What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
117 Comments
- AntoniusMaximus, on 05/05/2009, -5/+37*****, man, and I though I would see some supporting comments regarding the independence of internet services and how it is good for everyone. Instead I am treated to EU bashing.
Makes me feel cynical. If .com and .net were managed by Austria, the US would be all over it. Independence of the Internet, yes, as long as we own it, right? - massrox, on 05/05/2009, -4/+34The EU isn't saying that it wants to control the Internet on it's own, they want to set up a council made up of representatives from different parts of the world to do that. I think it's only fair considering that the Internet is a global resource.
- toxicpiano, on 05/05/2009, -6/+30You didn't invent the world wide web though...
- ohreilly, on 05/05/2009, -4/+24"made fully independent"
Where does that imply that the EU wants to run it? - digghasnoethics, on 05/05/2009, -0/+16Looks like a fairly typical rejection of reality by the US contingent again - a fault of digg.
Is it so hard to recognise that your point of view on the world is not shared or accepted by the majority of the world's population? The inevitable collapse of the US hegemony and breaking of your falsely held beliefs of superiority are really going to hurt you if you don't get some perspective soon. Here's hoping Obama isn't as disconnected as those here and can prepare you for the coming change. - ukblacknight, on 05/05/2009, -3/+19What you've done here is make yourself look stupid on 2 accounts:
1) The body in charge doesn't "police" the internet, it assigns addresses and so on. Free speech has nothing to do with this.
2) You have a complete lack of understanding of any country other than your own.
Because your country invented the infrastructure, doesn't mean you have exclusive rights over it. It was only until the WWW was invented, (in Europe no less) that it actually became usable for every-day people and to how it came about today. - shedtroll, on 05/05/2009, -0/+15The person who invented HTTP was british...
- ohreilly, on 05/05/2009, -7/+22If you want to get all "we invented it", please note that a Briton laid the groundwork for the WWW, and it was your choice to use it.
- aticodejon, on 05/05/2009, -0/+14Amen to that.
- AntoniusMaximus, on 05/05/2009, -0/+13The Internet as we know it is a result of international collaboration. Ideas popped here and there, and were merged in US territory, falling under US policies. Refer, for example, to the part of the article that mentions political pressure on ICANN in order to prevent the creation of top-level .xxx domains for porn.
If the Internet needs it, no state politics should be allowed to block it. Hence, independence is better. It's not a question of ownership. See below for my favourite utopia. ;-) - yuanzhoulu, on 05/05/2009, -1/+12speak for yourself. as if the US hasn't said enough of its own wanting to censor the internet *****
*cough* RIAA's proposals for legislation
*cough* patriot act
....
also, might i point out that despite that the US might have low government-level censoring, it is one of the HIGHEST in censoring from corporations and schools, so people who need money (i.e. mostly everyone) inevitably get subject to censoring. in many other countries, even those with uncensored internet access, the corporations and schools leave the internet uncensored, teach responsibility and judge based on work output rather than monitoring email transmissions and whatnot.
when i worked in germany they had no issues with me setting up SSH tunnels and doing everything encrypted if i felt like. my singapore corporation let me set up my own linux laptop too and do whatever the hell i wanted. whatever i wanted to do, as long as i got my job description done happily. - yuanzhoulu, on 05/05/2009, -1/+11if you think the US is the freest country out there, you
1. don't know the world beyond your borders
2. don't know what freedom is
3. don't know that freedom means different things to different people
the US is one of the most brainwashed countries out there. it is the opposite of a country that went through a communist regime that got brainwashed into thinking communism is the solution to everything. the US got brainwashed into thinking its own concept of freedom is the solution to everything.
maybe for you, freedom means to be able to say and wear whatever the heck you want on the street, to bear arms, and to your "right" to privacy.
for me, though, freedom means:
- peace of mind. me (a small, weak person) being able to wander downtown after midnight without fear of being robbed. i don't feel free to walk downtown at night alone in the USA.
- freedom to start a company without stupid lawsuits from other companies over patents and intellectual property they proposed and *didn't act upon.* cough ... dumb waste-of-time lawsuits over JPEG, iPhone, .. what else. i don't feel free to start a company in the USA.
- freedom to honestly help others without fear of liability. i don't feel free to help someone dying on the street in the USA.
- freedom as an average middle-class person to vacation and rest time. i don't have this in the USA (i'll laugh at you if you tell me you get 2 weeks of vacation a year and think that's "enough").
- freedom to get around without having to buy my own car, drive and pollute the environment. the infrastructure is not there for me to feel free to move without it. i feel STUCK in the USA.
