What is Digg?75 Comments
- Hickeroar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52Yeah...when will the US learn to give up technologies that they created to be controlled by foreign and untrustable nations. What happens if the UN doesn't like a certain site and decides to globally ban it? You could see censorship progress to an unprecedented level.
The US has been beyond responsible with the "control" of the Internet thus-far. The Internet is OBVIOUSLY working and hasn't stopped since it started. As long as it's working, I see no reason to change a thing. This is just a cry by power hungry politicians of other countries who feel like they need to control "one more thing." - CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34"...when will the US learn?"
What does that mean? What should we learn exactly? Please elaborate. - tperlmutter, on 10/12/2009, -10/+34If I have a choice between the US retaining control and the UN getting control I'll stick with the US any day.
- Daedalus2067, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23@JohnP
How about - by inventing it, building it, extending it, and allowing anyone, anywhere to connect to it? Isn't that enough? - navster15, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I see it more as a rise of the global economy. The US may lose its title as the lone superpower in the world, but I highly doubt any other nation will assume the title. We will see science, culture and economics advances from all corners of the globe.
- WhiskerTheMad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Okay, to all the whiners and pussies, before I read a bunch of your U.S.-bashing drivel, you need to explain two things:
1) How has the US failed in maintaining and/or administer the root servers?
2) Why can't other countries just run their own root servers if the US is so potentially "dangerous" with the internet? The U.N. could kick it's own servers on *right now* and anybody could start using them. How is the evil empire stopping them?
Fact is, this hooraw flares up once every few years, and I have yet to see anybody put forward any reasonable answer to either question. - vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13As a true American would say...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15We created it, we run it, we own it.
If you dont like it, GTFO of our tubes, bitch. - djdole, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@compu73rg33k
Don't be such an idiot.
The war in Iraq has nil to do with the control over ICANN.
It’s just merely the basis for your anti-American sentiment.
You make no valid argument for the turning over of power from ICANN to the UN.
You merely bitch and whine about how the current US political party is handling foreign affairs.
If you have a problem with how Dubya tends to be trigger-happy, then rant on all you like. I’ll join in too, because I Agree. (And so do 70%+ of Americans according to GW’s last approval rating.)
But if you’re going to comment on a totally SEPARATE ISSUE like ICANN and the UN, then leave the political agenda sentiment out of it.
And as for the ICANN issue,
Tell me of ONE site that ICANN has banned globally. JUST ONE.
Wouldn’t it be logical to allow a country that VALUES free speech to matain control, rather than turn control over to a organization of which the many (if not the majority) of it’s members commonly censor and ban much of their individual nation's media content? Personally I’d rather not even give nations like China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq (all UN members since 1945) even a LITTLE chance of deciding what content will and will not be on the internet.
I'd rather the US's ICANN control things than have to listen ad nauseum to endless (and YES they WILL be ENDLESS) UN debates between rival religious-based UN member nations over which sites can post or host what content, and which sites should be banned because someone's feew-wings *sniff* got bwuised *sniffle* when someone, somewhere posted a “blasphemous” image *gasp* of some religious dead-dude *single-tear, double lip-quiver*.
Personally, in MY opinion …I like the way things are.
The bureaucrats at ICANN already take forever and a day to approve changes and actions, but allowing the UN to reside over it would just add MANY more layers of bureaucratic BS for changes to have to wade through in order to get implemented.
Politicians are stupid enough as it is. Imagine having wait for all the UN politicians/reps to be spoon-fed how a proposed network protocol change works, before they can even start considering voting upon it.
Or even worse, have tech ignorant UN politicians/reps just voting along political lines over a tech issue, just because they don't care enough to WANT to understand what they are voting for/against.
If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.
You’re more likely to ***** it up than to help it any.
ICANN has a good track record and proven itself capable. The UN on the other hand has been proven to make its share of mistakes, often been slow and indecisive.
Besides all that, I’d rather have a NON-PROFIT organization like ICANN in control than a bunch of stupid UN bearcats each with their own political or religious agenda.
