Internet handoff to UN

Is there no free market solution to this? For example, somebody could start a private service that your browser traffic somehow directs through, and which updates itself every day, which you would be able to use, instead of alphanumeric URLs (now restricted by the freedom-hating UN), to match IP addresses of websites to textual descriptors and search terms?

Other urls found in this thread:

economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/09/economist-explains-19
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/29/icann-un-take-internet-oct-1/
ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/myths-and-facts-ntia-announcement-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-
youtube.com/watch?v=-xu5p_nDcrg&list=LLRdqm21oHGSv49oTXtMZLUQ&index=2
wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/john-bolton-within-ten-years-internet-know-will-end/
cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2646
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/obamas-plan-surrender-internet-control-may-unconstitutional/
politico.com/story/2016/09/ted-cruz-internet-domain-larry-strickling-228153#ixzz4LaTXRk47
trunews.com/article/trump-stands-against-icann-internet-handover#sthash.mDwxxdzz.dpuf
timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2016/09/27/president-obamas-risky-giveaway-of-internet-governance/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
OpenNICproject.org
dolphins.org/communication
youtube.com/watch?v=9t4O6QxNyXk
youtube.com/watch?v=dJcRHvzU3Zs
youtube.com/watch?v=z3U0udLH974
m.youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk
icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en
youtu.be/0Qkyt1wXNlI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication#Barriers_to_effectiveness
theconversation.com/breaking-the-us-governments-hold-on-the-internet-wont-be-easy-46033
.youtube.com/watch?v=e6howcqnxfw&t=2m50s
youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk&t=2m50s
gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About The GAC
icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors
sys.Cred
theregister.co.uk/2014/03/15/us_to_hand_dns_stewardship_over_to_icann/
icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions
whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/20/address-president-obama-71st-session-united-nations-general-assembly
community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
archive.icann.org/en/dnso/bussdraft2.htm
icann.org/groups/ssac/charter
pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/28/canada-lift-visa-requirements-mexico
huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
media1.britannica.com/eb-media/58/129958-004-C9B8B89D.jpg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Namecoin TRIED to solve this problem, but it didn't work too well.

>free market solution

Your ISP is part of the free market, take a look at your bill and ask yourself, do you want more free market in your internet control?

Isn't the problem that the govt stops anyone from using private servers to start a commercial ISP? Because I know over in England for example they've got their local grocery stores providing internet and even though there's a data cap it's cheap.

>alphanumeric URLs (now restricted by the freedom-hating UN)
Wut? Urls containing letters and numbers got restricted? When did this happen?

Tomorrow
economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/09/economist-explains-19

This is the free market solution kid...

Why? Just asking though, according to their site it works well.

Then how can America hand over control of it to the UN?

In theory it should be, but I think skepticism is appropriate when a leftist president hands over control over the internet to a globalist organization of competing interests, none of which in our favor.

Where in article does it say that alphanumeric url gonna get restricted?

>politics something something buzzwords, vast conspiracy something something

Go back to your containment board.

Whole Cred Forums is one big Cred Forums board. Sieg Heil brother.

It's not you fucking retard.

pol is nothing but shitposting, and government meddling with the internet is politics and technology.

Also my post wasn't the most readable sentence but you should really learn to stop calling things you don't understand buzzwords

butthurt yurocuck detected

>I'm blind and the truth reminds me my neural deficiency

>not agreeing with Cred Forums and still going to Cred Forums

fuck off to where you belong >>>/reddit/

It says that when you google "please teach me what ICANN is and what they do because I'm too stupid to do even basic background research on the topic of a conversation before inserting my irrelevant opinion."

The Internet biggest DNS server now is in the hands of a organization that has to accept every nation's request. Also, UN can censure hate speech.

justice is blind too, commie

Hey fucker, I tried to start a really neutral thread without any mention of politics. Please just stick to the topic of >Is there no free market solution to this? For example, somebody could start a private service that your browser traffic somehow directs through, and which updates itself every day, which you would be able to use, instead of alphanumeric URLs (now restricted by the freedom-hating UN), to match IP addresses of websites to textual descriptors and search terms?

>vast conspiracy
so you mean to say that the UN isn't a global organization, and that every opinion within it is unanimously in the favor of the proletariat?

Go read the news.

>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).
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/29/icann-un-take-internet-oct-1/

Explain what this is if not exactly what I said.

>free market
Is it really a good idea allowing a conglomerate of corporations control free speech either?

So finally Cred Forums will die and we will be able to live happily without being reminded how shitty the world is every nanoseconds?

OpenNIC and other alternative roots could work.

Why do you think that the internet favors or exclusively selects for "a conglomerate of corporations"?

>breitbart
>NEWS

L M A O

Did you even read what you meme arrowed?
>COULD
>COULD
>COULD
>COULD

And it WONT because that would be a breach of contract for ICANN to even become this private corp.

Jesus Christ just how impotent do you feel that a simple post like that makes you so butthurt? Nothing will change and even if it did, if you're not using the Internet improperly it shouldn't make a difference. Just grow up and stop making an issue about inane stuff.

...

That's not an argument, but tell me a news source you trust then, and I will find an article written by that source explaining the issue in the exact same way.

user, ICANN is not being handed off to the UN. It's being allowed to operate privately. The NTIA already established back in 2014 that they would not allow for ANY deal whereby ICANN would be operating under the stewardship of any government agency.

This IS the free market solution.

if the question is "can someone else make their own dns and not have to use any of this" the answer is yes
but good luck getting website owners to come to you and register their domains

I don't understand what you mean, like let private non-commercial individuals run it? That could work, but I don't know how it could be done.

Are you not aware of how China and many Middle-Eastern countries control their own citizens' access to the internet?

Not according to every news source I have read.

I personally dont care (I dont know why you assumed otherwise)

>if you're not using the Internet improperly

>some places don't allow the Internet to be used for illegal stuff

Christ how shocking.

>Did you even read what you meme arrowed?
>>COULD
>>COULD
>>COULD
>>COULD

Did you read the article, or did you just look for words in his quote which might prove him wrong because you have chosen to disagree with him arbitrarily?

>Are you not aware of how China and many Middle-Eastern countries control their own citizens' access to the internet?
That has nothing to do with ICANN.

>using internet improperly
Yeah, I literally think we should prevent people from reproducing like cancer to prevent the earth becoming unsustainable. Too bad soon censoring politically corrects idiots will fuck everything up because "muh u r evil"

You can't access websites like facebook, youtube, and Cred Forums in many countries, such as China. Are you saying that you want Chinese government officials making decisions that affect how the internet works outside of China? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying, if you actually understand the issue.

>he has to post pictures to turn issues into political issues because he has no argument other than blaming a boogeyman

>someone posts shallowthink on Cred Forums

Christ how shocking.

this is a political issue you dimwit, just because something includes the subject of one board on Cred Forums doesn't mean it can't also fit into the subject matter of another

Fuck off back to Cred Forums, shitfuck.

>someone replies saying that your argument is invalid while providing no insight about it

That's the point. If the UN gets control of ICANN, then there would be a possibility - where before there was NO POSSIBILITY - that websites that have "hate speech," Holocaust denial, Tiananmen Square videos, information about Tibet, or any other sorts of outlawed speech would be targeted in the future.

>The United Nations could take over control of the Internet on October 1

Literally the first line of the "news article".
Then this comes up.
>While the administration and its defenders have denied that the UN will have authority over ICANN

>but m-m-muh antitrust laws
You mean the ones nobody can seem to cite?
Yeah, real fucking nice argument.

