It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Meet the New Authoritarian Masters of the Internet

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, they told us all about it in the TPP.

Doncha remember? Me neither.

Congress needs to step up, it is not sell outs job to sell our stuff off.

I truly think he hates America. His actions speak louder than his manipulative speeches.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



If it isn't a big deal, and it isn't about control and a push for globalism. . . . then why not keep it how it is!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Here is another way there is a danger to censorship. If the ones in charge change the rules for registering a domain name, like "you have to prove the content you submit does not fall into a massive list an categories of banned subject matter." Then if they determine it does not fit the bill, they will not allow you to register a domain.

The rules ARE going to change. Give me one example in government, business, or human history where management changes and does not alter something, some rules or regulations or prices in some form. It always happens. They could even jack up the fees and make it unaffordable to regulars and independents outside of establishment budgets. So if you as an individual wanted to get a message out, you would have to take a mortgage, or be relegated to the already heavily censored and not anonymous (targeted killings come to mind) youtube and facebook.

It is not so simple as "oh its just a name, derp. Stop complaining!" A lot can be done to make domain name registry for content unwanted difficult with altered rules and regulations.

There are a multitude of ways a simple domain name registry can suddenly be subject to pages of regulations and fee schedules that previously were not there and inhibit freedom of expression.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

There are around 80 big companies opposed to it from what I read. That part is left out of the media. They only talk about the companies that are all for it. Coca Cola is one of them who opposes it.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

That has nothing to do with what I said to you. No wonder...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kali74



If it isn't a big deal, and it isn't about control and a push for globalism. . . . then why not keep it how it is!



You mean you want the government to control it...kind of like....SOCIALISM???



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

That's communism, not socialism



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

After reading jonjonj's post on page one I'm inclined to believe that nothing will change simply because trillions of dollars flowing around isn't something that anyone is going to tolerate being messed around with.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?


It doesn't...it's just people who don't understand technology.

In fact, the exact same company that has handled the DNS system is still handling it...there is just no more US government involvement.

ICANN does not control content on websites...only the directory that maps IP addresses to website "names".



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: kruphix

That's communism, not socialism


Nope.

You should educate yourself on the differences.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

breitbart are taking the daily mails mantle of lying to scare people.

north korea only have around 13 websites.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
People are really confused about this. Nothing changes. The US commerce department has in theory but, not in practice some sort of control over ICANN's IANA . Although nobody can say what power if any commerce really has because it has never tried to use it. The Russians and Chinese us this barely existing tie to claim the US controls the internet and uses it spy on everybody. They would like the UN or some others group of nations including themselves to have control of it.

The US response is to simply cut the US commerce tie to ICANN's IANA . It will still run itself and the danger of the UN or some other group of nations ever having power over it is gone.

Yes, Getting The US Government Out Of 'Managing' Internet Domain Governance Is A Good Thing

Now no nation has any control of any kind over it and the threat of it being placed under control of China or Russia is now gone.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

if youre serious about that i would say thats a very oversimplified and incorrect way of looking at the internet.

The internet isnt just about making money......and all kinds of controls can be implemented which dont adversely affect online commerce.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Until the COmpanies workers are replaced and or bought off by foreign interest.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?

breitbart are taking the daily mails mantle of lying to scare people.

north korea only have around 13 websites.


Right wing media in general, fear based because it's what sells to the Conservative mindset.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

The left wing does the same so tit for tat.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueAmerican


Have been avoiding this topic. Just cant be.

Anyway yes there will be zero allowance for protesting the puppet government of America.


edit on 30-9-2016 by Logarock because: n



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Can someone explain to me how domain names has anything to do with banning content?


It doesn't...it's just people who don't understand technology.

In fact, the exact same company that has handled the DNS system is still handling it...there is just no more US government involvement.

ICANN does not control content on websites...only the directory that maps IP addresses to website "names".


It all would have been fine if a Republican had done it but it's bad just cuz Obama... to be fair though then liberals would be condemning it.

Personally I don't like anything having to do with the operations of the net being private but... that doesn't mean the net as we know it will break. It's not SOPA etc...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Not really...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled - but not for much longer.

It will give up its power fully to Icann - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a non-profit organisation.

The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change.

Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1 October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice - although Icann will remain in Los Angeles.

Link


ICANN has been in charge and still will be. It means the US doesn't have final say in matters of the DNS system.

I imagine most have no clue about ICANN. People love fear though.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join