Trump: Internet control belongs to US. Period

[Misanthrope]

Well looks like Trump instead of going for the kill kinda shit the bed on the debate so this it's still a race and he might not won, not as comfortably as I thought at least.

[stconquest]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well looks like Trump instead of going for the kill kinda shit the bed on the debate so this it's still a race and he might not won, not as comfortably as I thought at least.

Yeah, like the idiot will magically become smart. 

 

He knows fuck all about fuck all. 

[Tomsen]

10 hours ago, Atmos said:

 

We're handing over control of mass distribution of ip addresses and dns control to a group controlled primarily by the UN security council, which itself, is composed of 2/5ths nations (China and Russia) that blatantly censor and abuse their citizens. And enough fucking bashing on the US, for christ sake. We're not as fucking bad as countless others want to make us out to be. If we're going to hand over control of DNS or ip allocation to someone they absolutely 100% CANNOT be allowed to have any sway from countries like russia or china. These countries have currently extremely anti-personal freedom agendas and blatantly censor and abuse their citizens. Keep in mind in russia it is ILLEGAL to be homosexual, and in China even talking ill about the communist party can have you jailed for life. That is 100% objectively a horrible idea. Just like you wouldnt hand over law enforcement to a group that has a stake in criminal endevours.

 

I don't care if that sounds like a shit deal for the people in those countries. I do not care in the slightest. If they want a say in what the rest of the world does, then they need to fix their own governments.

 

As for the second part of that post, I'm going to completely throw in the trash where it belongs. Why hand over our current freedoms to nations who have a long track record of abuse, horrific acts, and blatant denial of personal liberties; because of a hypothetical, whimsical "We don't know who will be in control in the future!" mindset. Crazy hypothetical situations hold no value what so ever, anyone can say anything as long as they say "what if"

How would handling over the control to UN, allows foreign nations to censor in other territories?

 

Well, we should fix our government too. We all pretend it is fine, meanwhile we keep sticking more ducktape to it.

 

Because, in this very specific case, it is the US who has a record of abuse. That is why they are "removing" your freedom.

You clearly don't know what this is about, so what about you just keep quite?

[jaggysnake57]

6 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Many people are killed by guns, yes.  And that accounts for less than a percentage of deaths in the country per year.  The majority are thanks to our eating habits.  Car accidents are actually a greater killer of life.  In Georgia you'll find a road-sign that says, "We're proud to only have 3000 deaths this month!"  Car accidents are much more common.  It's a document made 300 years ago in order to ensure the U.S. citizens have an easier time to overthrow their government, if it stops working for them.  They didn't want another hard fought revolution in the future if they ended up tyrannical.  Black people are shot when they don't comply, when they ignore orders, when they try to run over cops, when they assault cops, when they point guns at cops - that's not racism when 13% of the population commits 47-59% of all the crime.  Welfare only works when it is used not as a life-long solution but a momentary and passing support system, many people, many people use it as free living for their whole lives when they can work.  In once great societies like Sweden, the system worked well, and now the system is being depleted due to "immigrants" who don't work, have no intention to work and no intention to learn the language, so they drain the welfare.  Similar here.  We do have an overly-disgusting head at the top of corporate-crony capitalists both running the country through international means, and who buy and sell the politicians.  Execution is a good thing, our means of doing it is the problem.  A bullet is cheaper than a multi-thousand or hundred-thousand lethal injection.  Healthcare is based on wealth, if you want the best you pay the best, and if you can't then you get basic health care until you can lift yourself up.  You know what is wrong?  When we have a semi-socialist healthcare system where you are penalized for not having healthcare, and the rates are raised 16% yearly due to many healthcare companies folding under the economic pressure and mass debt.  

Bush was, by all means--a massive neocon and a huge fucking mistake, and so was the democrat alternative(Both parties are due for a purge).  That was a lose-lose.  In the end we are still better.  Trump should make the rest of the world ecstatic, he wants to pull the U.S. out of everything - sure you all will have to pay more and more in NATO and the UN, but we'll finally stop meddling in the world.  We'll be focusing on ourselves, getting some us time, and reflecting on all our debt and mistakes.  It'll be swell.

1 gun deaths and car deaths are roughly the same on the whole https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/

2 you dont need a document to overthrow a government

3 really like the guy getting shot whilst lying down?