All your article states is that "OMG IT COULD GO TO THE UN!! IT MOST DEFINITELY WILL!!"

with no actual reasoning behind it
its bollocks made to rile you up because breitbart knows its audience will eat up anything

Just go back to Cred Forums where you can safely sit in your hugbox

The Internet should be regulated internationally, yes. It's only natural, since there are no borders on the Internet.

>this is a political issue you dimwit

Excellent, post it on Cred Forums then. This is not even technology.

>The Internet should be regulated internationally
No it shouldn't because it was created by the US government

All of this nonsense came from one news source, which is the Wall Street Journal (everyone else is parroting them). They claimed that ICANN would be forced to become stewarded by another government agency because of antitrust laws. They have not cited any actual laws and how it could be used to force it under stewardship. Moreover, the NTIA itself has explicitly stated that they won't allow a proposal that would enable ICANN to operate under ANY government's stewardship. Want a source? Here:

ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/myths-and-facts-ntia-announcement-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-

>The U.S. Government has made it clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government or intergovernmental organization.
>The criteria specified by the Administration firmly establish Internet governance as the province of multistakeholder institutions, rather than governments or intergovernmental institutions, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth, innovation, and free expression.
>The U.S. government will only transition its role if and when it receives it receives a satisfactory proposal to replace its role from the global Internet community -- the same industry, technical, and civil society entities that have successfully managed the technical functions of Internet governance for nearly twenty years.

If ICANN moved to another government, they'd be in breach of their own agreement, which might even void it altogether.

This is exactly what they are doing. Letting a private, non-commercial entity (ICANN) run it.

OP here. Only a few on-topic posts in the thread so far. This is an autistic fucking shitfest.
>hurrr what is icann
>hurrr hillary sez that your news website is dum so i'll just AD HOM and hope no one notices!!!
>hurrr i dont know anything about the issue or facts but ur all dum anyway

>Error: You can't delete a post this old.
Thanks, moot!

>Democracy guys

there is not international right to free speech. it's internationally acceptable to jail and censor for saying the holocaust killed five instead of six million. now imagine what it would mean to critcise multinational corporations with close ties to politics instead of a bunch of random depressed hebrews.

>the law is always right

Christ how primitive

this, I don't know why people still discount this stuff as ridiculous.

The Internet should not be regulated at all.

the problem is that American law gives the entirety of the internet technical first amendment rights.

The UN does not and therefore having countries like Iran, Russia, China have a say in management will cause some shady shit happen in regards to censorship.


WATCH THIS VIDEO EVERYONE
youtube.com/watch?v=-xu5p_nDcrg&list=LLRdqm21oHGSv49oTXtMZLUQ&index=2

>it was created by the US government

So what? Are they the only country using it? If they want something they control 100% they are free to create an exclusively American network, because the actual Internet is international and should be regulated internationally.

hurr im a dumb retard that doesn't understand regulation-heavy markets != free

Did you forget to read the rest of the post? It seems hard to have forgotten to read one line of text but you really don't seem to have read it.

literally everything I've read about this says quite the opposite.

>if a law is wrong (or believed to be wrong), it shouldn't be applied

Christ how childish, just how old are you?

You haven't answered my question. What is a news website that you would believe, then? I posted a link to The Economist. They are pretty left wing. Not left wing enough? Here's the Wall Street Journal
wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
and BBC
bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

>This is not even technology.
Look at the OP. Stop shitting up the thread.

>literally everything I've read about this says quite the opposite.

>instead of reading the source you just provided me proving that X can't happen, I'll just believe [HYBERBOLE NEWS OUTLET#122353] because they are agreeing with the made up bullshit I've got in my mind.


gb2/pol/

>Literally everything I've read
Is parroting the WSJ, which cites no sources. Just because a shit ton of people are saying something doesn't make it true. The actual government organization in charge of this transfer, the NTIA, has made their point explicitly.

Now do you have any points to say other than, "but all of the media says ..."? Because when it comes down to it, when has the media ever bothered to actually do their fucking research in the past couple of decades?

Where do I buy it? How do I install it? What are the review channels? What are the alternatives? How does it work? Who is developing it? In which way is this an application of science? This is political stuff only tangentially related to some other thing related to technology, this is not technology. Take it to Cred Forums and stay there shills.

>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.

wow
fucking amazing
its absolutely nothing

>b-b-but they could!!!
No, you absolute mongoloid, they can't. See

>instead of reading the source you just provided me
you didn't provide one?

Spoken like a true pedophile hacker terrorist criminal.

>IF I DONT AGREE WITH IT, IT DOESN'T EXSIST AND YOU DIDNT ACTUALLY LINK MY THIS!!!!!!

Holy shit, please

ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/myths-and-facts-ntia-announcement-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-

Go fucking KILL YOURSELF

If a law is wrong or believed to be wrong, do not follow, and do not enforce it. In that, it ceases to be a law, and regresses to a meaningless opinion held be the elected or appointed elite.

The human ability to simply ignore the law as letters on paper and numbers on signs is a natural check and balance of representative democracy. Should the elected deviate too far from their promises, should someone who promised to care for the people turn out to be hitler, the people can just not listen

Mindless obedience is the defining trait of childhood and lower animals. Are you a toddler? Are you a dog? No, you are a man. You have no master, only a mutually beneficial relationship where some lead...so long as everyone allows it. You are a man. The police are men. The FBI is operated by men.

International aid in the name of human rights is the radical idea that men outside of an entirely fictional boundary ought to be allowed to ally themselves against the interest of a smaller group of men who declare themselves rulers, which is to say, if the imam says no facebook and the people want facebook, the west will provide tor and facebook, as nationality is a contract that is broken when it is no longer beneficial to all involved parties.

The idea of a world government is natural, but not in the sense of a defined and regulated power structure. Instead, it's a pragmatic disregard for power structures.

>censorship is okay when the USA does it, but god forbid other countries censored some stuff too

a retarded argument

The same places that site Cred Forums as an elite hacker's playground and birth place of the alt right?

Let me put it this way. Would you rather play it safe and keep ICANN in the USA - making no changes and risking nothing? Or would you rather take action into unknown, risky territory, and ignore warnings of danger just because left wing journalists "assure" you that it will all work out, even though there is no real plan in place to safeguard freedom of speech on the internet?

In nazi Germany threre were laws that allowed Jews to be killed.
Are you saying that laws like those should be applied just because they're the law?

no, it just didn't exist so I don't know why you're getting so worked up.

I'm scanning through this at the moment, and, while I'm seeing denials of a UN handover, I'm not seeing any actual plan here. So since you understand this so well, can you sum up what exactly they're doing, and how I can know it will go down as planned?

>anarchy pasta

I thought school started weeks ago.

The USA doesn't really censor speech, and the only time it has stepped in in regard to how ICANN operates was the .xxx url domain creation.

Just use a country domain.

>if you disagree with me or present an argument i can't refute, you should gb2/pol/

Great argument!

We censor some, but much much much less than just about any other major country.

>the U.S. censors the internet
what the fuck are you on.

leave it to Cred Forums to think that they will somehow get more internet rights protection from literally the worst authoritarian regimes in the world than the U.S.

can't wait for Cred Forums's domain to be managed by Saudi arabia so they will finally nuke this place

Holy fuck. Kill yourself.

>Where do I buy it? How do I install it? What are the review channels? What are the alternatives? How does it work? Who is developing it?
That's what the thread was supposed to be about, you fucking mong.

>See
>2014
You're not even trying to present an on topic argument.

>present an argument

Cred Forumstards can't present shit because they have nothing beyond

>OMG THIS TOTALLY COULD HAPPEN EVEN THOUGH IT REALLY CANT!

