China’s Dystopian “New IP” Plan for a New Internet

This is a hilarious scaremongering article written for those who are clueless. No surprise as it turns out it is from the comically named neocon outfit Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which is the most bellicose warmongering think tank in DC. They never met a poor third world country that they didn’t want bombed.

As for 6G the reason we have no leadership is that Lucent was run into the ground by a mindset of constantly meeting Wall Street earnings expectations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent

Huawei surpassed the Europeans (Ericsson, Nokia Siemens etc...) because they invested and innovated and bet the farm on the foundational technology invented by Erdal Arikan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdal_Arıkan

https://www.wired.com/story/huawei-5g-polar-codes-data-break...

> Huawei is proposing a fundamental internet redesign, which it calls “New IP,” designed to build “intrinsic security” into the web. Intrinsic security means that individuals must register to use the internet

We forced the world after 9/11 to block anonymous Internet. You cannot get Internet anywhere without ID. You used to be able to get prepaid SIM cards in most countries till we put pressure on them.

> Instead, Huawei has worked through the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union (ITU), where Beijing holds more political sway.

The ITU is the right address that most countries accept as the standards bodies for telecommuncations interoperability. By the way we don’t have to abide by the ITU or the world as we routinely ignore the UN anyways.

In fact there is precedence of us going our own way. We adopted CDMA and majority of the world adopted GSM in the first phase of the digital mobile adoption. They only truly converged on a mass market level about 15-20 years later with 4G.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunicatio...

We can create our own version of 6G and ignore other approaches.

I am some what confused by this being called dystopian. As more and more Westerners call for people being canceled due to a small but vocal minority on Twitter and other platforms, wouldn't this design play right into that? Rather than wasting time defending Twitter, the reasonable social justice warrior would simply petition the sympathetic State functionary to flip the bad-person's Internet connectivity. For example, right now people are trying to silence Candice Owens. Rather than doing that publicly, all they would need to do is find someone within the network admins that agrees and shut her off like Duysak did to Trump's Twitter.

This kind of social reform would be made all the more effective due to the fact that the wrong-thinkers would not be able to personally connect to any of their Internet based accounts. Sure, they could still use the debt card to get cash, or their credit card to spend, but only in the physical world. People could easily track the wrong-thinkers and shout them out of restaurants. They couldn't connect to Amazon, Walmart, or even Costco. They would ever increasingly be forced to capitulate to the right-thinkers, or, more appropriately, the Neo-liberal betters.

This is not dystopian, this is the way it should be. The original designers of the Internet failed to see how many people would fall out of line with the common, known truths. We should take this page from the Chinese and thank them for their leadership. We all know that no right is absolute. We also know that the wrong-thinkers, because they are in fact wrong thinkers, need guard rails on their speech. We need to use this plan to limit the 1st US amendment, and the equivalent EU laws. Otherwise wrong-think will prevail. People will believe they have the right to autonomy and free thought. They don't. They have the right to think what the Neo-liberal thinkers think. There is no land between these sides. All else are fascists.

They are proposing New IP system that requires people to register with their real ID in order to use the internet anywhere, not just in China. That’s pretty dystopian in my book.

I'm having the hardest time discerning whether or not this is sarcasm.

"Jonathan Swift (30 November 1667 – 19 October 1745) was an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories), poet and Anglican cleric who became Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, hence his common sobriquet, "Dean Swift"."

a "swifty" ?