hey guys

I heard Obama gave the rights to the Internet to the UN or something. That true? What y'all think?

The US certainly isn't an Angel but letting the UN, an entity that regularly invites dictators from oppressive regimes to sit in committee tables regarding human rights, is disappointing to say the least.

It doesn't surprise me tbh, they did make a feminist council with anita as a spokeman or something, and talks about how saying somebody is dumb is oppression and hate speech

I don't even understand what that means...

Never heard of if, but it would certainly be great news if this were true. One country should not have control over such an important part of the modern world.

I understand where you're coming from, but many countries aren't as gung-ho over Freedom of Speech. I don't trust China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, most of Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. etc. to give a fuck about free speech. Especially not Western Europe, who's more than happy to jail someone for absolutely nothing.

The round down on the this situation.

Four state attorney generals were suing to stop the Obama administration from transferring oversight of the internet to an international body, arguing the transition would violate the U.S. Constitution. In their lawsuit, the attorney generals for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new combine of the system, ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.” The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur. Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas AG Ken Paxton in a statement. “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

That is an interesting way of arguing for freedom of the internet while at the same time complaining about not being able to go after pirates as easily anymore. They also seem to be sure that authoritarian regimes have such a strong control of the UN that they can freely control the internet now. No to mention that the US has lately been the biggest threat to the freedom of internet. Essentially, what they're really complaining about is not possibly losing freedom, but losing USA's total control over the internet.

I don't know how domain extension control will violate free speech on the interwebs since all of those countries control the flow of information already? The great firewall existed for awhile in china and russia.

People don't have the right to protect their intellectual property?

The UN has Saudi Arabia in it's human rights council. Think about that for more than a second and you'll understand why the UN is not an impartial entity. It's like the EU but stupider. They already bend over backwards over the mishaps and abuse in many African and Middle Eastern countries. But because it doesn't personally affect you, nor do you see it up close in personal, it doesn't matter, right?

>US has been the biggest threat to freedom
So we should crank up the special interest, regulatory measures and govt. oversight?
ICANN is simply just not trustworthy. Mismanagement, lack of oversight and refusal for accountibility and limits on their powers isn't anything new.

Unless they would for some reason have the ability to veto any decisions, I don't really see a problem with any country being represented there. As problematic as their own situation may be, their voice is as valuable as any others, even if not always the one one should listen to.



By how much? Since the EU is one of smartest institutions at the moment, if a bit prone to overregulation, saying something is stupider than that isn't saying much.


As for the UN and the internet - even if it initially started there, the internet has not been an US-only network for decades and it only makes sense to give the control over a worldwide resource to a worldwide institution.

Nice how you ignored the actual issue of ICANN.

1. Moral relativism is crap, not every perspective is insightful, especially if there's a known track record for being awful in general. It also shows that UN doesn't make everyone within the UN live up to their standards.
2. Both the EU and UN are stupidly ambitious, lack of oversight and try to extend their powers over sovereign nations when it's clearly not needed or called for while actually ignoring infractions that occur within their organizations. Often times they being the cause of said mishaps.

At the very least, EU doesn't have an official military (yet) that has gone to Africa and committed atrocities. So at least they have that going for them.

Still better than Best Korea's internet.

If true it's a tad concerning considering there are countries who don't give a flying fuck about net neutrality and control the content their citizens can access.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

All this means for me is that I pretty much have no say in this matter either way.

Even if it changes over, I realistically can't do anything about such a problem on my own.

Nor can any of you.

At this point, it's come down to the elites making the decisions, or the "popular choice being the right one", even if it's completely fucking stupid.

You better hope for one of 2 things:

A - The ignorant at large masses dislike the idea of the decision that you don't want to be made.
B - The elites of society who have the actual authority to make decisions somehow make the choice that benefits you.

In either case, your tiny voices, as well as my own, have literally no meaning.

So basically, what you're saying is: "Shut up peasant, do as your masters say!"

I honestly hope you're not American, because if you are, that's the most hypocritical thing I've read on the internet in recent times. And yes, I'm an EU citizen and am also aware this entitiy is messy and full of contradictions and problems.

That said, if what OP said is true I respect America's decision to hand over the internet to a supranational entity such as the United Nations. That a single nation owns something as vast and world-changing as the world wide web is a poor joke.

>it's hypocrisy to realize that the government you live under and actively despise is often terrible while also being able to point at other large entities that are also terrible

How about no. Do you know what that word even means?

There's nothing wrong with a country owning something they created, built the foundation for, and invested a lot. I've already mentioned this, but the UN isn't a trustworthy organization. Giving it to a completely influence free 3rd party isn't a bad idea, but handing the reigns over to the UN isn't that.

I've already linked a couple sites reporting on this organization and their lack of compliance, but that doesn't matter to you. So applaud all you want, dimwit.

No, what I'm saying is that our opinions or voices really don't matter.

That and my opinions tend to be unpopular anyway.

But feel free to interpret that however you like.

you realize that goes against the very notion of individual rights. Sad thing though, is that most people have that mindset. Which is why nothing ever changes.

If most people have this mindset, what makes you think me being different would make any difference?

Not to mention, most people, myself included, don't want to endanger our jobs and having a roof over our heads to engage in activism anyway.

We're just average, poor, working class folk who want to not be homeless and not have too much drama in our lives.

You think you can change the government with activism?

Then, be my guest and try, but I'm not going to put myself or my family at risk by doing so.