Cred Forums coould be placed in Zaire for more democracy.

holy hell user are you serious? Do you post in this in every internet-based thread?

>You're not even trying to present an on topic argument.

This deal has been in the works for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. That's more than you've been alive.

What if we just gave Switzerland control? That doesn't sound like the worst idea possible.

The deadline is today. Congress hasn't done anything yet. Only a few more hours until they go home for the weekend.

ICANN isn't run by the UN you stupid fucks. Why do you Alex Jones retards keep going on with this retarded bullshit?

>The USA doesn't really censor speech
>It's just the American companies that make 90% of the Internet like Facebook, Twitter, and Google that censor you
>Implying that if they were censoring speech you would even know it

>USA performs all kinds of human experimentation on their citizens and keeps it secret for 30 years
>USA doesn't censor stuff it's 100% free what are you even talking about? the other countries are worse, watch these propaganda videos and don't dare to believe that other countries are better

I use my own countries extension .nl and it automatically keeps the whois information private, except for your email address. No international bullshit.

Anarchy is no government, not conditional disregard for government.

It's less like anarchy and more like abureaucracy. The absence of religiously following "club rules" like an 8 year old and choosing to ignore them depending on the situation like an intelligent adult. There's no doubt that rules work most of the time, but when they don't, and following them is against common interest, why bother

Nations already involve themselves in this practice instead of standing by because "rules are rules". This practice is THE foundation of war - effectively a fight against an armed group who declare a nation, not "a nation". Nations and their laws don't actually exist except when the people who live in them say they do (but it happens that they can be coerced with threat of imprisonment, torture, death, and a shitty life in general).

Dismissing Breitbart News in an ad hominem attack is not an argument, especially when dozens of other news networks, state governments, and Congressmen are saying the same thing. If there is no possibility for a handoff to the UN, then I guess Ted Cruz is just wasting his time, huh?

>the american government and its lax free speech laws are the same as SJW private corporations

wew lad

>*tips fedora*
>dude I know stuff about war and torture and grim shit

This better be pasta, for your own good.

>Implying that if they were censoring speech you would even know it
well I'm still reading your posts calling out US censorship, so I'm not sure how you intend on explaining that

>ICANN isn't run by the UN you stupid fucks.
As of tomorrow, it will be on a path to supervision by the UN. Do you even read the news?

>he can't think deep enough to realize that the most effective way to make you think it doesn't happen is by doing nothing when people say it happens

I'm clearly arguing with mindlets aren't I?

Except dozens of other news networks, the Obama administation, and the NTIA have said that NO handoff will be happening to the UN.

>then I guess Ted Cruz is just wasting his time, huh?

Yes, just like he was during his presidential campaign.

Do you really think this is the first time a congressman has blown a gasket over something minute?

Do you even remember A SERIES OF TUBES and what that was about?

you can't just dig into deeper layers of circular logic user, you'll go mad looking through an endless loop

>Would you rather play it safe and keep ICANN in the USA - making no changes and risking nothing?
In general, I prefer not to fix things that aren't broken, but given that nothing would be broken by this change, I see no problem.

>Or would you rather take action into unknown, risky territory, and ignore warnings of danger
I have yet to see any validity to the so-called warnings. Not a single journalist has cited a single US anti-trust law (note: ICANN is still a US corporation and only subject to US law) which ICANN would be in violation of, without the stewardship of the US. Moreover, I also am aware of the fact that congress is clearly capable of giving ICANN an exemption to anti-trust laws just as we do with public utility companies that have monopoly status. I would be surprised if the deal being given to them by NTIA didn't already give them some sort of exemption.

>just because left wing journalists "assure" you that it will all work out
I have yet to see any left wing articles saying it'll all work out. In fact, I've seen retards on the left and the right panicking over this shit because NOBODY DOES ANY FUCKING RESEARCH.

>even though there is no real plan in place to safeguard freedom of speech on the internet?
There doesn't need to be. ICANN can simply operate as it has always done. The US has barely done any sort of intervention in their role as steward (and their one intervention was to tell ICANN to please not put up the .xxx domain, which ICANN quite frankly ignored and did anyways). The only thing that will change is now the US can't add regulation. Nobody gets to tell ICANN what to do except its existing stakeholders and US laws (of which no one has demonstrated ICANN to be in violation of).

oh no please tell me more about the UN boogeyman who wants to take control of this organization which has declared independence from the United States

>g-g-goy stop thinking about that! you can't think about that because something bad might happen to you if you do, I'm telling you for your own good

My ISP is a government sanctioned monopoly, so.

The reason for this is because Americans hate privacy and loves copyright trolls.
So no sane European country wants Americans to keep ruling gtlds.

Plus they don't have friends in China and Russia either.

>Obama says it, that means it's true
Just like how he said that health insurance premiums wouldn't rise and I could keep my doctor :^)

Did you read any articles about it? (inb4 ad homs - address the arguments, not the messenger)
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/29/icann-un-take-internet-oct-1/
breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/john-bolton-within-ten-years-internet-know-will-end/
bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2646
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/29/obamas-plan-surrender-internet-control-may-unconstitutional/
politico.com/story/2016/09/ted-cruz-internet-domain-larry-strickling-228153#ixzz4LaTXRk47
trunews.com/article/trump-stands-against-icann-internet-handover#sthash.mDwxxdzz.dpuf
timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2016/09/27/president-obamas-risky-giveaway-of-internet-governance/

>organization which has declared independence from the United States
I don't know how you can honestly believe that when they are located in the United States.

>Americans hate privacy
who told you that?

>citing breitbart

LUL

This is a very sensible post actually. In a doggy world where shitposting is diamond dozen, your post legitimately hits the nail on the head.

the NSA leaks

>ad hominems make me seem smarter than him!

I'd love to know what went through your head before you clicked the 'Submit' button.

>he's arguing that the nation that built PRISM isn't against privacy

Are you just very stupid or they pay you for saying this?

Might makes right kid

remember that when your hippy ass is complaining about how being arrested for protesting hurts.

The fact that Americans publish all private information in the whois, unlike .eu .se .nl .gr .uk .fr .es .be .de and so on.

This technology was invented by US citizens and is under US control.

NTIA have no legal right to give control of the root servers to a sovereign corporation with international oversight.

Effectively this is the same as letting British or Russian nationals have control over the internet because there is nothing to stop them. I.E. constitutional laws preventing the transfer of our ownership of those technologies.

The exact opposite is true, the EU have far stricter rules on copyright and they do not have the right to free speech like we do in the US, they value "social harmony" over freedom and will censor the living shit out of the internet.

As apposed to a nation that will put your face on the side of a buss for swearing to publicly shame you.

I thought "Man, this guy is a right wing nutjob who doesn't understand what ICANN does"

Lo and behold, I was right

Back to with you

>dude lmao fuck the law might makes right
>you are the hippy though

0/10

That's the American government, not the American people. So much for representative govt.

I mean we like our gossip and shit but we generally don't advocate for the govt to spy on us and only PoS advocate for doxxing people.

In Europe the copyright trolls would have been prosecutes to hell and back.

>it is wrong that countries punish their citizens for swearing if there is a law against swearing

And how is this related to privacy? How about you stop trying to police what other nations do and respect their privacy instead dumbass?

>I didn't really think I had to come up with a counter-argument because my college professors taught me in gender studies classes that I am superior to anybody who even reads conservative news websites due to the fact that I vote Democrat

If only colleges taught kids how to think anymore, then maybe we could have had a conversation like adults.

Censoring language that one thinks is harsh isn't privacy. That being said, what other countries do in their jurisdiction is none of our business and vice versa.

>freedom

Have cops and ISPs send you letter after pirating.