4 that 13% also are some of the poorest and there is a correlation between wealth and crime. also in a racist country you would expect a high conviction rate for black people

5 studies have shown that immagrents and refugees are more likely to work and contribute then natives in most countries. what your statement does show is how ignorant you are.

6 so your happy for a loved one to die for a crime they didnt commit? in a legal system designed to protect the innocent capital punishment does the exact opposite. until you can prove 100% guilt capital punishment is broken. it also fails as a deterrent murder rates are on the way up in the US.

7 any health care system that needs you to pay to receive a good standard of care is broken.

 

trump will kill your country, he will turn  many countries against you and leave you financially crippled in a globalised world how do you turn your back on the world?

[jaggysnake57]

3 hours ago, Atmos said:

snip

i answered most of your comments in the post above but please explain how a man lying down with a man on his back can make any sudden movement?

and please point out where i said turkey brazil or any of those nations you mentioned were better than you?

[Nena Trinity]

But Trump does not even now how the Interwebs works!

[Commodus]

19 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

But Trump does not even now how the Interwebs works!

 You just have to keep it safe from the cybers!  Right?  

[Nena Trinity]

29 minutes ago, Commodus said:

 You just have to keep it safe from the cybers!  Right?  

Just vote for Vermin Supreme... o3o

[2FA]

1 hour ago, Nicholatian said:

God help you both.

Ummm, ok? A little less vagueness helps.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Ummm, ok? A little less vagueness helps.

Yeah I dunno why he quoted you - accident maybe? Your post is extremely reasonable and follows logic, unlike the emotional responses from those who think the US needs to "keep control".

[SurvivorNVL]

2 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

1 gun deaths and car deaths are roughly the same on the whole https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/

2 you dont need a document to overthrow a government

3 really like the guy getting shot whilst lying down?

4 that 13% also are some of the poorest and there is a correlation between wealth and crime. also in a racist country you would expect a high conviction rate for black people

5 studies have shown that immagrents and refugees are more likely to work and contribute then natives in most countries. what your statement does show is how ignorant you are.

6 so your happy for a loved one to die for a crime they didnt commit? in a legal system designed to protect the innocent capital punishment does the exact opposite. until you can prove 100% guilt capital punishment is broken. it also fails as a deterrent murder rates are on the way up in the US.

7 any health care system that needs you to pay to receive a good standard of care is broken.

 

trump will kill your country, he will turn  many countries against you and leave you financially crippled in a globalised world how do you turn your back on the world?

The document is designed to streamline the ability for dissent to form, and criticism to not be met with open hostility from the government.  The document is meant to protect all the rights under it, and through the bill of rights - owning a military-grade fire-arm for your own self defense, and for the ability to overthrow a government which no longer works for you.  Which guy?  Yep.  They are some of the poorest and there're multiple factors as to why that is - I'd say giving them handouts and treating them like they can't succeed by having all these pick-me-up programs is one way to create complacency.  Another factor in that is many that I have personally know who do live in ghettos or have lived in them--out-right spend their money as soon as they have it, they don't save, and that's somewhat of a cultural thing that has occurred over the last few decades.  Another factor may be as simple as genetic IQ.   Studies have shown immigrants who -want- to move to a country and assimilate will work harder and contribute, because they have to prove themselves.  Islamic "Refugees" are not immigrants, nor is the greater 90% planning on assimilating, like in Sweden, they commit a great deal of rapes, beatings, and traumas, on both the people and the welfare system, and ruin the country.  A DemSoc paradise that was destroyed when it lost people willing to see welfare as a dishonor and who believe Swedes to be pigs.  I'm also happy for substantial evidence to be levied when someone commits a crime that warrants the death sentence, and for my tax dollars to not take care of them, at all.  Private prisons rectify that issue, in where my dollars don't pay for them, really, and those people are basically free labour for food and board.  Murder rates on average are considered to be their lowest in American history, strangely enough, despite the thousands of shootings in inner-cities weekly, but a greater deterrent would be a society that has a physical, tangible identity and culture, something we never truly had.  We have patriotism, but we have a melting pot of cultures, and many hold on to them so fiercely that nothing gets done -- assimilation or they should be sent home.  If you can't pay, you can't pay.  Simple as that.  

