America turning over control of the internet.

[Masark]

Whelp what do you think the internet is going to be like when access can be controlled biased on what political groups don't like?

That's what we've had.

What is being done is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and, consequently, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) are becoming fully independent from the US government.

Previously, they were subject to the oversight of the Department of Commerce, giving the US government effective veto authority over certain aspects of internet governance.

This allowed for political interference, like the Bush administration blocking the .xxx TLD.

[Annoying]

That's what we've had.

What is being done is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and, consequently, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) are becoming fully independent from the US government.

Previously, they were subject to the oversight of the Department of Commerce, giving the US government effective veto authority over certain aspects of internet governance.

This allowed for political interference, like the Bush administration blocking the .xxx TLD.

Perfect, I was just about to bring up the .xxx TLD. Prime example of why this is being done. If the UK had wanted to make, say, a .ukxxx TLD, we'd have the veto power to prevent a different country from doing so.

[Bryntrollian]

If you want a less biased source, https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/02/ic...l-and-promise/

[Zeta333]

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/internetcountdownclock/
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2782

Yes I know its a Cruz website just picking it because it has a neat clock.




Whelp what do you think the internet is going to be like when access can be controlled biased on what political groups don't like?

Yeh cus cruz wouldnt hand it over to some jesus freak group to censor everything non christian.

[Deleted]

Why should any single country have "control" over something that is used by billions of people, and is considered a basic human right in many countries?

[Machismo]

I kind of find most things funny in a gallows's humor kind of way.

That being said this is a real bill being passed is it not? What exactly is gained by signing over control of content on the web?

Why should any government have control of the internet?

[Cerus]

Why should any single country have "control" over something that is used by billions of people, and is considered a basic human right in many countries?

Basic human right? Lmao. Not hardly. Basic rights don't include internet access.

[Sky High]

Basic human right? Lmao. Not hardly. Basic rights don't include internet access.

the FCC has ruled it's in the same category as electric, water and gas. so not a right but a necessity.

[Independent voter]

Is the new naming authority going to let the Ku Klux Klan have a website? Freedom of speech is very strong in the US.

Not that I care if the KKK has a website or not.

[Theodarzna]

Wouldn't an independent international organization with 162 member countries be less likely to be swayed by political interests as it relates to information access? Not sure why this is an issue, we have Republicans like Trump who are signing agreements with anti-pornography groups who want to limit pornography access in the United States.

Cruz is probably fear mongering due to evangelical Christians' concerns about one world government entities heralding the end times or something similar.

Let us say a significant voting bloc existed that wanted to police away criticism of religious dogma, lets say they vote as a bloc and all want it passed.

[Deleted]

Basic human right? Lmao. Not hardly. Basic rights don't include internet access.

https://gizmodo.com/internet-access-...ht-1783081865?

Also, it is a "perusoikeus", or a basic human right in Finland. So, yeah. Sorry to disappoint you. It is a basic human right in quite a few countries indeed.

[the game]

Is there an actual source for this like Fox news or something?

[Caolela]

I think people are loosing the message to the messenger

With pants-on-the-head dolts like Cruz, the messenger is the message.

[Ripster42]

I frankly thought this had already been done.

[Firefall]

Wouldn't an independent international organization with 162 member countries be less likely to be swayed by political interests as it relates to information access? Not sure why this is an issue, we have Republicans like Trump who are signing agreements with anti-pornography groups who want to limit pornography access in the United States.

Cruz is probably fear mongering due to evangelical Christians' concerns about one world government entities heralding the end times or something similar.

Genuine question because I hadn't heard of that. Has Trump really done that? I haven't wanted him but have been at least semi-considering voting for him over Hilary. But I'm a very sex-positive person and that'd be a real no-go for me. No one should be kink shamed or told sex is bad.

[Ripster42]

Genuine question because I hadn't heard of that. Has Trump really done that? I haven't wanted him but have been at least semi-considering voting for him over Hilary. But I'm a very sex-positive person and that'd be a real no-go for me. No one should be kink shamed or told sex is bad.

In a word: Yes.

[Polyxo]

As a computer scientist, I have to say this is the most face palming I've ever done over 'news'. I don't think whoever wrote this knows what any of the nouns in this story mean...

[INVASMANIXOXOXO]

This is one of the reasons I am voting third party instead of Republican (Democrat isn't even really a choice), the fear mongering really gets to me. You have to be pretty simple minded if you think some little international organization which will probably just be 2 floors in an office building somewhere will be a threat to freedom of expression in the US. Similarly it really rubs me the wrong way, when their platform is based on selling us the idea that some primitive religious zealots that have a few ak-47s and toyota pickup trucks, thousands of miles away are the biggest threat to our country.

[Zephyr Storm]

Why should any single country have "control" over something that is used by billions of people, and is considered a basic human right in many countries?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Internet actually created by the US military?

[Deleted]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Internet actually created by the US military?

Well, you are wrong. The ARPANET project was funded, initially, by the US DoD. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The US does not own the internet cables and routing servers of every single country on this planet.

I mean, look, if the US wants to build a wall around it's own very small portion of the internet, then have at it Hoss. However, the internet is used by 3,5 billion people all over the planet. The US population isn't even 10% of that, so there's no majority share there, to call the shots with.