Throttling connections
Capped internet
Ridiculously overpriced broadband and LTE
Clusterfuck of 2 different networks or more

Your right to free speech is a meme dumb fat american. Also remember that Europe is more than just UK.

Oh wait its this tripfag why do I bother replying.

>when you're that one leftist who ruins a thread about technology because you couldn't contain your autism

>Is there no free market
What the fuck. I thought Cred Forums was over it's retarded lolberterian phase.

Oh god, it's happening again. The retards still exist.

>send you letter after pirating.
>
>Throttling connections
>Capped internet
>Ridiculously overpriced broadband and LTE
>Clusterfuck of 2 different networks or more

How are any of those things "speech"?

In Britain you go to prison for breaking copyright law.
Its extremely relevant to privacy and tech, in Britain they will basically post your address on a billboard and exclaim that you are tax dodging, look up how they enforce tv licenses which is basically a tax on owning personal electronics which also violates privacy.

They will literally drive around in a van with a list of MAC addresses that belong to chipsets inside a smart tv, and then literally and legally raid your house to find the tv and fine you.

>what other countries do in their jurisdiction is none of our business and vice versa

Exactly, and that's why everyone should get to regulate this international thing called Internet, since it everyones jurisdiction.

I mean I get the complaints but the US government has never directly controlled Internet Assigned Numbers ever...

All of these claim potential antitrust issues, yet no one mentions a specific antitrust law. In other words, no one here has done their fucking research. Also, most of these boil down to either citing Ted Cruz or citing the Wall Street Journal. In other words, rather than looking into the issue and coming to their own conclusions, they are merely stating someone else's point of view and positioning them as authoritative sources.

The internet is a US government invention....

>couldn't contain your autism
>MUH FREE MARKET poster complaining about others not "containing autism"
...

its both. govt laid the lines and transferred them over to private control. ISPs are basically a monopoly. they don't compete on one another's turf. a small ISP will likely get sued by a large ISP, so they can control competition completely. its a total clusterfuck.

The answer is to bust up the cartels and open up the space to competition. but this is america, and comcast owns hillary clinton and obama, who literally don't give a shit.

>If you do illegal stuff, they will engage some measures that you will not like

This is the part where I should be surprised? Stop breaking the fucking law then you nigger, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing.

And they do do that, that's why China is able to censor any website they see unfit. The great thing about the current hierarchy of control is that the US has constitutionally assured rights to free speech and any country that doesn't can just prevent their citizens from accessing content they don't want them to see.

>literally any mention of economic concepts triggers me into going on a leftist rant!!
This is really sad.

I fucking wish someone would take action, looking at what the Swiss pay for internet 50 times faster than mine makes me sad.

There is a balance between freedom and censorship, laws that put you in prison for copying an mp3 are dangerous, if you can't see how that leads to thought police and the virtual destruction of freedom thats kind of sad.

What's wrong with the current way of doing things where totalitarian regimes control their own citizens' access to the internet and don't interfere with other countries' access to the internet? Why must we allow the Chinese and Iranians to have oversight of the American internet?

Nvm that in Germany you get fined for torrenting a movie or arested for discussing policies on the internet.

Because in the Internet there are no countries and every human being is the same. Thus it's only fair that they are treated in one same global way.

In Germany, visiting, you have to file paperwork before you are allowed access to the internet and everything is monitored.

>a leftist president hands over control over the internet
Bush was onboard with this in 2006.

Know your history, and try to be less of a shit head.

Why does the concept of "fairness" have to infringe upon the natural human right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly? That doesn't seem fair to me.

The US doesn't actively manage domain names though. They pretty much just have it just so its easier for the DOJ to seize domain names.

Isn't that good?

Leftist=/=(necessarily)democrat shit head
Bush Sr. has endorsed Hillary Clinton ffs

>Bush was onboard with this in 2006.
Is he on board with it now?
I seriously doubt it.
It isn't fair, things like this will just piss the public off and cause even more people to vote for Trump.

>laws that put you in prison for copying an mp3 are dangerous
>destruction of freedom

They are trying to take our freedom to steal and use other people's work without having to pay them for it? This is what happened with our freedom to own slaves too right? Stay woke brother.

depends if you are on the good or bad side of US federal courts.

Wouldn't you say that less regulation and more freedom are better for the average citizen?

It isn't stealing, you can legally obtain music for free by recording it when it is broadcast over radio.

How is that any different then sharing it directly with friends? Legally obtaining it free one way is ok and the other equals complete loss of freedom and prison. That juxtaposition alone shines a light on how immoral those laws are.

>natural human right to freedom of speech

Nature gives you that right? Because last time I checked there wasn't a natural phenomena that prevented you from being prosecuted for expressing certain opinions, especially since there wasn't even a system of law to posecute you in nature. I guess you're just weasel wording now to sound smart.

Fairness means that everyone should get what they deserve, Why do you deserve more than the Chinese?

It's unfair to the producers, but the free market can be unfair to the consumers as well. It creates a drive to make a reasonably priced product worth paying for.

This shit is disgusting, mate.

>the digits

The right to Freedom of Speech is natural
The right from persecution for Speech is man-made

Why can only small countries like Switzerland, The Netherlands and Sweden make sensible policies?

>literally any mention of economic concepts
Demisxual Genderfluid

>and they will share it with two friends, and those will share it with two friends...

The only immoral part is that you record it from radio and share it without minding the authors. It's recording from radio what should be illegal instead of piracy being legal. How about you just pay for the stuff you want like a honest person?

Never heard of John Locke or Thomas Paine? I know that American education only teaches you the bare minimum of what you need to understand Marxist dogma anymore, but if you can't do the basic background research on a conversation among adults, please do not try to participate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

>calling philosophical principles that form the basis of western civilization "weasel words"
Stay retarded, Cred Forums.

It's natural for a person to get angry and hit you in the face.

>The right to Freedom of Speech is natural

Yeah right, animals can't even talk dumbass. You have 0 basis for saying that it's a natural right.

...

Its not immoral though, you are just brainwashed.

So what are the pros and cons to this? Is Rato just being a politician or is it an actual cause?

I mean the U.S hasn't been in control of the Internet for over 20 years. This could make anti piracy laws obsolete.

>Never heard of John Locke or Thomas Paine? I know that American education only teaches you the bare minimum
John Locke / enlightenment stuff is covered in 9th year world history. Anyone that doesn't know about these principles is probably retarded.

>Yeah right, animals can't even talk dumbass
haha what the fuck?

Government and laws are human constructs, in nature there is nothing stopping one from speaking their mind. However, as so elegantly put it there is also nothing protecting you from repercussions of your words.

"Rights" is a completely man made concept that only exist within constrains of "ethical society of persons"

We learn about them in the US, but in my experience most people here are too stupid to remember anything about humanities or history.

>I claim that the foundations of my artificial society are the basis of nature itself, even if nature was before, and to prove I will link information about stuff that was made up by my society. This is all as natural as it gets and I will even insult you to prove how right I am!

I guess if you look at it that way then it's not so much a right as something that no one can stop you from doing without actual physical violence, but I consider that a right in my way of thinking.

>it's not immoral because I'm not a content creator, but if I was one I would think different

You are the worst of scum no wonder you're tripfagging. I bet you use private trackers faggot.

>in nature there is nothing stopping one from speaking their mind.
This is a stupid statement.

Its not immoral because sharing ideas should not be policed.

The internet wasn't handed off to the UN, stop it with this meme at once.

Also very atheist.

so stupid that you are literally at a loss of argument, right?

>intellectual creations are public domain just like knowledge

Retard.

>in nature there is nothing stopping one from speaking their mind without actual physical violence
I am so confused.