Trump won't kill the country, his economic plans will restore financial stability to the markets and the people after a year long recession.  The stock market will finally pop, and we'll be free of the false-growth.  Our allies won't turn against us, but they won't be happy.  The U.S. has nearly 100 years worth of oil(un-collected) that could fuel an 800,000,000 population.  We'll do just fine, especially given how much we do physically grow in food--however modified genetically that it is.  We still have plenty of mines for silver and gold, Alaska is an abundant and endless source, thankfully.  I don't care much for the Globalized world.  Every country is out for themselves, except for US, and we need to be even more for ourselves.  No more $50B to Israel, especially no more aid to their apartheid.  No more NATO, no more UN, or free-trade.  Trump is merely a stepping stone for a future platform of localized trade, and a return to preferably regional tariffs instead of taxes.

As it was once before, except we can have a do-over:  Business supports strong tariffs to build new industries from scratch.  It works.  Business grows large, merge into new corporations and trusts, they have the domestic market locked down.  Stop supporting tariffs and now they want to export, by lowering tariffs, they lose the market lock-down domestically.  Capital gains, labor suffers.  The US became the worlds reserve currency, outsourced all our manufacturing as a strategy.  Capital soared, but labor suffered immensely.
 

In a future instance, we'll instead, preferably--stop the cycle and keep the tariffs rolling.  These companies have a first and foremost duty to their people, many of their founders new that.  Look at Ford.

[2FA]

24 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

There are implications behind problems like, for example, Trump wanting to control Internet organisations or whatever, that reach well beyond any scope that is being publicly acknowledged or debated. The conceit behind the notion that it’s his decision to make, coupled with the fact that people actually give him any respect whatsoever for that, including the respect of acknowledgement and the respect of debate, is shocking to me.

 

It’s not just the poor fucks that agree with the guy; it’s that everyone else has allowed him to rise to prominence by consistently acknowledging him and taking him seriously. As much as you may think the media found him to be a joke, they were indeed very instrumental in bringing him to the forefront of politics. He was most certainly not treated like your usual racist, bigoted conservative.

 

 

 

But what I know, right. Just one guy talkin’ here.

Thanks for clearing that up, makes a bit more sense than your previous post.

 

All I did was provide a claim that the Donald has made in the past. Even if he did become president, I don't think he would be able to accomplish most of what he says he is going to do. This is actually the only post I've made on any public forum about Trump in a long time. It's just that there was a previous news topic about IANA/ICANN a few weeks ago and this one added Trump to the mix. My statements here are almost exactly the same as they were in the previous thread.

 

The fact that so many people ignored Trump at first because they didn't seriously think he would have a chance is the reason why he took the lead. Not a single person running for president truly believed that making so many inflammatory remarks would result in Trump the nomination. Turns out there are a lot more closet bigots out there than anyone realized.

[jaggysnake57]

37 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

snip 

i was gonna try to counter argue but whats the point your arguments are based on ignorance and you just cant fight stupidity 

[NavyCuda]

5 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i was gonna try to counter argue but whats the point your arguments are based on ignorance and you just cant fight stupidity 

So you're saying you don't have any good arguments due to you resorting to name calling.

[jaggysnake57]

2 minutes ago, NavyCuda said:

So you're saying you don't have any good arguments due to you resorting to name calling.

i have hundreds of good arguments but i really cant be arsed.  i have so many better things to do and you 2 are beyond help

 

[NavyCuda]

31 minutes ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i have hundreds of good arguments but i really cant be arsed.  i have so many better things to do and you 2 are beyond help

 

Thank you for continuing to prove my assertion.

[Atmos]

5 hours ago, Tomsen said:

How would handling over the control to UN, allows foreign nations to censor in other territories?

 

Well, we should fix our government too. We all pretend it is fine, meanwhile we keep sticking more ducktape to it.

 

Because, in this very specific case, it is the US who has a record of abuse. That is why they are "removing" your freedom.

You clearly don't know what this is about, so what about you just keep quite?

And for someone claiming to understand what is happening, you obviously have no idea.

The distribution of ip addresses to tiered service providers and maintenance of dns is what is being handed over to a group that is controlled primarily by the UN security council. A group that is composed of 2/5ths by nations that have a long track record of extremely hostile censorship and abuse of their citizens personal freedoms. A track record FAR worse than anything the US has literally ever done. Nothing have we done even comes close to comparing some of this the shit that has happened in russia or china in these last 50-100 years, and neither of those countries have changed much either, both are still extremely oppressive.