(Sorry about the length, hot-topic issue, you understand.) - SoonerPet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10that's very true, but when you have so many other pansy countries that bow down to china for economic reasons, you start having many agreeing with them and allowing their actions. You already have Russia who won't speak out against china for economic reasons, same with Iran. Then you have countries like France that will stab us in the back at any opportunity and you start to see how having the internet under the control of the UN, can let it really slip away from us, and change not for the good.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11and the us isnt attempting to control the world its just controling what it built and what other nations use obviously its doing a decent job besides a couple of argueable isues
- SoonerPet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I'd rather the US control it than any other country. If you think it's bad now, wait until the UN controls it and china has input on how the internet should be run. I hope the US never gives in. We invented the thing, the rest of the world is profiting from it, they don't need to control it.
- MooMaster716, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Daedalus2067 -
"Building it - Yes IN THE USA, not in other countries...."
So you want the USA to build your ***** infrastructure to? Then why not put up your own ***** servers to organize the ***** web? No ones stopping you right. - Railer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The US created the Internet, they've run ICANN for some 20 years now with little or no major screw ups and almost zero censorship. I'll trust the US and their record.
- vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@clickmyface... im pretty sure our economy is a little too complicated to disscuss in about 14 lines of text and an economy ticker.....
get a little more education from college professor, so he'll better disscuss how this whole thing works. Maybe he can give you a book with pictures in it to better explain the complexity of what this so called 'economy' really is. - djrbx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I agree, although i also agree that our US gov. isn't doing the best at controlling the Internet. But if you think about it, what county can actually control the use of the Internet? No country, no matter how advance, can have complete control over the internet. The World Wide Web now a days is built on free speach. And I would not like a county putting restrictions on what we can and can not see on a website. *cough*CHINA*cough*. At least the US has put a lot of money in developing the Internet to what we know today, and I can assure you that many people will argue with me on that topic, but that is a different issue. But how many other countries has put billions of dollars in advancing the Internet, besides japan in which they now have faster Internet than us here in the US. ICANN has done a good job so far, why fix something that is'nt broken in the first place.
- BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7America is a free market economy, and saying that its peaks and valleys are because of a President is almost as inaccurate as saying the President is responsible for the weather. Tax policy and economic freedom certainly have a long-term effect (as you can see in the economies of capitalist nations vs. socialist ones.) But short-term peaks and valleys (i.e., on the scale of a few years) will happen no matter what. If you look at a plot of U.S. GDP vs. time, what you see is a pattern of rises and dips, with an obvious upward trend overall. The rises and dips are a natural part of the economic cycle. I'm not saying that economic policy is unimportant; it certainly is. But it's certainly wrong to say, "there's an economic downturn this year; the current President must have caused it, because he is in control of everything."
- shanimal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ bitt3n
"Also, to make my point even more persuasive, I wish to observe that somehow this is related to Iraq."
Uhhh... "somehow" related to Iraq? That's a little vague, don't you think? If you want to point fingers, try using references next time. And using the term "somehow" ISN'T making your point any more persuasive. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5but a .xxx domain you want doesnt mean the entire world will suffer now will it
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7> but in other lanaguages these make no sense and countries want
> their own domains which make sense in their own languages.
Well, then they should have invented the Internet themselves, I guess.
I'm all for global fairness and taking non-US-centric views of things, but sometimes complaints like this just come off as bellyaching. - romulasry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Well, I for one, am glad the USA controls the Internet because we have something called the free speech.
Imagine if we had Politically Correct nitwits controlling the Internet... You wouldn't be able to offend anyone... People need to blow off steam and the Internet is (usually) the safest and best place to do so. - mentok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think this is being blown out of proportion. ICANN doesn't "control the internet" at all, all it really does is manage the assignment of domain names and IP addresses. Besides I would much rather a third party control that than have it privatized and changed in a way that would maximize profits (and likely prices) for domain names and the like.
- ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I dunno, I do not see any way to mark someone as a spammer
I am guessing that digg recognized the account as a spammer, b/c maybe the same ip was spamming multiple pages in rapid succession? Just a guess. - ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just out of curiousity, was the register the only one reporting the false story earlier? I saw theirs, but didn't see any others.
Oh and FU spammer (above) - ardellin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ah, disregard the FU statement above. There was a spammer, but the comment appears to have been removed. Nice!
