Why isn't everyone up in arms over Obama handing over control of the internet to the U.N.?
You do realize that this means the end of free speech on the internet and goodbye to Sup Forums and any other right wing sites right?
Why isn't everyone up in arms over Obama handing over control of the internet to the U.N.?
You do realize that this means the end of free speech on the internet and goodbye to Sup Forums and any other right wing sites right?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Bump we need a thread on this 24/7 senpai. Bump this fellow Anons we need to understand the gravity of the situation we are in. Sup Forums could be gone by the end of the month
The internet, Obama.
I don't get what's going on...
Huh... guess I would just focus more on my hobbies and work... Internet is 90% garbage anyways, so whatever...
Obama's entire administration has been about quietly screwing America and Americans, and people still support him?
>implying there aren't other alternatives
>protip: there isn't
wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
bump
Really? Is it effective?
Redeem yourself, Cruz.
You can't just hand over the internet. Obama and most people working with him don't seem to understand the technology.
youtube.com
This proven conservative could have been your POTUS. baka
Someone redpill me on this shit? I've seen a ton about it but can't seem to find any reliable information on what this actually means.
Why does Obama wants to give control of the internet (Only in America I suppose?) to the UN?
Never thought Ted actually deserves something
Internet can't be "owned" by any country. The servers and everything is independent from any country.
That red autist in the front is Naruto ninja running.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with Obama right now?
Dude would probably nuke middle America without a second thought if someone told him it would save his "legacy".
so you want Obama to control the internet rather than a private company in America? are you sure you are on the right website?
USA oversight of ICANN is being given up basically to the UN which would make it easier for nations to blacklist and censor entire websites that don't agree with their regime (or TLDs that don't shut down websites for them).
Why middle America? Most of his voters are here.
hence this change is bullshit and we should hope the Obama hating congress blocks this shit for all of our net sovereignty.
What can we do to help stop this?
>Most of his voters are here.
All the more reason to nuke you. He's obviously desperate to commit political suicide.
What better way than to nuke the people that support him.
This has an even harder time catching on than the trade deal issues, which is strange considering that you'd think corporate control would have people up in arms.
From what I understand
The worlds largest and most reliable DNS server (think of it as your computers way of translating domain names into up addresses so you can reach a website) is co owned by America. Due to Americas first amendment, this means anyone can access any website within our laws (some of the major lenient in the world). However, soon Obama plans to hand the ownership of the DNS server to the UN, and essentially giving them the ability to remove websites from the DNS server.
The websites will stay around, but they'll be hard to reach, essentially starving them of viewership and censoring them.
What is wrong with Internet censorship? Russia up to date banned more then million webpages. Also l learned on Sup Forums that Russia is always right. So what is the problem again, hohol?
lol okay. Seriously though. I can tell people here are disappointed in him. We went from Democrat Kentucky to Republican in less than a decade. Pretty amazing. Also criminals can't vote anymore.
PROOF THAT OBAMA IS CONTROLLED BY A RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY
Broadly speaking, the issue is this: the Internet, whose standards are set by the nonprofit company ICANN, is no longer American. Most Internet users are outside the US. And those people want control over their Internet, even if it's to do things like censorship. Either ICANN allows them to make plug-ins to the Internet that allow this, or they make their own protocols (aka, their own Internet). The NSA absolutely does not want the latter as it would prevent their bulk data collection schemes from functioning.
Narrowly speaking: The US had realized the above, and is going to reduce it's own power by changing the administration structure of ICANN in order to save it. The NSA would rather deal with plug-ins that allow censorship than other countries making their Internets dark zones to them.
Result: the American Internet itself remains mostly unaffected. But other countries will see much more dramatic changes, for example imagine an Internet that requires a PIN just to access or an Internet that by design makes local storage of files very difficult. This whole thing is a ploy by other countries, especially european ones, to censor themselves. The US remains mostly unaffected.
Also, Ted Cruz is a liar as he actually supports this 100%. A side-effect of the above is that private companies (ie Comcast, AT&T, TWC) can make their own "plug-ins" to the Internet which allow them to create their own private Internets (already known as Xfinity and Uverse). Cruz is also against Net Neutrality, and this is potentially a backdoor way of making NN policy irrelevant.
Say it would obstruct network neutrality. That will send libturds in a tizzy
the fuck am i supposed to do about it?
i aint no hacker pfff
tl;dr the Internet balkanizes
Because it literally doesn't matter. IANA pretty much only does IP addressing. IPV4 addresses are gone anyway, and it won't matter when IPV6 goes into full effect
Worth a shot. To me it's obviously one more step in the switchover to the corporate cartel globalized NWO replacing the nation-state, but that doesn't really mean much for the people who haven't put in the time to research what the hell that even means.