 

I'm not sure you understand how the horrible UN security council works, but its composed of 5 nations primarily; US, UK, France, Russia, and China. Those 5 are then supplemented by 10 non-permanent countries; Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, NZ, Sengal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

This security council despite appearances is in effect what controls the UN. And as fucked as that is, it's just how the broken UN works.

 

In this case, the US even with our issues is still a far better option for continuing to provide these services. At some point yes we do need to have someone else do it, that way we can entirely remove governments from something that is maintained not by them, but by the citizenry. However, the group that we hand control over to absolutely cannot be swayed from the governments of countries like russia, or china.

[Atmos]

4 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i answered most of your comments in the post above but please explain how a man lying down with a man on his back can make any sudden movement?

and please point out where i said turkey brazil or any of those nations you mentioned were better than you?

As for the points that actually pertain to what I said earlier.

Racism and poverty are two entirely separate matters. I already said to fix the problems of the black community being at large significantly more prone to crime we need to change the way their family structure is oriented, and fix our job system.

Rare individual instances of bad judgment do not prove institutional racism.

Services are not free in a capitalist society. Your welfare, no matter what country is live in is not free either; it's just taken directly from your taxes. Here in the US we pay very low taxes for healthcare, because we're expected to have third party healthcare. Until recently unless you were in the military or working for the government healthcare was something entirely dodged by the state. That doesn't make it inherently bad, it just means you need to job to expect to receive services.

Trump will still do a better job than shillery, who can't even make it through a speech without blatantly lying to your face, knowing the whole time she is lying directly to you.

 

Now as for when you said we were way behind others.

Quote

i mean FFS healthcare is a UN human right! you are miles away from being better than everyone else.

I even went for the route that gave you the most credit, I only looked at countries that meet the definition of a super power. If you wanted to look at "everyone else" then the Us compares even far more favorably. You also had just as easy a time comparing us to countries far, FAR worse than turkey and brazil, countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, so why not us that same fucked logic both ways huh? But once again, i only used countries that gave you the advantage. Countries that are considered super powers in the world. The best of the best, the cream of the crop in power and advancement.

[Tomsen]

51 minutes ago, Atmos said:

And for someone claiming to understand what is happening, you obviously have no idea.

The distribution of ip addresses to tiered service providers and maintenance of dns is what is being handed over to a group that is controlled primarily by the UN security council. A group that is composed of 2/5ths by nations that have a long track record of extremely hostile censorship and abuse of their citizens personal freedoms. A track record FAR worse than anything the US has literally ever done. Nothing have we done even comes close to comparing some of this the shit that has happened in russia or china in these last 50-100 years, and neither of those countries have changed much either, both are still extremely oppressive.

 

I'm not sure you understand how the horrible UN security council works, but its composed of 5 nations primarily; US, UK, France, Russia, and China. Those 5 are then supplemented by 10 non-permanent countries; Angola, Egypt, Japan, Malaysia, NZ, Sengal, Spain, Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

This security council despite appearances is in effect what controls the UN. And as fucked as that is, it's just how the broken UN works.

 

In this case, the US even with our issues is still a far better option for continuing to provide these services. At some point yes we do need to have someone else do it, that way we can entirely remove governments from something that is maintained not by them, but by the citizenry. However, the group that we hand control over to absolutely cannot be swayed from the governments of countries like russia, or china.

I do have an idea, you sadly are confused on this matter.

I repeat, how does handling over this control to the UN, allow Russia, China or any other foreign government to impose censorship in other than their own regions? You repeat yourself, but doesn't answer my very simple question, that your whole criticism is build upon.

 

No, US is not the better option. So far, it have been the only option, and it has come to a change for obvious reasons of previous abuse (not related to censorship).

 

Could you answer my question this time around?

[Atmos]

18 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

I do have an idea, you sadly are confused on this matter.

I repeat, how does handling over this control to the UN, allow Russia, China or any other foreign government to impose censorship in other than their own regions? You repeat yourself, but doesn't answer my very simple question, that your whole criticism is build upon.

 

No, US is not the better option. So far, it have been the only option, and it has come to a change for obvious reasons of previous abuse (not related to censorship).

 

Could you answer my question this time around?

I did answer your question, you just have no idea how the UN works obviously, or you would have understood.

A group controlled by the UN obviously obeys them, correct?