The argument regarding the right to privacy based around the core concept that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about it" is fundamentally flawed, especially when talking about this issue considering that computer-based laws relating to privacy are so completely different and sometimes intentionally convoluted in various different parts of the world. Just look at the censorship in China, or Germany's censorship of their political past, or the various laws regarding where it is legal to host servers for online gambling. What fucking universal moral code are you abiding by, you righteous law-abiding citizen?

This is underated. This is basically why capitalism is flawed and we should use a donation system only.

Of course it isn't its copyright material, there is no law against private use of that material if I obtained it legally. If I give it to my friend and the creator finds out, he can try to sue, but it won't work because the US doesn't have laws such that the EU has. In the EU you go to prison for it, in the US you just go to court and the content creator has to prove that you harmed him.

Laws shouldn't circumvent this process and directly punish individuals for sharing copyright ideas, be it music, or other information.

I mean, like, I really am.

Yeah but what about God heh? He could stop animals from speaking their minds and you can't prove that he can't. How does it feel when someone lowers to your level of stupidity? You can't even argue back! Wew lad.

What I mean is that the only thing that can stop you is if someone kills you. In theory a threat of violence(which is a rudimentary form of law) can't actually restrain you. But once you've been killed for something you say, it's a matter of morals and no longer natural ability and "right."

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Would you prefer there were no laws in place to protect your natural rights? That seems to be the basis of your objection.

Knowledge is an intellectual creation though.

>What fucking universal moral code are you abiding by, you righteous law-abiding citizen?

The only one. The one that will be born tomorrow. Stop being butthurt and pay attention to what the thread is even about so you don't have to ask dumb questions.

It's an accurate statement. What makes it "stupid," and how does being "stupid" relate to its relevance?

Animals do speak their minds user. They don't speak languages nor do they think critically very much, but many animals are fully capable of expressing themselves to others.

If capitalism was actually useful, we wouldn't need laws.

So all these news outlets, the BBC, the Economist, Breitbart, Politico, True News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. are just making it up? You're going to have to come up with a better argument than flat dismissal.

what?

what the hell does this thread even have to do with the OP anymore

Animals do speak language. See: humans

This also, of course. Slipped my mind to point out the obvious when I wrote that post.

Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. Thus everything is alike.

Knowledge involves phenomena that are true despite you knowing of their existence, whereas an intellectual creation didn't exist before being created.

As far as I can tell, OP mentioned the trigger term "free market," which inflamed one or two Marxist kiddies to troll the thread with ad hominems and denial of reality. It went south from there.

>Animals speak

Jesus you must be very desperate if this what you're arguing. Better log off and go talk to your animal friends faggot.

And you go talk with your friends who deny proven science

It's called OpenNIC.

OpenNICproject.org

Jesus I just realized that I posted 73 times what the fuck. Well I'm out of here.

Also, 73 times "Jesus".

Link some sources about how animals talk please.

>proven science

Please don't link the ones saying that "maybe, it could be, that sometimes under some circumstances animals could talk; but we don't have enough evidence to say for sure". Checkmate.

An on-topic post? Thank you, sir!

Well, the fact you're talking proves it already.

It's a shill shilling a botnet...

>ad hominem to doge the question that I can't answer

Link some sources about how animals talk please.

>proven science

Please don't link the ones saying that "maybe, it could be, that sometimes under some circumstances animals could talk; but we don't have enough evidence to say for sure". Checkmate and now you look twice as retarded.

w-wow... Ehrm... You speak English, I luckily speak a language witch shares similarities with English, and we are apparently communicating. (I hope.)

>What I mean is that the only thing that can stop you is if someone kills you.
There are a multitude of things that can stop a being from communicating that don't involve being dead. This statement is absurd.

>In theory a threat of violence
Contradicting yourself. Any form of disadvantages outcome is a means of limiting communication from intelligent being.

>which is a rudimentary form of law
So educational.

>But once you've been killed for something you say, it's a matter of morals and no longer natural ability and "right."
What?

It works, problem is that no one uses it because as far as most people care the current system doesn't need replacing

dolphins.org/communication
youtube.com/watch?v=9t4O6QxNyXk

>>ad hominem
I don't think you understand the words you're using. So maybe you're not talking, just copying words you're seeing. But we are.

>There are a multitude of things that can stop a being from communicating that don't involve being dead
as in?
>Any form of disadvantages outcome is a means of limiting communication from intelligent being
that's a psychological effect, if you give your id pure control over actions no threat of violence will stop you from doing what you want
>So educational.
also pretty 2deep bs sounding but not really false either
>What?
what I mean as in it becoming a moral issue is that it's no longer about whether someone has the right to kill you, but whether it was morally justified to do so.

>Why Windows still exist

>he's still dodging the question

I will let it slide because there would be no point in pressing you since you already know that you're wrong. Next time don't argue stupid shit that isn't true.

Wew an example of a specific animal that probably has some degree of communication. Let's say for the sake of the argument that this is proof that dolphins talk, Now I'll just wait for you to post the sources on how the other few thousands of animals species talk too.

Good you know how to learn a language.

But that's not how a republic democracy works. Civil disobedience is a (relatively) effective form of protest that may change public opinion that may then motivate legislators to change law code to satisfy their voters. Just because you think that pirating copyrighted material is morally acceptable doesn't make it any less illegal, and it sure will be meaningful if you're the sucker who gets slammed in jail as a token to appease the entertainment industry lobbyists.

>I still don't answer the question

>hahahaha, stupid Americans!!
>I am morally superior and therefore more correct than Americans so don't even try to argue with me!!

I think your bubble is preventing you from realizing you are no more than a degenerated chimp. But we are.

spotted the newfag

>I ignore all answers
Also, I wasn't that guy. But his point was that humans can be considered as animals and you sperged out.

>Wew an example of a specific animal
so are you just going to ignore that I posted a video of two humans talking to each other too?

here are some more videos of animals communicating in the form of cute animals doing cute things; I can't imagine your brain could handle anything more than that.
youtube.com/watch?v=dJcRHvzU3Zs
youtube.com/watch?v=z3U0udLH974

>Dude trust me on the stuff that I say, no don't ask me to prove it, just trust or I'll insult you brah

And my point is that if you're saying that a set has an attribute then every single element in that set must have it. You can't say that animals talk when only one specific animal talks. Are you all just too dumb to realize this?

What?

I am American, and I'm pretty sure that post had nothing to do with America.

Read Just roughly 1.4 million lifeforms to go, keep posting videos or yield.

Humans are animals. Humans can talk. Therefore, there are animals that can talk. That doesn't necessarily imply all animals can talk, however.

>Link some sources about how animals talk please.
>links a youtube video titled "how English sounds to Non English Speakers

lol I really hope this is just shitposting

>You can't say that animals talk when only one specific animal talks
Uhh, yes, you can. Saying that animals talk does not necessarily imply that ALL animals talk.

If only there were another country that English was from. I wager it would be called something like England, the land of the English. Shame there isn't such a place.

Is your brain unable to think? Feels like you're spouting all the nonsense religious brainwash you learned.

Weret hey speaking with an Irish accent?

Giving Switzerland the responsibility of controlling and mediating an organization that makes active decisions regarding something so potentially controversial completely undetmines the principle of neutrality they at least try to uphold. Nations hold conventions in Geneva because they choose NOT to internationally regulate anything, at least relatively speaking.

It was just an example of 2 people talking to each other, it was either that or a podcast that everyone would just disregard for being e-celeb trash.

This. I think this guy is just bored

>>even though there is no real plan in place to safeguard freedom of speech on the internet?
>There doesn't need to be.