Not only Russia, China, and Iran don't have a first amendment. The USA is almost the only country. You have to give the burgers that. Most European countries *DO NOT* have freedom of speech. It only appears that way because very little speech is prosecuted, but there are hate speech laws that can be so loosely interpreted that they can be used to quell political opinions. Lately, Germany is using their hate speech laws to crack down on people arguing against mass immigration. There have been many cases of blatant censoring of political speech by Western countries.
This.
>borders between countries is good thing
>borders between countries in the Internet is bad thing
The internet isn't going to crash my door down at 5am in the morning to rape me and my wife and take all my money,
I don't care because I'm an American so I'd be unaffected. At most, Comcast would try to push more webTV like services most of which would flop.
But the point of the Internet was to be a network of freely accessible information. The phone network it was built upon was to be a network of cheaply accessible communication. Putting up walls between countries negates it's original purpose and turns it into something resembling a controlled videotext type service.
They're trying to pull the same shit here. We literally have people getting kicked out of the media in broad daylight as soon as they say the wrong thing and the same idea of hate speech, free speech zones, etc. being accepted en masse.
That's maybe the only thing more shocking than talking to people from other countries about how they were not brought up in a culture where believing you could say whatever the fuck you wanted as the same way it's accepted and even mandated that you're allowed to breathe the air.
>But the point of the Internet was to be a network of freely accessible information.
>citation needed
>support TPP
>conservative
fuck off Sven
If anything his loss to Trump has made him stop cucking out so much. It was a good thing.
The Tsar did not sell us Alaska because he thought it was cold. He sold it to us to build the trans-siberian telegraph, which would allow instantaneous communication with eastern provinces. The American transcontinental telegraph was built for the same reason.
truly he is the hero we need
It was a military project ostensibly for maintaining redundancy in communications to withstand some kind of cold war event that evolved into a variety of things from economic power to SIGINT.
The freedom of information kind of turned it on its head. God bless America.
I don't think you understand the internet
fuck man
the internet is dying
the dream is over....
The difference is that with your media, it's just self-censoring. The owners decide they don't want their channel to deliver certain opinions. That still leaves room for alternative outlets.
In Germany, a Breitbart would already have been shut down by the authorities. Clinton threatening to do this when she is elected sets a very dangerous precedent.
Seeing telegraph lines that are still mainly intact is comfy as fuck. I wonder if it will ever become profitable to recycle the wiring.
>Congress debates whether to block it
They 100% definitely should. After that impeach Obama so he can't do anything for the remainder of his term.
All folks on Sup Forums should definitely notify all Senators and Congressmen.
>UN
Literally not an issue.
What could possibly go wrong with Israel controlling a piece of the internet, goys... I mean guys
I'm pretty certain it already is.
Something like the EFF should set up a system that mass-mailed preprinted post cards to send in the way GOA does. That's a brilliant strategy and by far the top reason I ever get a form letter back for the trouble of sticking a stamp on it and signing my name.
Telegraph lines are analog phone lines. Which means they're likely still in service (especially common in rural areas) and can handle anything up to DSL.
Literally not an argument
The internet was the last great bastion of the Free Market and it's being mutated before our very eyes.
The day will come one day when our kids login to the internet with their government accepted microchip ID's, they will ask us what it was like before, with the news playing a story in the background "when the internet was the wild west" and we'll look down at our 4 of clubs and weep.....and in those days people will seek death and not find it. RIP.
Huh. That kind of makes sense. That's got to be some really sparse population areas though, since you don't get many pairs out of telegraph lines.
You mind linking me to a document that identifies the all the laws that determine how the internet is used in the U.S?
Oh wait, right, they'd be trunking it. Interesting.
Hey, I guess if that's reusable infrastructure in places where the economics work out then that's what you'd do.
So will I still be able to access motherless, pornhub, and youporn? they have great titty, cowgirl and creampie videos I enjoy jacking off to everyday.
Huh, how about that.
Cruz did something right for once. Good on ya Raphael.
More likely people will just accept it and move on. Those that want an uncensored net will have to build it themselves. The only people who want freedom of choice are Americans, and that's only because we are hopelessly addicted to it and both Google and Comcast makes a killing off it through ads and data caps. They have a direct incentive to offer as much data as plausible.
Also it's important to remember that most censorship will happen as moral panics. The first big thing will be restricting minors (
>Those that want an uncensored net will have to build it themselves
Suggesting the impossible there.
>The first big thing will be restricting minors (
It's very common in rural areas, as long as things work there's no sense in replacing it. A twisted pair of copper wires (aka, analog phone/telegraph lines) was THE telco branch standard until the adoption of broadband lines in the early 00s. Even things as benign as fire alarms (such as those on power transformers, radio towers, or railroad track equipment) use them.
Where's John Mcafee when you need the cunt.
