UN To Control Internet October 1,2016. Thoughts?

[FGB]

What impact will that have on us?

Will some of us be hauled up in front of an international Court or tribunal for saying what we think?

Will Lit. be shut down?

Just asking...Don't shoot the question raiser!


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...,2016&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

 

[Stewart_Pidd]

What impact will that have on us?

Will some of us be hauled up in front of an international Court or tribunal for saying what we think?

Will Lit. be shut down?

Just asking...Don't shoot the question raiser!


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...,2016&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

are you related to Alex Jones bro?

Stew

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who controls the UN?


...

 

[underguy1]

ICANN is NOT a UN body.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who controls ICANN?

 

[removed9556]

 

[BotanyBoy]

ICANN is NOT a UN body.

Not yet....

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Indeed. Quis custodiet and all that. Though in my limited experience of working in web design they tended to be pretty helpful and swift with domain name queries, etc.

Indeed.

However, once they become "International," is it not then that the political pressure is the same as when countries whom suppress women and gays get named to human rights committees for the political expedience of tolerance and diversity? Do we then witness a blossoming of what we can, and cannot say or express, since freedom of speech is limited to so few of our governments?

In short, why the hell the drive to fix something that ain't broken because broken entities don't like the uncensored?

 

[removed9556]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, to use another Latin cliche, cui bono? I bet it is complicated, and I do not pretend to know the history of these moves. I shall watch with interest. But I am more concerned at the moment with the increasing proprietary lock-down of large parts of the web, quite contrary to the founding principles of its inventor.

The only thing that comes to mind on my part is that as soon as the authorities that be decide to take over that which is free and censor it, that we shall find a way around it, because individually, we are always more clever than a government.

 

[removed9556]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That may just be the most positive and optimistic thing I have ever read of yours. I am quite cheered. Thank you, and I hope that you are right.

 

[underguy1]

The internet is already being censored and surveilled. Mostly by the USA.

 

[Phelia]

Things that amuse me about this thread:

• Yahoo search link. lol
• Zero of the reports substantiate Figby's original claim (shocked)
• This absolute gem in the results. Makes Mike Yates look measured and rational. I won't spoil it for you, but here's the lede image:

https://www.dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Could-The-Internet-Be-Set-To-Be-Shut-Down-On-The-Eve-of-Jubilee-October-1-The-Dollar-Vigilante-676x374.jpg

What does this mean? The US is giving the internets to Killswitch??

 

[doctor_insanus]

There isn't any government keeping me from watching anything I want to watch on Netflix.

There are corporations that are preventing me from doing so, however.

Motherfuckers.

 

[Mike_Yates]

They don't want people spreading negative information about globalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There isn't any government keeping me from watching anything I want to watch on Netflix.

There are corporations that are preventing me from doing so, however.

Motherfuckers.

How so?

How is a corporation be preventing you from doing anything?

 

[srgreene]

What impact will that have on us?

Will some of us be hauled up in front of an international Court or tribunal for saying what we think?

Will Lit. be shut down?

Just asking...Don't shoot the question raiser!


https://search.yahoo.com/search;_yl...,2016&fr=yfp-t&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

It's a disaster and shows Obama's contempt (and Hillary's as much of this was negotiated when she was Secretary of State) for America and his third-world, "little America" agenda. Here is a rather more thoughtful appraisal:


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8807/internet-governance

 

[Mike_Yates]

Corporate censorship of the internet?

 

[underguy1]

It's a disaster and shows Obama's contempt (and Hillary's as much of this was negotiated when she was Secretary of State) for America and his third-world, "little America" agenda. Here is a rather more thoughtful appraisal:


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8807/internet-governance

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support.

Ambassador John R. Bolton, Chairman

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

Board of Governors (in formation)

The Viscountess Bearsted
Baroness Caroline Cox
Alan Dershowitz
The Lord Finkelstein OBE
Jack Fowler
Robert Immerman
Lawrence Kadish
Ingeborg Rennert
Rebecca Sugar
Merryl Tisch
Amir Taheri, Chairman, Europe Board of Governors

Board of Governors, Gatestone Europe

Chairman, Amir Taheri
Anne-Elisabeth Moutet
Board of Advisors (in formation)

Ahmed Charai
Rev. Dr. Petra Heldt
M. Zuhdi Jasser
Richard Kemp
Michael Mukasey
Elie Wiesel
R. James Woolsey


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The only thing that comes to mind on my part is that as soon as the authorities that be decide to take over that which is free and censor it, that we shall find a way around it, because individually, we are always more clever than a government.

Exactly. And it wouldn't even be that hard. ICANN stands for International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Names and Numbers is all they do. If they want to try and get heavy handed with censoring content, we'll just come up with a new entity for naming conventions and IP addressing. The internet consists entirely of public AND private hardware; you know, private servers like yours, mine and Hillary's as well as the software protocols by which that hardware communicates. That's ALL the internet is.

Nobody is coming for your hardware. And ultimately WE, as in the global "we," will decide how we will communicate with each other.

 

[underguy1]

Exactly. And it wouldn't even be that hard. ICANN stands for International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Names and Numbers is all they do. If they want to try and get heavy handed with censoring content, we'll just come up with a new entity for naming conventions and IP addressing. The internet consists entirely of public AND private hardware; you know, private servers like yours, mine and Hillary's as well as the software protocols by which that hardware communicates. That's ALL the internet is.

Nobody is coming for your hardware. And ultimately WE, as in the global "we," will decide how we will communicate with each other

Hmmmm, only if enough people know the choice needs to be made and do something about it.

The problem is, and this is coming from someone who thinks this ICANN is a nothing much issue, is in manipulating public opinion to suit the interests of the ruling class.

All the talk about the internet democratising the world has been overshadowed by the corporatisation of international public opinion.

People seem to know less than ever before in political terms.

And these big tech companies are an integral part of the deep state.

 

[BotanyBoy]

All the talk about the internet democratising the world has been overshadowed by the corporatisation of international public opinion.
.

What exactly does that mean and can you show us some examples of who has been doing it and how?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What exactly does that mean and can you show us some examples of who has been doing it and how?

No. He can't.

And he sure as hell can't directly link it to this accusation:

People seem to know less than ever before in political terms.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No. He can't.

And he sure as hell can't directly link it to this accusation:

I didn't think he could, he can never back his shit up with anything except name calling.