>Nobody gets to tell ICANN what to do except its existing stakeholders
>existing stakeholders

I can't tell if you're really this stupid, or if you just want to watch the world burn.

No, maybe Irish doing American accents, but that's not Irish.

>proving how your argument is not true with logic is shitposting

I am hereby officially claiming victory.

>Saying that animals talk does not necessarily imply that ALL animals talk.

Where did you even learn math? It totally does. You probably meant to say that a few animals can talk, or more specifically that X can talk and X is an animal. That's not what was said. Either learn to talk or learn to math; you can't do both wrong.

Wew look more ad hominem with no actual arguments. Officially claiming victory, nice fedora fag, stay woke.

That was my point.

What if we do things my way? Replace capitalism with a better, mathematically more efficient system. Assuming efficiency being able to select adequately fit individuals for society.

>Where did you even learn math?
It's not math, it's basic human understanding. It's not my issue if you have trouble interpreting the english language.

What's your point? You keep saying animals can't talk. Despite the proof and the logical thinking we show you. Why are you even here?

>ICANN breaks from US government contract because they're unhappy with NSA spying
>Conservitards somehow spin it as Obama's fault

m.youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk
This ape knows what's up.

>tfw I would rather have him as a roommate than the average human

Obama is directing the change.

Let me give you a different example.
Humans can swim.
Would you say this statement is incorrect because not all humans can? Either because they never learned it, or because they literally can't because of injuries, disabilities or other reasons.

icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en

Did Obama become the CEO of ICANN some time in the past 3 years, since they issued the Montevideo Statement in which the organization dictated they wanted to de-Americanize the institution?

Or are you implying that Obama is personally renegotiating the contract with the new, de-Americanized ICANN?

Are you trying to say that black people aren't human? Racist!

>2013
Do you understand that Obama has been president since 2008?

Sorry, I'm timetraveling from 2013.

It's free advertising. It's actually something I'm hopeful of out if this. Piracy is the future. Stop holding technology back.

youtu.be/0Qkyt1wXNlI

>as in?
Come on are you serious? Isolation, noise, medium discrepancy, defective transmitter/receiver, lower than normal cognitive state, negative decision evaluation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication#Barriers_to_effectiveness

>that's a psychological effect, if you give your id pure control
Holy shit...

>no threat of violence will stop you from doing what you want
Unless you don't want the violence that is being threaten?

>becoming a moral issue
that is not
>has the right to kill you
?
>but whether it was morally justified to do so.
What is the "what" whose justification you are wondering about?

>democratic, privacy and freedom respecting DNS
>botnet

OK.

You didn't answer either of my questions, user.

Please tell me how you think Obama is personally responsible for the de-Americanization of ICANN, when the organization itself is who decided to split from the US government.

Ayylmao

He could stop them from leaving.

Like you stop your mother from leaving your father, for Tyrone?

No, he can't user. ICANN can simply refuse to renegotiate the contract with the US.

They aren't a government body. They're an independent company.

t. neoliberal shill

Ted Cruz says you're wrong.

Actually if you look back at the post that started this, it said that

>animals speak

not that

>animals can speak

so your different example is wrong. Regarding your example, yes it would be wrong to say that humans can swim, as there will be a few humans that can't swim. The correct way to say it is

>some humans can swim

I'm sure that Ted Cruz says a lot of things. Many of them not nice about Obama and "the liberals". But ICANN is simply not a government body.

Every few years, since 1998, US Congress has renegotiated with ICANN to keep it a primarily American controlled institution. After the revelations that Snowden provided in 2013, ICANN decided they didn't want to renegotiate with Congress anymore, because America showed signs of being an oppressive government.

This is a good article you can reference to update yourself: theconversation.com/breaking-the-us-governments-hold-on-the-internet-wont-be-easy-46033

>the creators claim that it's democratic, privacy and freedom respecting DNS

Yeah you better believe it good goy.

Still haven't posted proof of animals talking though. Just some dolphins making some movements (that nobody knows what they mean by the way).

>Bait, the post.

.youtube.com/watch?v=e6howcqnxfw&t=2m50s

Also, from an alien point of view, our "discussion" is nothing more than gibberish.

DNSSEC once it comes out

>UN can censure hate speech
They can also define it

Wrong link:
youtube.com/watch?v=SNuZ4OE6vCk&t=2m50s

ICANN is not related to the UN. It's literally a conspiracy theory by breitbart and uninformed republicans. This deal has been outlined for two years now.

tldr; fuck off Cred Forums

This

Literally this. I think where Rato and Breitbart are getting it from is how one of the UN agencies in will have an influence. But the main operation and control will be completely independent from the U.N. Rato has gone full retarded.

>should be regulated internationally.
How bout no regulation?
The internet is just a bunch of ideas getting transmitted around.
Why can't it be free from regulation?

Their country is smaller than most states though so keep that in mind.

Correct. ICANN will have a Governmental Advisory Committee in which all of its members will have a voice. You can read about it on their website at gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About The GAC

Except the voices don't dictate anything. The real decisions are made by the engineers who are actually employed by the ICANN organization.

The internet simply does not work that way. The reason you can talk on this website is a result of 20 years of standardization and regulation as to how the Internet works.

The Internet is the world's largest co-op, and everybody must play by the rules to participate.

(You)

Serious, not-troll question.

How many of you have radio licenses? Because it's possible to cobble an Internet together using radios operating in digital transmission mode.

>The actual government organization in charge of this transfer
No government agency has ever lied or tried to grab more power for itself. Ever

(You)

>Is there no free market solution to this?

THIS WHOLE THING IS HAPPENING SO THE INTERNET CAN BE PRIVATIZED. YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT.

how the fuck Cred Forums manages to be this stupid is beyond my comprehension

>censorship is okay when the USA does it
No it's not

You can create your own Internet using existing hardware, you know. The US does it for their classified communiciations (e.g. SIPRNet).

>It's literally a conspiracy theory
That's not an argument.

this is Cred Forums not /diy/

A global radio free network would be interesting though.

>YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT.
Not an argument.

yes but that's not practical. I imagine something like a LAN/computer cafe hooked up to a dish that bounces a signal to a ground station in America

I have my general license.
Never used a ham radio in my life, though.

The only reason we are at this stage is because the backbone of the Internet was sold to private telco companies in the mid 90s, the US leaving control over ICANN will make it easier for non-traditional Internet services (ie Xfinity or Uverse) to interface with the Internet. And many countries will abuse this to centralize data storage and webhosting, making censorship much easier.

To the people whining about this being a political topic: Yeah, the internet is politicized. That's the problem. How about talking about solutions to take government out of the internet instead of bitching about why your feefees got hurt by a news website that Buzzfeed told you is "full of only conspiracy theories"?

That is literally what is happening with ICANN breaking from the US government.

Do you not view the UN as a government-like entity?

ICANN will not be subject to UN control. This is a conspiracy theory.

ICANN will have a Government Advisory Committee in which governments may have a voice to ICANN, but ICANN's engineers retain discretion as to what they implement.

Please see my comment chain at for more information.

ICANN is not a private entity. It is under contract with the US Department of Commerce. After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union. These are well-sourced facts that are not in dispute by anyone. The way you keep repeating the phrase "conspiracy theory" just tells me that you don't understand what it means.

Saying things that are false like "it's a handover to the UN" isn't an argument against the handover either, given that it's just not true.

>These are well-sourced facts that are not in dispute by anyone

I'm disputing them, cite your claims.

Can someone explain how this affects my anime?

It's not false.
You mean cite my sources? I already did. You just didn't read them.

This is false. The only organizational ties that ICANN have to ITU at this time is a Memorandum of Understanding.

