Internet is a public good => government claims general regulatory powers over what goes through the Internet.
No thank you.
No thank you.
If Facebook owns the internet, Facebook decides what is on the internet.
If icann owns domain registration with no regulation, icann decides who gets a domain (as well as the power to strip domains from their current owners).
And who can stop them? Some other company offering competing root DNS servers? I don't see how that could ever work. For better or worse, the internet operates strongly on the concept of a central root authority. Root DNS servers. Root Certificates. Centralized distribution of IPs.
If those central authorities have no regulation or oversight, they can and will shape the internet to their whims.
The issue is that the government, given sufficient regulatory power, will start doing things like banning porn or "extreme" political views. This is not hypothetical; it has already happened in the UK.
The issue is that the corporations, given no regulation, will start doing things like banning porn or "extreme" political views. This is not hypothetical; it has already happened on Facebook.
Censorship is not purely the domain of the government. At least there are checks and balances on a government's power (as ineffectual and slow as they may be); save for the morals of a company's leadership team, there are no checks or balances on a corporations actions without regulation.
> look at Namecoin. This is a solved problem.
Most excellent. How do I give my mother a namecoin domain and have her visit their webpages? If it involves "download X from namecoin.org", you're already in trouble, since that's already relying on DNS. If we get past that, and the namecoin wallet needs to bootstrap itself - does it also use DNS? If it involves changing system configurations, period, it also won't work, since I've taught my mother to never to do that (she lacks the technical knowledge to add nuance to the restriction).
Facebook isn't an ISP. Just because a single company has content restrictions doesn't mean every company in the world will do the same.
Namecoin doesn't need DNS to bootstrap. Why would you need to download something? Do you need to download a DNS client for your grandmother? If such a system becomes adopted, OSs include it in the background, like DNS. If you can't be bothered to read the namecoin paper, look at the great success of products like Google DNS. Nothing fancy, but an excellent privately run DNS.
Yes, they have. For one example when AOL was both an ISP and service provider, you bet your butt they blocked porn and objectionable speech.
> Facebook isn't an ISP.
I'm not sure I agree with this - the Free Basics program sure quacks like an ISP duck.
> Just because a single company has content restrictions doesn't mean every company in the world will do the same.
With no legal restrictions, what stops them?
> OSs include it in the background, like DNS.
I'm of the opinion that this describes a future that will never exist. Microsoft, Apple, and Linux distros have no compelling reason to include namecoin support by default, and likely never will. Especially since there is limited to no support for failover or localization of name->IP lookups. Even the lack of support for legal disputes over trademarked domains (for example, does amazon.bit actually go to the same location as Amazon.com) would scare off any for-profit company.
> Namecoin doesn't need DNS to bootstrap.
I missed that namecoin uses a number of fixed IPs as seeds for bootstrapping into the blockchain, so DNS control matters less there (well, once you have the software, that is). Of course, IPs are also distributed by a centralized authority, and routing information for IPs can be ignored by ISPs, so it's a mistake to assume the IPs will never change.
You tell me. Most ISPs never had content restrictions, even though they could have.
>and likely never will.
You're probably right, but the point is they could if the need was there.
Internet is a private good -> a tiny group of unelectable, unaccountable corporate leaders decide in secret everything about how it works, and are ethically required to make decisions which are bad for you and me but good for their profits.
It's also good for profits to be less proscriptive than one's competitors. There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.
> You are also objectively wrong; the FCC, the primary Internet regulator, is not voted in and is in no way transparent.
The FCC has only the regulatory powers it is granted by statute, hence, "regulatory powers are voted on" is correct.
Those powers are enacted by Congress, which is an elected body which can be voted out.
The FCC is, in fact, governed by a number of transparency laws in the execution of its regulatory powers (and Congress has some degree of transparency, as well.)
So, I would say that your attempted rebuttal is more wrong than the post you are claiming is "objectively wrong".
You mean the congress with an 11% approval rating? Yeah, that's going great.
Exactly. But congress as a whole would regulate the Internet.
They are pretty fucking transparent. And they are still a public regulatory body, appointed by people appointed by the public.
> There is no discernible reason that competing ISPs would choose to limit free speech of their own accord.
Unless that ISP wants to create a streaming video service. So they block access to Netflix so you can "enjoy" their video service as well. If you want the internet to be run the way cable service is, then great, good for you. But the rest of us enjoy the freedom of being able to access any resource connected to the network for one price.
> So switch ISPs
(You'd inevitably bring it up)...most ISPs are a monopoly so there goes that idea.
So they're not elected; they're hired by the someone who is hired by the people in congress with an 11% approval rating. Great.
>most ISPs are a monopoly
When this occurs, it is a result of shitty municipal government line leasing policies.
Thank you?