PDA

View Full Version : An Internet Giveaway to the U.N.




CaseyJones
08-29-2016, 06:31 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165


When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, called it “simply stunning” that the “politically blinded Obama administration missed the obvious point that Icann loses its antitrust shield should the government relinquish control.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

Delaware’s secretary of state objected: “Legitimate policy concerns have been systematically brushed to the curb by Icann staffers well-skilled at manufacturing bureaucratic processes to disguise pre-determined decisions.” Dot Registry’s lawyer, Arif Ali of the Dechert firm, told me last week his experience made clear “Icann is not ready to govern itself.”

Icann also refuses to award the .gay domain to community groups representing gay people around the world. Icann’s ombudsman recently urged his group to “put an end to this long and difficult issue” by granting the domain. Icann prefers to earn larger fees by putting the .gay domain up for auction among for-profit domain companies.

And Icann rejects the community application for the .cpa domain made by the American Institute of CPAs, which along with other accounting groups argues consumers should expect the .cpa address only to be used by legitimate accountants, not by the highest bidder. An AICPA spokesman told me he has a pile of paperwork three feet high on the five-year quest for the .cpa domain. The professional group objected in a recent appeal: “The process seems skewed toward a financial outcome that benefits Icann itself.”

The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one—or by a Web-censoring U.N. Congress still has time to extend its ban on the Obama administration giving up protection of the internet. Icann has given it every reason to do so.

CaseyJones
08-29-2016, 08:38 AM
anyone going dark when this happens?

CaseyJones
08-29-2016, 08:48 AM
Leaked Soros Document Calls For Regulating Internet To Favor ‘Open Society’ Supporters

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/leaked-soros-document-calls-for-regulating-internet-to-favor-open-society-supporters/


An internal proposed strategy from George Soros’s Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of private actors’ decisions on “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.” Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society.”

The Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) is part of the Open Society Foundations, Soros’s secretive network of political organizations. According to the organization’s website, “The Open Society Justice Initiative uses law to protect and empower people around the world, supporting the values and work of the Open Society Foundations.”

The call for international control of the internet is part of a 34-page document titled “2014 Proposed strategy” that lays out OSJI’s goals for between 2014 and 2017.

The leaked document was one of 2,500 documents released by “hacktivist” group DCLeaks. As reported by The Daily Caller, the section of DCLeaks’ website dealing with Soros has since gone offline for unknown reasons. TheDC saved a version of the 2014 strategy before the site went offline.

Origanalist
08-29-2016, 08:59 AM
It was fun while it lasted....

muh_roads
08-29-2016, 09:03 AM
Things like Tor can route around ICANN BS. Better & new decentralized internet solutions are constantly being worked on.

Creative, private human beings have the remarkable ability to route around bullshit. TPTB will not win. Meanwhile we just have to keep hammering on them and exposing their garbage.

Valli6
08-29-2016, 09:06 AM
Is there no member of congess with a monkey wrench to throw into the works of this dangerous scheme?
Can't a judge issue some kind of "stay"? What would it require?

Danke
08-29-2016, 09:21 AM
As long as they shut down People of Walmart, I cool with it.

AuH20
08-29-2016, 09:44 AM
770268710904881152

CaseyJones
08-29-2016, 01:58 PM
It was fun while it lasted....

hasn't been fun for at least 10 years
I remember the early years
when the net was full of creativity, hilarity and credible sources of information
now its just propaganda and lame memes

DamianTV
08-29-2016, 04:30 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165 (Paywalled, see 2nd Link)
http://www.infowars.com/un-to-take-control-of-internet-october-1st/


When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control.

But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

On Friday Americans for Limited Government received a response to its Freedom of Information Act request for “all records relating to legal and policy analysis . . . concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” if the U.S. gives up oversight. The administration replied it had “conducted a thorough search for responsive records within its possession and control and found no records responsive to your request.”

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

WSJ Link is paywalled.

---

If you think the US turned the internet into corporatized garbage, just wait until the UN gets its hands on it.