ICANN Is an independent organization, regardless of whether it has been contracted by the US dept. of commerce.

>ICANN Is an independent organization, regardless of whether it has been contracted by the US dept. of commerce.
The Dept of Commerce has OVERSIGHT. They have CONTROL of ICANN. Starting tomorrow, the UN's ITU will have OVERSIGHT. The UN will CONTROL ICANN through their oversight discretion. ICANN is not a sovereign nation with its own army and navy. They do have to answer to somebody.

>conservative propaganda, tabloids and mainstream media that do not represent IT subjects
fucking faggot. Also, your BBC source disproves you.
>bbc.com/news/technology-37114313
>A treaty to do just that was on the table in 2012 - but the US, along with the UK, Canada and Australia, refused, citing concerns over human rights abuses that may arise if other countries had greater say and control over the internet and its technical foundations.

Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.

This is wrong. ICANN Is a nonprofit. Sure, they answer to people, but not the ITU. You can read all of that stuff on the ICANN website.

And while you stupid faggots argued about whether this was a """"CONSPIRACY THEORY,"""" and which of you was the most brainwashed into believing the mainstream media's lies, the control of the internet has passed from the USA to the UN, and the globalists won once again because of how stupid and prone to in-fighting that we are. I hope you mindless drones are happy with yourselves.

>Starting tomorrow, the UN's ITU will have OVERSIGHT
No they won't. They will be entirely independent.

>The UN will CONTROL ICANN through their oversight discretion
No they won't.

>ICANN is not a sovereign nation with its own army and navy. They do have to answer to somebody.
It is an independent organization. Like how Walmart is an independent organization. They may be based in the United States and be subject to United States law, but they are an entity all their own, not an extension of the government. I'm sorry if I used an ambiguous term there.

As I had mentioned above, ICANN will have a Governmental Advisory Committee, which happens to include ITU (and 171 other members.) You can read about it at gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About The GAC

>thinks that an ad hominem is an argument.
Do you actually expect me to take you seriously when you can't present a real argument?

>This is wrong. ICANN Is a nonprofit. Sure, they answer to people, but not the ITU. You can read all of that stuff on the ICANN website.
That's the point of the thread. As of tomorrow, that will change.

It's understandable since the globalist bureaucracies control the public education systems that most people raised in them turn out to be leftist retards, but when did they become so complacent and dismissive of everything that doesn't agree with their views? Surely anyone not blinded by partisanship could see how dangerous it is to hand the keys of the internet to people who hate liberty and equality.

What's your argument? Claims of the ITU taking oversight of ICANN is completely false. Your own sources say so. Do you read everything you spew?

>They will be entirely independent.
Sorry, there is no such thing as an organization without some form of oversight.

>Like how Walmart is an independent organization.
Where are you going with this? Walmart is subject to US law. Like I said, there is no such thing as an organization without oversight.

>As I had mentioned above, ICANN will have a Governmental Advisory Committee, which happens to include ITU
Once again proving yourself wrong unintentionally.

>What's your argument?
Seriously? Re-read the god damn OP.

>Claims of the ITU taking oversight of ICANN is completely false. Your own sources say so. Do you read everything you spew?
No, that's incorrect. The sources all illustrate what is happening.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the purpose of the GAC. Perhaps you should read more about it instead of saying what it is and isn't.

The GAC is intended to give governments a voice in the standardization process, but the decisions are at the ICANN engineers' discretion, not the GAC.

>You mean cite my sources? I already did. You just didn't read them

The only objective/not clearly biased source there is the bbc. Which says:

>Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union.
>Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.

Now give me a reputable source that backs the claim "After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union. ".

The GAC already exists and doesn't move up in power. It has only one member on the board of ICANN. icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors

You have no argument if it's not true. I mean, if you think lies are an argument, go ahead. Also, your sources are still proving you wrong. This is from one of your sources.

>The GAC is intended to give governments a voice in the standardization process, but the decisions are at the ICANN engineers' discretion, not the GAC.
That's not really how these things work in practice and you know that. The UN operates by consensus. Everyone gets a say in the process, which is exactly what we're all concerned about.

>The only objective/not clearly biased source there is the bbc.
>

So what was the purpose of the over 300 replies that lead to this?

>Everyone gets a say in the process

No, only the UNSC members (US, UK, France, Russia, China) who have veto power.

as far as I cna tell, we're mostly shitting on Cred Forums for being stupid (again)

Then you've reverted back to conspiracy.

We can argue about what might or might not happen, but there is a clear separation of privilege between the governments of the world and the engineers who implement their requests.

I don't have any interest in arguing about that, but I will say one thing:

None of this would have happened if the United States did not have dragnet NSA surveillance. ICANN felt that the Internet was threatened by an oppressive American government, and decided to split because of it. I applaud their actions.

I hope you might one day do so to. You can read their statement from the time at icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en

>Breitbart

>Cruz

>BBC

This is a real source. sys.Cred Forums.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fbreaking-the-us-governments-hold-on-the-internet-wont-be-easy-46033

After I have called out either a dozen other people for ad hominems, or else called you out a dozen times for ad hominems, why can't you learn?

As for "bias," every source is a little biased, even the BBC. That doesn't mean that they aren't also reporting on facts. Even the BBC article, which tries to downplay the danger of the change, admits:
>From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise.
The article doesn't name the UN has gaining control, but that's a dishonest omission. Who are these "multiple stakeholders...including countries," then? The article doesn't say, which illustrates the publication's bias.

Is this coming from the people who think the bongistani state-run propaganda arm is the only objective source of news that exists?

Just because the BBC omits a detail doesn't "prove me wrong." If you're so good at finding "lies," then go ahead and prove every one of those sources wrong. You can't.

theregister.co.uk/2014/03/15/us_to_hand_dns_stewardship_over_to_icann/

I trust the reg to explain this stuff at a technical level. Good source.
Those people are all on display and includes how and to what seat they were elected or brought into the company on ICANNs website. Feel free to bring up anything interesting.

>thread about the future of the internet
>turns political because it's not possible for King Nigger to have any faults

>UK, France
These are countries that criminalize things like Holocaust denial and LACK a First Amendment to protect the right to freedom of speech.
>Russia, China
Are you serious right now? This is the problem that everyone is worried about. Russia is a former distatorship and China still is a communist dictatorship. Neither has a right to freedom of speech and China is viscous in prosecuting people who speak out against the government.

Thanks for proving me right.

The BBC isn't "omitting a detail", it's literally clarifying that it is NOT being handed to the UN.

DNS isn't new and governments vying for control isn't either. Neither is NWO conspiracy. Anyone worried about internet neutrality already knows about decentralization.

Except that's not how the ICANN GAC board works, that's how the UNSC works.

I'm going to say this one more time clearly: accusing your opponent of being a conspiracy theorist is not an argument.

Ad hominem is not an argument.

And not all ad hominem arguments are fallacies. Your sources are not reputable, none of them (except the BBC link which contradicts your claim) are known to provide information in an objective manner. And, ultimately, if I am wrong and the sources are reputable then you can provide the original, primary sources anyway as any good journalist would cite them in their article.

>The article doesn't name the UN has gaining control, but that's a dishonest omission.

So, an ad hominem argument? Why would you cite the article in the first place if it does not support your argument?

>Who are these "multiple stakeholders...including countries," then? The article doesn't say, which illustrates the publication's bias.

Then why did you cite it?

The BBC is extremely biased and not reporting honestly as a result of omitting many details. The other sources which clarify these details prove that there is more to the story. The fact that you still are unable to address any of those claims without reverting to ad hominems just tells me that they're right.

