.