41–50 of 72 posts
Europe has been rewriting the rules of the internet for a while. It's amazing how europe/EU is getting a pass when it comes to censorship. Not to mention what our corporations and our media have been doing. The problems with the internet isn't china. It's our media and our government but for some odd reason, all I hear is "china/beijing". Is beijing the reason why there is so much censorship? Is beijing the reason wh…
[flagged]
Those that know their history better could expand upon this, but isn't this what happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s where globalization peaked and then gave way to nationalism/protectionism ? Perhaps we're just dealing with a natural cycle of trade expansion followed by protectionism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I take a step back and look at what the internet is today I am simply amazed. That we could for once agree world wide on running this huge thing together involving almost every country in existence. Leaving (recent) developments like carrier grade Nat aside, we have a system that enables me to address anybody anywhere on this planet directly and send them a data packet that arrives within milliseconds. I m…
I don't think it's accurate to consider the internet decentralized. Consider the entire domain name system is under ICANN control with a couple dozen root servers. Or the backbone which is almost entirely owned by Level3, Cogent, and a few other regional carriers. Redundant is nice, but it's not decentralized.
:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GDPR is mostly good, it is a lot of work, but so is protecting people's data. It is a law for individual's personal data. It is coming from the right place. Article 13 is for copyright owners, not individuals. Large corporations benefit the most from this legislation.
The goal of GDPR is good, but I think the biggest issue people have with it is enforcing one countries laws in another country, where people following the regulations had no say in them (regulation without representation). Also, if I'm reading it right, one of the provisions Article 27) is that if you are outside the EU, you need to hire someone inside the EU as a representative / contact point for GDPR issues. If I'…
You still have to follow the majority of the Article but a representative is not required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> I don't really care about what happens in china. I'm just sick of "our" media distracting from what really affects me with nonsense about china.
HN runs plenty of articles about tech companies knowing way too much about us. It runs plenty of articles about government surveillance in the US (and the rest of the West). We talk about those things a lot, and we care about them a lot. But we can talk about other things, too, and this article is about China. How about letting those of us who care talk about China, rather than trying to derail the conversation? There will be another article about the stuff you care about tomorrow, if not sooner. Feel free to join in the discussion on that one when it comes.
> I would really be interested on what your agenda is.
Maybe the agenda is to be able to have a conversation about a topic, without the conversation getting hijacked?
> It's funny how the two replies to my comment is about whataboutism.
That's because this article is about China, not about the US or Europe. What you did is exactly whataboutism.
Europe has been rewriting the rules of the internet for a while. It's amazing how europe/EU is getting a pass when it comes to censorship. Not to mention what our corporations and our media have been doing. The problems with the internet isn't china. It's our media and our government but for some odd reason, all I hear is "china/beijing". Is beijing the reason why there is so much censorship? Is beijing the reason wh…
That's interesting. It sounds like there might kind of cognitive/perceptual phenomenon here, where one person might hear "the EU is just as bad as China when it comes to internet freedoms" and another might hear "the EU wants consumer data protection."
I imagine there's some research and maybe even a model about how these kinds of perceptual differences happen, but the primary way of getting awareness out would probably be for some large media outlets to write something enlightening about that for their audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think GDPR is mostly good, it is a lot of work, but so is protecting people's data. It is a law for individual's personal data. It is coming from the right place. Article 13 is for copyright owners, not individuals. Large corporations benefit the most from this legislation.
The goal of GDPR is good, but I think the biggest issue people have with it is enforcing one countries laws in another country, where people following the regulations had no say in them (regulation without representation). Also, if I'm reading it right, one of the provisions Article 27) is that if you are outside the EU, you need to hire someone inside the EU as a representative / contact point for GDPR issues. If I'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Today computers like imacs, ipads, mobile phones or tvs(not even talking about Alexa), clocks could spy on you in your house at every single time and give the data back to home at the other side of the globe.
Your pulse could be monitored, your movement could be monitored, who you talk with privately could be monitored, who you sleep with could be monitored.
Once this is possible it is a temptation so great for the US Government(or any other Govertment) and status quo to resist.
It is only a matter of time that Governments react. Of course the other powers of the wold want to do what the US Govertment already does.
Massive surveillance spying using technology created by companies of the same country? Already done by the US.
Protecting sensitive data from outside Governments? Already done by the US.
Restricting companies from working in strategic sectors and forcing them to provide source code? Already done by the US.
This could be just the natural evolution of the internet. Early on the internet needed a global scope to reach a critical mass. These days a critical mass can be reached within a trading zone with not much (percentage wise) value added outside of that. Also because equipment continues to get cheaper the size of a viable critical mass is shrinking.
I'd argue it has more to do with language. The internet went global because English is a lingua franca across many different countries. There were lots of gains to be made by allowing it to work irrespective of national borders.
In contrast, the vast vaaast majority of cultural and economic activity being done in a Chinese language is being done under the PRC. Taiwan’s not big enough to compare and neither are the Chinese communities in SE Asia, the US, Australia, etc. (and among that latter group, they do quite a bit of their interaction in English anyway).
Eric Hobsbawm’s a political scientist who is considered an authority on the concept of Nationalism. One of his arguments was that the printing press created a sort of mass-media and standardization around specific languages that created a basis for people to develop a sense of community around what sort of vernacular language they read in. This was one of the progenitors behind the idea of “nationhood.” It’s why so many countries are constituted around common languages despite deep cultural divisions along other dimensions. It is possible the internet might break the same way, creating an “Anglosphere,” a “Sinosphere,” a “Francosphere,” etc.