Daily reminder that you are at fault if you waste time arguing with an autistic person.

>I'm going to say this one more time clearly: accusing your opponent of being a conspiracy theorist is not an argument.

You do not have an argument besides "the UN will bypass the GAC's restrictions and dictate how ICANN works". This is the definition of a conspiracy.

>a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

But, if that still doesn't resonate with you, please go back and re-read the rest of the post instead of focusing on that line. When you understand why ICANN split from the United States, you might be able to understand the reason why I don't believe it will be subject to government corruption.

No, I'd much rather have primary sources like I require out of my students (I'm a TA at a jr college). The BBC is not a good source but it's the only one listed there that isn't completely garbage.

>And not all ad hominem arguments are fallacies. Your sources are not reputable, none of them (except the BBC link which contradicts your claim) are known to provide information in an objective manner.
See, you can't "prove yourself right" by lying. I have no idea why you seem to think that you can.

>Thanks for proving me right.

The US, being a permanent UNSC member, has veto power over all decisions. As such the other four permanent members' powers are checked.

Read the link to The Register then, whom I'm willing to consider a nonbiased source. Why should I have to counterargue against something you can't prove? You cited that article then said "it's extremely biased"? What'

...

I'm not proving anything. You haven't either. This is the disconnect here. I am asking you to prove something, by providing evidence, and thus far you have not.

All I am asking for is a primary source (also known as "evidence") that supports the claim "After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union.".

to follow-up on my sources, read point 6 and 7 from ICANN's papers on the subject. icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions

>You do not have an argument besides
Yes, I do. It was clearly articulated in the articles I sourced.

>a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
There's nothing secret. This is all out in the open. Obama even made a speech to the UN where he clearly articulated what's happening:

> But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action -- not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term -- enhances our security.
>giving up some freedom....binding ourselves to international rules
whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/20/address-president-obama-71st-session-united-nations-general-assembly

inb4 more ad hominems about the source.

you really are a dumb nigger.

I'm sorry that you didn't take the time to read and understand the rest of the post. Have a nice evening.

>I am asking you to prove something, by providing evidence, and thus far you have not.
I have. You just ad hom about "muh right wing tabloids," and refuse to be rational. This is a one-sided conversation and you are under the mistaken impression that you are qualified to participate.

>thinking that you are even capable of forming a rational argument
You're not. We all can see that you're incompetent. Just stop trying.

>I have.

No, you haven't. I specifically asked for a primary source. Let's disregard all "news" articles here as we can both agree they are all biased. Provide me with a _primary_ source.

It makes sense that you believe that, given your position. But have you ever pondered as to why your students react violently to any viewpoint that isn't their own?

It's unreasonable to demand a "primary source" for current events. What would qualify, in your eyes, as such a source for an article about, for example, a train wreck? Do you want a blog post written by one of the train wreck survivors? Or a police report written by one of the first responders to the scene? Such sources are rarely available to the general public.

This is not a "trainwreck" or "police report". This is the work of engineers and commerce officials that has been in the works for two years. ICANN has been planning to do this for years. What is a real source to you? Breitbart?

Unless you can prove any of the facts wrong in any of the sources I posted, they are all legitimate articles.

icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions
Point 6 and 7

Oh right every source that isn't yours (and hell, you've disavowed your own sources in the past 10 minutes) is biased and untruthful.

Is this what Cred Forums is reduced to lately?

How much finger power have you wasted on this guy already? He's a TA at a jr. college, he'd obviously believe anything his hook-nosed professor tells him.

because they don't provide primary sources to support their claims

>It's unreasonable to demand a "primary source" for current events.

No, it is not. All Journalism (at least good journalism) uses at least two if not three primary sources to verify claims.

Also, all public/nonprofit agencies (ICANN is one, though not under the US government's jurisdiction) explain their purpose, role, and their future plans on their websites. The basic legal texts (charters, agenda minutes, records of decision etc) that comprise things like"nonprofit corporations" are all posted online as they are public documents.

Here is an example of a primary sources using publicly available legal documents:

community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter

archive.icann.org/en/dnso/bussdraft2.htm

icann.org/groups/ssac/charter

icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions

All I am asking for is evidence of the claim "After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union".

You're going to need to prove the sources I posted "wrong" if you want to continue having a "conversation." I haven't disavowed anything.

You need a primary source to support the claim that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? It's self-evident, man.

they are not "facts" if they contain no citations. If the "facts" are true, and I'm willing to believe they are, then post the evidence indicating as such

ad hom argument

I'm done.

They're wrong because the official fall guy for the faceless corporation said so. Didn't you hear him?

I don't think all men are equal, especially ones that are black or have mental illnesses. But this isn't a philosophy argument, I am asking for a primary source to support an argument over whether or not the claim "After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union" is true or not.

>I haven't disavowed anything
>>As for "bias," every source is a little biased, even the BBC. That doesn't mean that they aren't also reporting on facts. Even the BBC article, which tries to downplay the danger of the change, admits: [...]
You say here that the BBC is not reporting on all of the facts despite sourcing them. As for which sources are wrong, all of them except the BBC link. The UN is not being handed oversight.

Didn't you say that not all ad hom arguments are fallacies?

>And not all ad hominem arguments are fallacies.
Yes you did. How's that for a primary source?

That's not what I asked.

I can't tell if the things in this thread are paid shitposting to stifle arguments or just people having a giggle. Like, all of them are just ad hom and don't even address the counterpoints

I didn't claim that it was a fallacy, just an ad hom argument. You're attacking the character and not answering the question (the question was a request for a primary source).

Are you able to provide a primary source?

And your question didn't answer my question, either. So we go back to: I am asking for is evidence of the claim "After the change, it will be under supervision of the UN's International Telecommunication's Union".

Will you answer this question?

yeah
>(I'm a TA at a jr college)

Is this all college is? No wonder they're called degree factories.

I don't care about that shit. I'm just pointing out the fact that people involved with the degree factory ecosystem has an implicit bias against anything that doesn't fit their kumbaya world view and as such you don't want to believe there's any danger in entrusting the internet to a globalist bureaucracy.

there is a lot of bullshit in this thread

ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/myths-and-facts-ntia-announcement-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-

It's not that we don't want to believe, it's that we want proof. You love fallacies so much. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your claims.

I'll take that as a "no", so arguing any further is pointless as you aren't able to support your claims with a primary source.

Here's a primary source for you.
pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/06/28/canada-lift-visa-requirements-mexico

Here's a secondary source with its own primary sources
huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

And here's photographic evidence of the last time a country was severely disadvantaged by an ultranational union
media1.britannica.com/eb-media/58/129958-004-C9B8B89D.jpg

this doesn't have to deal with ICANN or ITU though

You care about that more than I do. I have a gun.

we all have guns moron, this is america

Right, so why do you care whether ICANN admits that tomorrow they will be slaves to international bureaucracy?

Let me guess, real lobertarianism has never been tried?

Doesn't the creator usually determine the rules?

>If it hurts my feelz and I don't want it to be a possibility its a conspiracy theory
>PS: Drumpf and Wikileaks are Putin-controlled spies!

Can someone give me a basic explanation of what's actually going on?

the lady's not for turning

Obama is literally giving away control of the Internet to the UN and repressive governments and Cred Forums will die tomorrow.

Then again this is probably just Cred Forums being retarded, who knows

There's a huge difference here though, the cable companies are an oligopoly propped up by the government
Either proper regulation via trustbusting or deregulation can save us

I think what he's meaning is either source the actual material or a site that is specialized in this matter/breaks it down piece by piece. To be fair Breitbart is becoming more and more like Drudge Report at this point.