- freedom without stupid city codes. do you know that my dormitory's bicycle storage room could not have more than 14 bike lock posts, even though it can fit comfortably about 30-40, because the city has an idiotic HANDICAPPED accessibility code that applies to the room even though handicapped people would never even use the room? do you know that city building inspectors required my building had to have a stairwell LOCKED SHUT because there was no elevator next to it, therefore it was deemed unfair to handicapped people, and that anyone who wants to use stairs has to go to the other side of the building where there is an elevator next to them?
well, these are just some examples of what freedom means to me.
oh, by the way, i am also a US citizen. and no, i can't say i feel "free" here. - localzuk, on 05/05/2009, -0/+10I don't get some of the pointless comments being made about 'set up your own root dns servers', 'the US govt invented it!' etc....
The internet is made up of a bunch of networks, all connected together, so someone typing in google.com here will get the same as someone typing google.com in japan, afganistan, australia etc... (Ok, that isn't the real technical description, but it is a description most commonly used in the media).
Setting up seperate root DNS servers would destroy 'the internet' and it would make it less valuable for the USA as well as the rest of the world. - CressCrowbits, on 05/05/2009, -0/+9I don't think that the UN having members that are allowed to suggest any ideas they wish makes it 'corrupt'.
- AntoniusMaximus, on 05/05/2009, -0/+9Wow. Man. You just blew up my bigotmeter.
- AntoniusMaximus, on 05/05/2009, -3/+12I'm all for independence. How about this utopia:
The whole of the Internet should be managed and controlled by a revamped International Space Station armed to the teeth and full of multicultural atheist geeks not bound to any country, hell-bent on looking as cool as possible by delivering quality Internet services and keeping us all in awe at their splendor.
To please Digg a bit more, Google and Firefox representatives should have a permanent base there as well. Linus Torvals should be a guest of honour at all times. Steve Jobs can come too, just tweet and we'll pick him up.
Am I forgetting anything? - pleaseremove, on 05/05/2009, -1/+9Let us get this straight... where does it say Europe want it? There is a call for an international body with better representation of the world. This has nothing to do with free speech, free speech is all about which country you are hosting from and that countries laws. Anyway, there are documented examples of the US government closing sites down... call that free speech?
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+8So basically you want the entire internet to be run by douchebag wikipedia admins?
- CressCrowbits, on 05/05/2009, -0/+8RTFA. Hell, just RTF Title.
- duncan202, on 05/05/2009, -7/+15I'd prefer ICANN be overseen by no governing body. If that's not gonna happen, next best is to leave it with the US as far as I'm concerned. Every added political body throwing its hat into the mix is just going to make it worse, and so far I think most have to admit it's been getting along just fine for the most part. If it's not really broken why fix it. I understand that it seems wrong that the US should have more say in it. But I seriously think it's preferable to having a International Comittee -- the bearuacracy will just kill it. Some might argue the US isn't the best overseer for it, but it certainly hasn't been the worst.
- RogerStrong, on 05/05/2009, -1/+9The US had Arpanet. Canada had Datapac. Other countries had their own data networks. The internet was created out of all of them.
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+7There is.
- DrRossi, on 05/05/2009, -0/+7You will have to give nothing up.
Europe is about to build its own set of root-nameservers. Which will, as far as the imagination stretches, allways be in sync with the American ones.
It is only when the unimaginable happnes, that Europe has the *possibility* to use its own nameservers.
The internet has become to important to let it be controlled by any foreign country (however friendly the relations with such a country are - and yes, the relations between the US and Europe are extremely friendly, regardless of occasional differences of viewpoint).
The US would do no different were the situation reversed.
You can think of it a sort of like the strategic oil reserves. There are no real intentions to use it, but you want to have it nonetheless, should some sort of unforseen emergency strike. - kylere, on 05/05/2009, -4/+11I would rather the US maintain control than to give China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia etc say in net controls. The US does some seriously stupid things but at least they PRETEND to honor free speech.
- pleaseremove, on 05/05/2009, -4/+10The internet *is* a global resource. You can argue about who came up with it all day if you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
This is something we need to regulate on an international level, a spur of the UN strikes me as a good idea. I know it will be a little slower, but deal with the problem now.
To anyone who has suggested the EU should build it's own top level domain system, this is a stupid idea. Seperating the internet will do the US so much more harm than good. - dotzolder, on 05/05/2009, -6/+12.. And here i am thinking the US is the oppressive factor
- ohreilly, on 05/05/2009, -1/+7"Your country builds something and another says "your country should give it up. Let us have it.""
it's a bit more like "you laid the groundwork for the network that we call the Internet, now it's a global thing, perhaps the ownership of the root servers should pass to a global body with no ties to any one country. - localzuk, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5Except for HTTP being a EU invention. And the fact that the Internet is actually a worldwide network of networks... Not at all 100% American made...
