"An internet kill switch is a measure that our global leaders should possess."
Let me first apologize for my absence and heartedly thank my very esteemed opponent for his patience with me and my real life issues...
Semper Post #1.
Let us start with a rebuttal, shall we?
This has already happened, perhaps not from a dictator but from a British billionaire, which not only highlights the significance of corporate
use of legal means to have unfavorable content removed but underscores the motivation for an internet off button...
Your post above is, in and of itself, contradictory. How can you say that any one individual having the power to limit “our” information
underscores the motivation for an Internet Kill Switch?
While this is certainly not a Socratic question, could you take a moment and answer it please? I am sure the readers would be fascinated as would
As presented, there is precedence all ready for the removal of unflattering content from the web
Sorry, but I really have to do this.
Socratic Question #1
“Who gets to decide what is suitable for us to read and what is not?”
The media is already influenced by corporate interest and is still being manipulated to the extent where it is a possibility that world events
and the media's reporting upon them are not only orchestrated but perpetuated in order to control the perception of people
Manipulation and control are two very separate quantities my friend; a fact I am sure you are aware of. People can and actually do every single day,
work around the Main Stream Media manipulation of information. In point of fact, some of us have gotten quite adept at recognizing the truth hidden
within an agenda.
We would no longer have that luxury should a kill switch ever be implemented.
Indeed, a lack of communication globally would be preferable to the often confused communications resulting from the propagation of basic
ideology and misdirection that results in a misinformed and reactive population.
You can NOT be serious!!!!
First and foremost what comes to mind, is you are assuming that in the event an Internet Kill Switch was instituted, we would then, in some magical
way, be afforded the truth without the propaganda.
Tell me you understand that this would only put the power of the propaganda in a single person, or group’s hands… As things stand, everyone is
afforded the ability to present their own propaganda and therefore balancing out the equation.
Prior to getting caught up in political labels, I would ask the readers to look at the situation instead of being directed by such connotation
that is implied by the use of "Communist". The term as it was propagated prior and during The Cold War is a great example of manipulated information
Yes or no please…
Socratic Question #2
“Do you believe the Communist Manifesto to be one of the great literary works of our time?”
(Not off topic by the way, I will make the point in my next posting)
And this is true. How can one predict that an individual will not get carried away when encountering false information that is believed to be
Please define “Carried Away” in the context of your verbiage please? As it stands with your comment, it would appear you are advocating the
control of people in general, on a vast scale.
What this amounts to is nothing more than a rationing of our attention and resources in times that call for it. Does no one remember how we
required the rationing of resources during the second world war?
Socratic Question #3
“Do you consider the rationing of tires during WWII, to be similar is scope to the control of information by or for any one group?”
Nowhere in the proposed bill is there any stipulation that an "internet kill switch" is permanent. It is for the possibility of a cyber
To quote my many English friends… That is BOLLOCKS…
First, no government has ever gotten control of anything and then freely given that control back..
Being a Computer Forensics Specialist, I can assure you that in the event of a well coordinated Cyber Attack on any one of our Critical
Infrastructures, a Kill Switch will be completely and utterly useless. By the time it is recognized for what it is, a well formulated and structured
Cyber Attack has done the majority of damage it was intended for. Cyber Attacks are set up before hand and occur in PC Time; Milliseconds and
Socratic Question #1 - Are there not protocols in place already to provide information to the populace on a "need to know basis"?
To the best of my knowledge, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is still going strong and the media is still free….So the answer is no.
Socratic Question #2 - What possible safeguards can be implemented to prevent any one person from having the power to "shut us
They are already in place my friend. The Internet is multi-layered and both vertically and horizontally structured. While an attack on Wall Street may
succeed to some extent, the same attack will have no effect on the Japanese Exchange. Due mainly to the very stratified nature of the Internet as it
I also hold that the capacity for people to objectively look at a topic/issue to be sorely lacking. There is much personal bias inflecting
opinion on any given topic, from religious and moral upbringing to economic concerns.
But you are one man, and one opinion. I may not hold to your opinion and that certainly does not mean my opinion is less valid. The problem is
whomever is given the ultimate control of the Internet, will hold sway over us all with his opinion being realistically the only one that matters.
A duly appointed oversight committee that was forcibly immune to corporate and government influence.
That was tried before.. It was called the “Ministry of Propaganda” in Nazi Germany. How did that work out for them?
But as I stated earlier, information censorship has already taken place and without this "internet kill switch".
Of course it has, but not over the entire Internet. To coin a TV show quote, The Truth is “still” [sic] Out There. All one needs to do is have the
fortitude to seek it out.
Socratic Question #3 - What is preventing anyone now to censor information on the internet?
Simple. Size.. (Apparently size does matter) While some information is undoubtedly being censored, the sheer size of the monster that is our Internet,
means that for every comment that is censored, a dozen more will present themselves to the people; the very ones that need that information.
Socratic Question #4 - Is it easier to hide relevant information by omitting it all together from the internet or to mix it in with irrelevant
Simple answer is omitting it. If it is never known, it simply can’t be known. Quantum Analysis aside. Mixing it in any issues, even irrelevant
social ones, still leaves the very real possibility of discovery by some astute person.
Socratic Question #5 - Has the internet proved anything more than a means for people to speculate, with bias and lack of information more than
it has proven to be a vehicle for populace oversight on corporate/government implementations?
The Internet has become many things, not the least of which is "THE" social phenomenon of our time. It is becoming the preferred method for
receiving the news, a social home away from home, the main communication vehicle and more.
But allotting them an opportunity to remove internet communications does not give them the ability to impinge on our freedom of speech nor
does it allot them the ability to keep their skeletons hidden.
By its very definition, removing communication is an impingement on the freedom of speech.
While my opponent has chosen a many faceted attack to address this issue, it is clear he is losing ground even with his own personal writing style. I
cannot ever remember MemoryShock having contradicted himself at anytime in the past and yet, here he has done so at least twice.
Internet Kill Switch? BAH… Nothing more than a way to control an otherwise free society.
I believe my rebuttal and subsequent Socratic Questions will suffice for this post.
Stay tuned for more.
Until then, there can be no doubt that:
"An internet kill switch is a measure that our global leaders should NEVER