Now, any action taken by the UN can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members of the Security council. Meaning, nothing happens if they don't want it to happen unless there is overwhelming consensus otherwise. That means that if say, 2/5ths of that council don't want a particular domain regardless of where it is physically located they have the ability to stop the distribution of addresses to that given group in the future, effectively censoring them. 

At the end of the day you're not handing direct, literal control over to the UN, but you are handing them the leash of the modern internet's most vital system. If you think the US has done a poor job of it so far, wait until russia and china get their hands on it.

 

I once again need to state, as I already have almost a dozen times in this thread.

THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS THAN THE US FOR THIS SERVICE. HOWEVER, HANDING IT OVER TO COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND CHINA IS OBJECTIVELY THE WRONG WAY TO DO IT. IT DOES NEED TO EVENTUALLY BE HANDED OFF TO AN IMPARTIAL GROUP BEYOND THE CONTROL OF SUCH OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS, BUT ICANN IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THAT GROUP.

 

Let's not all forget their openly hostile actions in the past towards both consumer and corporation alike. ICANN is not who we need, and in this case the US is still the better option of the two we have. 

[dalekphalm]

I'm just gonna put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight

Quote

IANA has been managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under contract with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and pursuant to an agreement with the IETF since 1998.

Also, @Atmos, can you please provide a Source that the UN Security Counsel has literally anything to do with this in any way?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#Structure

Quote

At present ICANN is organized formally as a non-profit corporation "for charitable and public purposes" under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law. It is managed by a 16-member Board of Directors composed of eight members selected by a nominating committee on which all the constituencies of ICANN are represented; six representatives of its Supporting Organizations, sub-groups that deal with specific sections of the policies under ICANN's purview; an At-Large seat filled by an At-Large Organization; and the President / CEO, appointed by the Board

Quote

The Governmental Advisory Committee has representatives from 111 states (108 UN members, the Holy See, Cook Islands, Niue and Taiwan), Hong Kong, Bermuda, Montserrat, the European Commission and the African Union Commission.

So iCANN is not controlled by the UN Security Counsel, as far as I can tell. In fact, the UNSC seems to have no authority or relationship with IANA or iCANN in any capacity.

 

So this whole "China and Russia have 2/5ths of the vote!" seems to be complete nonsense.

 

But I will of course admit the possibility that I am wrong, given that you can provide sources that show said relationship.

[Tomsen]

4 minutes ago, Atmos said:

I did answer your question, you just have no idea how the UN works obviously, or you would have understood.

No, you didn't. I do understand how UN works, but you don't understand what kind of power ICANN controls.

 

4 minutes ago, Atmos said:

A group controlled by the UN obviously obeys them, correct?

Yeah, but it still doesn't give them the jurisdiction to what you are afraid of.

 

4 minutes ago, Atmos said:

Now, any action taken by the UN can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members of the Security council. Meaning, nothing happens if they don't want it to happen unless there is overwhelming consensus otherwise. That means that if say, 2/5ths of that council don't want a particular domain regardless of where it is physically located they have the ability to stop the distribution of addresses to that given group in the future, effectively censoring them. 

What I have bolded is wrong. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/what-icann-does-22jun12-en.pdf

 

4 minutes ago, Atmos said:

At the end of the day you're not handing direct, literal control over to the UN, but you are handing them the leash of the modern internet's most vital system. If you think the US has done a poor job of it so far, wait until russia and china get their hands on it.

The US has done a poor part, have received plenty of criticism in the past.

I doubt you would even notice.

 

4 minutes ago, Atmos said:

I once again need to state, as I already have almost a dozen times in this thread.

THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS THAN THE US FOR THIS SERVICE. HOWEVER, HANDING IT OVER TO COUNTRIES LIKE RUSSIA AND CHINA IS OBJECTIVELY THE WRONG WAY TO DO IT. IT DOES NEED TO EVENTUALLY BE HANDED OFF TO AN IMPARTIAL GROUP BEYOND THE CONTROL OF SUCH OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS, BUT ICANN IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THAT GROUP.

 

Let's not all forget their openly hostile actions in the past towards both consumer and corporation alike. ICANN is not who we need, and in this case the US is still the better option of the two we have. 

You are sadly just so misinformed. You keep writing irrelevant stuff.