- brandnewx, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6lol are you being sarcastic?
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6Dude, there's no shame in therapy.
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6What does TLD administration have to do with free speech or who invented the internet? ICANN does not control content or access, they just decide whether there should be a .biz domain or not. If you don't see a problem with its US bias then try to register a .gov or .mil website anywhere else in the world for example.
- localzuk, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6Ever heard of 'redundant systems'. Or how about 'putting all your eggs in one basket'?
- yuanzhoulu, on 05/05/2009, -2/+6who said the EU wants to curtail free speech?
the EU is a very free-speech place. - MrViklund, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4Agreed.
- boundless316, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4I don't think any government body should have any control over any part of the internet. I don't think there should be any control at all. The thing that's made the internet great is the inherit lack of control built into the system and the random innovation that allows. I'm not even sure that ICANN is necessary anymore, it seems a bit pointless to attempt to control TDL's available when anyone can create their own with a bit of work.
- Wholekernalcorn, on 05/05/2009, -4/+7 I don't want the UN or any other "Governing Body" voting on and deciding what can or can not be viewed on the Internet.
How quickly do we forget the UN resolution to ban criticism of religion. Leave it alone. Let it grow without politicians interfering with censorship and even more restrictions and taxes.
"In 2005, a U.N. body tried to persuade the U.S. to hand over control, arguing that no one nation should run such a vital means of communication.
The U.S. successfully quashed that attempt, partly by pointing out that it's been a very hands-off landlord and mostly lets ICANN do whatever it wants.
One exception to that trend involved ICANN's proposed ".xxx" domain for pornographic Web sites, which would have kept online porn in its own sector.
Pressure from American politicians killed the idea two years ago, causing consternation among their less prudish European counterparts.
Yet Reding may have undermined her own free-market argument by simultaneously proposing a new international body, a "G12 for Internet Governance" that would oversee ICANN and be made up of voting representatives from around the world.
Like the 2005 plan, that would essentially be handing over Internet control not to the free market, but to the same creaky collection of international bureaucrats who control the EU and the U.N. — which might mean a lot more government involvement in day-to-day Internet operations." - Elranzer, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3There's even sub-domains for each of the states as well...
ny.us
tx.us
fl.us
ca.us
...and so on. - RogerStrong, on 05/05/2009, -3/+6ARPANET != The Internet
ARPANET = US part of the Internet
Canada had Datapac.
Other countries had their own digital networks.
The internet was born out of all of them connected. - JackDaniels88, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4Neither of them spoke English
- stix213, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3LOL sorry but someone will always be in control. It just depends on who
- Elranzer, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Lose the Tweet, and I'll consider supporting it.
- yuanzhoulu, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3yeah. the US view isn't always the "best" view for the advancement of humanity and the world.
having one internet that everyone can cooperate on, even if not the way the US originally intended, despite that the US may or may not have "invented" it, is a good thing.
on another note, cooperation, world peace and environmental friendliness are FAR more important to me than free speech. free speech would be nice to have, and i'm glad i have it, but it isn't more important to me than the things above.
- a proud US citizen - JackDaniels88, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4The internet as we know and use it today is of british invention. If it wasnt for Sir Tim Berners-Lee inventing the WWW nobody would know or care what ARPANET was.
- christoast, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3So much retard, indeed. Overwhelming retard.
Comparison fail: They'd be asking for the rights to the disk. - christoast, on 05/05/2009, -1/+3I don't get my people are burring Kaiosama and not pleaseremove.
- Elranzer, on 05/05/2009, -1/+3Bu..but... Al Gore invented it.
- stix213, on 05/05/2009, -2/+4Most countries of the world are dictatorships that curtail free speech. The US has done a wonderful job so far, mostly staying out of the Internet's way. Putting an international body in charge of the Internet will only result in people losing freedom.
And secondly, if you other countries want to control the Internet, go create your own instead of connecting to the US built network and then complaining about it. - Kaiosama, on 05/05/2009, -0/+2Maybe he should've invented a secondary internet as well while he was at it :-)
- wolfing, on 05/05/2009, -0/+2Although in principle I agree, I don't really see a point. It's not like ICANN can control anything except stuff like domain extensions. In a world where almost everything is found through search engines, does it really matter?
- funklor, on 05/05/2009, -4/+6Seeing as how yankee imperialists claim exclusive domain because "we gone done it first!", care to stop murdering our language? We gone done and spoke it first, that means it's our exclusive property at least according to the logic being displayed here. How about the 13 colonies?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is