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> Europe invented the WWW.
Not really. I don't want to repeat myself so scroll up if you want to read my explanation. - djrbx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, Seems like CashCrate (users Profile Name) is banned. Thank God. How do you block a user anyway just in case that happens again?
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> Inventing it - Only Part of it, and certainly not the WWW.
God, I'm so sick of hearing about how Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW. It's true, he came up with the idea, but he was relying on concepts and technology he had nothing to do with. But why believe me? Here's his own quote: "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the TCP and DNS ideas and — ta-da! — the World Wide Web." Hypertext--not invented by Berners-Lee. TCP--not. DNS--not.
Giving Berners-Lee credit for inventing the WWW is like giving Steve Jobs credit for inventing the GUI. Both took pre-existing tech and concepts and saw a brilliant new way to implement them. - willhunter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6While I am not sure I agree, I have to give this one up for sheer humor. I love those tubes!
- thisdude415, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Tim Burners Lee invented the WWW, and he now lives in the US. I'd like to point out that this is just ICANN... (yes, i know it's a big deal, but quit whining... the US paid for most of it anyway)
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8the us is doing a much better job i wouldnt trust the un becuase any country could use that to enforce policy at least with the us people in it would be ticked and bad publicity would result then the us would change whatever they did
- lkjashdflk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5i'm not sure if you guys haven't noticed, but the U.N sucks at running *****
they can't get anything done
U.N. - hey you stop stealing
iran, iraq, north korea, sudan, somalia, rwanda - no
U.N. um ok please?
iinkssr: i'll punch you
U.N. ok i'm sorry - BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think you mean derivative drivel. And if "derivative" means repeating the facts from economics books, then I suppose that's true. I wasn't saying that wars don't cost a lot; I was just saying that the idea of blaming/crediting a President for everything the economy does is simplistic and wrong.
- msipes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4HELL YEAH.
We made it....and we ain't giving it up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Exacty.
They don't like it, they can make their own ***** network. No one is stopping them.
Am I missing something here? - clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Churchill would probably like it if you explained why you don't like ICANN.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i dont want the un running it because of those member nations they will have a say and the internet will be much worse off
- djrbx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How do you block this F*n user? All he posts is F*n SPAM!!
- dodgingcars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Peridyd
That's cause the U.S. also controls DIGG! Whiney Europeans can go start their own Digg site if they don't like it. - willhunter, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12To put it simply... I believe you need to re-check your facts regarding the United States' economy. Yes, it is kicking ass and you have George Bush to thank for it. Lower taxes has stimulated the economy, leaving Americans with more of their own money to spend... therefore putting more money back into the economy and so repeats the process.
- Mechanized, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Not giving it to the UN.
End. - shanimal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 Maybe people are digging you down for that? And in that case, you're actually censoring yourself? Maybe you're not as brilliant as your credit yourself with?
- potee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How about - NO ONE controls the internet. ICANN isn't the U.S. government. They're a not-for-profit, for crying out loud. All they do is assign country codes and designate IPs. Just because they happen to sit in the U.S. does not immediately mean that the U.S. government runs the internet. Following that logic, the U.S. would run the U.N. as well, because the U.N. building is in New York.
- Warrzie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1holy smokes, im gonna be rich!
- thisdude415, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
I for one, welcome our new American overlords.
oh wait, they're already in power.
in that case, keep up the good work Pres. - tisk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Thank ***** God the US is retaining control for the foreseeable future. The last thing we want is for certain countries to gain control and begin exerting worldwide censorship over the Internet.
- RipperMortis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1psshaw...
Daily Show noobs, that NAMBLA bit was gold I tell ya!
haha - djdole, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3THANK YOU!
Hmm... UN bureaucrats in charge, or a non-profit organization.
Hmmm….That's a hard one....
Yeah…Its fine the way it is. - pokemogu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's just a matter of power games between US and other opposed countries like China who is scheming a division of TLDs.
- clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1vbsurfer, BillBob,
Very long winded amount of derivative dribble from the both of you, thanks.
Just to fill you in on a couple of things:
www.costofwar.com -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is