He's always going on about anti-NSA inventions of his and redefining the way people use the web, where is his solution? I wonder if MGT is working on it right now and is potentially why he joined them.
People get degrees on that subject. I suggest you start with "The Idea Factory-Bell Labs" by Jon Gertner. The Internet is a periphery issue in it, but it charts the development of AT&T's telegraph, phone and videophone systems, ending with the experimental ARPANET.
>Also, Ted Cruz is a liar as he actually supports this 100%.
Then the fuck is he doing trying to stop it?
this is a shill post fyi
The "final" solution is to just make a satellite Internet, which users/LANs could tap into with a strong enough antenna. But this is more of a /diy/ subject.
Under US law there is freedom of speech. It doesn't apply to the UN
Yeah, I totally forgot that's twisted pair. Makes perfect sense.
A lot of them really are totally decrepit though where the other infrastructure options are available, falling apart, missing, dangling wires, broken poles.
Because he's a fucking liar and just wants to deny the victory to Obama. As soon as Hilary, or Trump, comes into office he will relent. It's a bargaining chip he has for the next President. Again, see his backers and how he is openly against net neutrality. Killing ICANN is a plausible means ISPs could use to destroy NN.
we want the US government with the bill of rights to control it.
nice try shekelstein.
Satellite has major log. If it comes to that, there will be radio waves involved as well. It's a lot easier to control a cable or a beam than the disintermediation of the ether itself.
...or who knows? You can hear a train coming by putting your ear to the tracks. Those tracks are specifically electrically bonded together, too...
>Killing ICANN is a plausible means ISPs could use to destroy NN.
stop talking you have no idea what you're talking about. if anything this retains ICANN as an organization basically NGO and Network Nuetrality is an effort for the FCC to make the internet a common carrier so they can censor it like they do radio and tv.
>implying shitposting on Sup Forums isnt your biggest hobby
Why don't you give some proof as to Ted Cruz's 100% support?
LIES
He's fighting for conservative voice on the internet which will surely be limited. Net neutrality is a mixed bag and shouldn't be in the conversation.
>this motherfucker
anyways internet should never be "maintained" by any government, especially one that let Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian testify before them
How ironic that Sup Forums's only hope is the boogeyman.
>You do realize that this means the end of free speech on the internet and goodbye to Sup Forums and any other right wing sites right?
Yeah, better to leave it with Hilldawg.
>leave it to the pinch hitter playing for the same team who will collapse on her way from the duggout, necessitating the backup pinch hitter coming out
That's such a nothing argument.
Please, is
that hard to understand?
Just check Ted Cruz's stance on TPP.
It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about, as the only reason this thing could happen is because the government decided to privatize the Internet. Part of that is reducing the US CoC/FCC's grip over ICANN by reducing the US's presence on ICANN.
>and Network Nuetrality is an effort for the FCC to make the internet a common carrier so they can censor it like they do radio and tv.
TV and radio is censored because it's broadcast. Transmissions, ie point-to-point movements of data, are not subject to FCC content regulations as the courts determined that it was a breach of the First Amendment. On the flip side, both Comcast and AT&T would love to dismantle the free Internet for the six big media companies and the only thing preventing them is the FCC.
It should be in the conversation, as this whole thing will help give countries more tools to upend NN. Thankfully we have a rather strong FCC to stop it from happening here (for now, at least).
Good. The UN can't agree on running a bath, let alone successfully control the internet. It will make it impossible for any state to attempt to control it because there will never, ever be a quorum.
Holy fuck. Ted Cruz is actually doing good for once.
It's not the UN that's important. It's the transition of jurisdiction to further disassemble the power of the US constitution, and further from a legal framework that anybody can fight back against.
If they are privatizing the internet why are they increasing regulations on networks.
>FCC saving the internet
Yes just like they saved ma bell and made a panopticon for the NSA
bump
>NSA shills using reverse psychology
this is DOA in the appropriations rider fyi. you should focus more on catching foreign enemies than trying to fuck over your brothers
Because those networks are being given fuckloads of power. Once ICANN's transition (which is happening due to an act of Congress which the FCC has no control over) is complete, Comcast and AT&T would have the legal tools to dismantle the Internet if it was not for the FCC listing them as Common Carriers and trying to get them regulated as utilities. In this way, equal access to everyone can be guaranteed and the Internet can be preserved.
>Yes just like they saved ma bell and made a panopticon for the NSA
They let the free market kick the bells to the curb, so I don't know what you're going on with this. Comcast offered cheaper broadband services, companies like Nextel and T-mobile offered mobile services. And, as a result, everyone has dirt cheap landline phone access and most people have affordable broadband Internet access. The balance worked and mission accomplished.
But you are right about the NSA, the only reason the open Internet survives is because the NSA requires it to function.
why does this picture turn me on