[Atmos]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm just gonna put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight

Also, @Atmos, can you please provide a Source that the UN Security Counsel has literally anything to do with this in any way?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#Structure

So iCANN is not controlled by the UN Security Counsel, as far as I can tell. In fact, the UNSC seems to have no authority or relationship with IANA or iCANN in any capacity.

 

So this whole "China and Russia have 2/5ths of the vote!" seems to be complete nonsense.

 

But I will of course admit the possibility that I am wrong, given that you can provide sources that show said relationship.

 

Quote

The United Nations could take over control of the Internet on October 1, when the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) passes from U.S. administration to the control of a multilateral body, most likely the United Nations International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

While the administration and its defenders have denied that the UN will have authority over ICANN, the Wall Street Journal‘s L. Gordon Crovitz points out that ICANN will need to be run by a state agency in order to retain its antitrust exemption, which makes it almost certainly that the UN will step in to take control.

Quote

When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Either ICANN forms up with the UN or with another foreign administration with some level of authority in the united states, or it is dissolved by antitrust laws. It's as simple as that.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/29/icann-un-take-internet-oct-1/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165

 

[MrDynamicMan]

On 22/09/2016 at 6:59 PM, Atmos said:

^can't delete, sorry. 

18 hours ago, Atmos said:

 

We're handing over control of mass distribution of ip addresses and dns control to a group controlled primarily by the UN security council, which itself, is composed of 2/5ths nations (China and Russia) that blatantly censor and abuse their citizens. And enough fucking bashing on the US, for christ sake. We're not as fucking bad as countless others want to make us out to be. If we're going to hand over control of DNS or ip allocation to someone they absolutely 100% CANNOT be allowed to have any sway from countries like russia or china. These countries have currently extremely anti-personal freedom agendas and blatantly censor and abuse their citizens. Keep in mind in russia it is ILLEGAL to be homosexual, and in China even talking ill about the communist party can have you jailed for life. That is 100% objectively a horrible idea. Just like you wouldnt hand over law enforcement to a group that has a stake in criminal endevours.

 

I don't care if that sounds like a shit deal for the people in those countries. I do not care in the slightest. If they want a say in what the rest of the world does, then they need to fix their own governments.

 

As for the second part of that post, I'm going to completely throw in the trash where it belongs. Why hand over our current freedoms to nations who have a long track record of abuse, horrific acts, and blatant denial of personal liberties; because of a hypothetical, whimsical "We don't know who will be in control in the future!" mindset. Crazy hypothetical situations hold no value what so ever, anyone can say anything as long as they say "what if"

I agree that Russia and China should not hold away over the Internet, but I also think it is the worst possible idea to put all our chickens in one proverbial basket. 

 

Those hypothetical may-be's are of the utmost importance in making decisions that will effect the next couple centuries of world politics. The treaty of Versailles was made without thinking of the hypothetical future, and look where that landed the world. Control over something as important as the internet should never be given to any one country, because even if that country is peachy now (which the US sure ain't.) the leadership there could shift within a couple decades and suddenly they're dictating the internet. Every caution must be taken. 

 

And I'm sorry, but the US Congress  is more than useless. 

[Atmos]

6 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

^can't delete, sorry. 

I agree that Russia and China should not hold away over the Internet, but I also think it is the worst possible idea to put all our chickens in one proverbial basket. 

 

Those hypothetical may-be's are of the utmost importance in making decisions that will effect the next couple centuries of world politics. The treaty of Versailles was made without thinking of the hypothetical future, and look where that landed the world. Control over something as important as the internet should never be given to any one country, because even if that country is peachy now (which the US sure ain't.) the leadership there could shift within a couple decades and suddenly they're dictating the internet. Every caution must be taken. 

 

And I'm sorry, but the US Congress  is more than useless. 

I can agree our congress and government at large is broken, but hell, It could be way... way worse.

And that same hypothetical can be applied to literally every other country. We don't know whats in the future, all we can do is look at the past and present and try to make an educated guess

Hell the next hitler could be canadian for all we know, but that doesn't have any value so far as the statement itself is concerned.

I agree that no government can have control over the internet, it needs to be unbound from governments and maintained by the citizenry, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is that we have two options right now, just these two. Either A; hand over control completely to ICANN, who then is absorbed by the UN to avoid antitrust regulations giving countries like russia and china a significant power over the internet. or B; the US remains in control of the internet until a more suitable solution is found.

And of those two options, the latter is obviously the safer route for everyone.