Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#21

Post by ataggart »

steadicat wrote: post #12

"Governments shouldn't have a monopoly on governance." Isn't governance what governments are for? Granted, governments are dysfunctional in many ways, but suggesting governments let others govern seems a bit silly. Who else is going to govern? Should we let corporations sit on committees, next to officials, forgetting that officials were elected, and corporations were not? There is no guarantee that companies are goi…

>Isn't governance what governments are for?

All As do B, but not everyone that does B is an A. I don't need an organization with a geographic monopoly on police powers to run my son's little league.

>There is no guarantee that companies are going to take care of our interests better than governments do.

Straw-man. The argument isn't that companies are going to "take care of our interests", it's that both politicians and CEOs respond to self-interest, but at least firms have competition for our dollars, thus are incentivized on a continual basis to meet our wants.

The problem with the preceding is that government -- either intentionally, or as an unintended consequence -- helps to constrain the competitive market pressures.

I would put a lot more stock in the "net neutrality" legislation advocates if they even bothered to look at what extant legislation might be contributing to the hypothetical problem before agitating for increased government manipulation of the market.

Further:

- Firms can operate in different markets; I can choose my barber independently from my grocer. With governments there are often competing factors in making electoral decisions, such that we are left with choosing the lesser of the evil package-deals.

- Multiple firms can service different sets of preferences. We don't need to vote on what color tie to wear, and then have the minority yield to majority's preference.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#22

Post by jellicle »

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil.

It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies.

If government declines to be the rule-setter, private industry usually takes up the slack. Their rules have no accountability to individuals. But either way, the amount of government is conserved, only the basis for it and accountability of it change.

If the U.S. decided to abolish the FDA, for example, there would still be rules governing food quality in the United States. They would be rules set by consortiums of grocery store chains and meat packers and the like. "Walmart will buy meat only of this quality and no worse", whatever that quality level might be. The food protection rules didn't disappear, they just became divorced from accountability to the public.

Libertarians (Vint Cerf certainly is one, and corporations generally are as well) pronounce that shifting governance from government to corporations is good. Certainly it is in the corporate interest. As for good, any given shift could be good (in the sense that you could have a benevolent dictator, for a time), but in the aggregate, divorcing accountability from governance certainly results in worse governance (the average dictator is worse than the average elected representative).

The unelected, unaccountable, responsive-only-to-money Chamber of Commerce is not in fact the right entity to be deciding internet governance issues. Elected governments are.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#23

Post by alnayyir »

jayphelps wrote: post #18

I've said it before...I'm fairly confident the government will subsidize a nation-wide 5th generation wireless technology for free internet for all. It'll likely be restricted to just 80/8080 traffic, be throttled, and of course governed and monitored by the government. Since it's completely voluntary to use this network, it breaks no laws since by using it, you will grant them permission to snoop if they so choose.…

The body-snatchers are coming for us. They will take our places in our daily lives and slowly envelop the entire world.

Just one man's opinion though, that's all.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#24

Post by loumf »

liquidzoot wrote: post #17
loumf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that net-neutrality is only enforceable via government regulation. Meaning, that without the government mandating neutrality, the corporations would be free to break neutrality. As is usual, to provide freedom to one group, one must limit the freedoms of another, and we usually use government to do that.

I agree with this sentiment, but have some reservations about government ability to maintain neutrality. As things are, government doesn't understand how the technology works, and are ill equipped to regulate something they know so little about.

The government doesn't know about anything in that sense. They rely on everyone else to make a stink. We decry lobbyists, but the EFF is a lobbying organization. Joining them helps to pass the legislation. Nothing could help them understand it.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#26

Post by noglorp »

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

Well, the internet is currently really governed by the ICANN, a private corporation.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#27

Post by noglorp »

pierrefar wrote: post #3

Before we get all up in arms about governments taking monopoly, we should remind ourselves that the "bottom up" approach being championed here gave us the Google-Verizon open internet proposal in August. As I understand it, the proposal have implied net neutrality for wireline services but has an opt-out for wireless internet. So the bottom up approach is not a guarantee that it will produce better policies. But on b…

Think about it... the issue for wireline services is you can't just put in your own easily. Not an issue with wireless services. There is no special monopoly being given to wireless operators like wire operators.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#28

Post by zcid »

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

While I agree with your general point, I disagree with the idea that there is currently any accountability in our government's regulatory bodies. Regulatory agencies (FDA, FCC, DMV, etc) are set up in theory to remove micromanaging burdens from our legislators, but in reality, they end up becoming law-making bodies that are shielded from political repercussions.

One of our biggest obstacles to correcting our governance is returning political accountability to the regulatory and bureaucratic bodies.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#29

Post by zcid »

noglorp wrote: post #26
jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

Well, the internet is currently really governed by the ICANN, a private corporation.

ICANN is easily manipulated and/or a shill. As has been shown very recently with the domain confiscations, ICANN cannot be trusted. We need an organization that is similar to ICANN but totally transparent and directly accountable to the public without being even remotely connected to any government.

I have no idea how to implement such a body, but hopefully, someone more clever than myself will discover a way.

Re: Governments shouldn’t have a monopoly on Internet governance

#30

Post by presidentender »

jellicle wrote: post #22

I disagree. Google is completely wrong and self-serving here. Even evil. It is important for people to realize the idea of "conservation of government". There are many areas of life that will be governed by rules, like it or not. If government does it, they will be rules set by government, and therefore having some accountability to the people, in democratic societies. If government declines to be the rule-setter, pr…

You mention that governments are accountable to the people, probably because the people can vote. I don't see why a vote with a dollar is inferior to a vote on a ballot with respect to accountability.
Post reply on HN