Zippyjuan
08-29-2016, 04:37 PM
What is being "given up" is who keeps the master list of domain names- the .com, .edu, .gov listings.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/08/18/us-government-cedes-control-of-the-internet-in-october/


On October 1st, the US Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration will hand over control of the internet's domain name system to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a "multi-stakeholder" nonprofit organization. While the change will be invisible to the billions of internet users out there, starting in October, the US government will no longer control what some call the internet's "phone book."

The domain name system works by associating a web address or URL with a site's IP address, and it is crucial to the way the modern web works. Since 1998, the NTIA and ICANN have had a zero-cost contract in place that gives the US government the authority over the system, although the government's role was largely symbolic. Technically, the Obama administration has agreed not to renew the contract, which expires on September 30th. ICANN, a California-based group made up of representatives from tech giants, foreign governments and other "interested parties," actually began the process of finally taking over the reins when it detailed its transition plan last year.

Again, regular users won't notice a difference in their internet come October, but the switch isn't without controversy. In the past, some have argued the US should maintain control in order to prevent foreign governments from censoring their citizens. More recently, however, the Obama administration and the tech community believe it is a necessary move to maintain international support for the internet and a decentralized governing body.

I suppose that if the move was the opposite way, some would be crying about the US trying to take over the internet. ICANN is in California.

DamianTV
08-29-2016, 04:56 PM
If the UN establishes the level of control it probably wants over the internet, you'll most likely see sites like this one being made illegal soon, and thus, disappear entirely.

Zippyjuan
08-29-2016, 05:08 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/14/icann-internet-control-domain-names-iana


When Icann was founded in 1998, the plan was to keep its anchoring contract with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for a year or two, and for Icann to become independent in 2000. But in the meantime, the internet became just too important for the US to let go of the reins.

Shielded by the US, Icann resisted attempts by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union to take over its job. Iana (the Internet Assigned Names Authority, the part of Icann that deals with country codes, internet numbers and protocols) went on being part of Icann, even as other countries felt sure the US must be abusing its power behind the scenes. And Icann’s “multi-stakeholder model” evolved; a hodge-podge of different interests, meeting by conference call, email list and in different cities around the world to manage the domain name system.

But as the millions of dollars of business transacted over the internet became trillions, and the first, second and then third billion people came online, it started to look a bit odd that one government had de jure control of a chunk of the internet. And that this oversight was done via a procurement contract.

Even as Icann staff travelled the world saying “we’re just a technical coordination organisation”, having a California not-for-profit organisation run part of the global infrastructure no longer passed the sniff test.

Under pressure from the EU and others, Icann and the US government took small steps, spelling out their relationship in a deceptively simple document, the Affirmation of Commitments, in 2009. Icann and the US would probably have muddled along together for another decade, with the occasional hand-wave towards global accountability.


The new oversight model had to be multi-stakeholder. It had to be developed by the world’s internet community, whoever that is. It could not be run by governments. And only the US government could decide if the new model passed the test.

It has taken almost two years, one contract extension, 32,000 emails and 600 meetings to put the plan for the future of the internet together. It comes in two parts; one to transition Iana out of US control (Iana transition proposal) but keep it part of Icann, and the other for a much-needed beefing up of Icann’s anaemic accountability mechanisms.

Last week’s nail-biting days in windowless rooms were dominated by how to keep Icann honest when that’s no longer the NTIA’s job, and how to give governments a role but not a veto overall. The plan has plenty of ugly compromises and, yes, everyone is about equally unhappy with it.

What happens next? After some more intensive lawyering, the plan goes to the US NTIA in April. The NTIA must get it approved before Icann’s contract expires in September, and well before the Obama administration finishes. So far, the signals are good. But in a presidential election year, anything could happen.

Will the internet work any differently? All being well: no. Domain names will go on resolving. Internet protocol numbers will be distributed (IPv6 ones, anyway) And internet protocol parameters will … do whatever it is they do.

And again- it is just the control of the "phone book" for the internet- the list of IP addresses and domain names. Non of the servers, wires, connections, websites, etc. Like ATT letting somebody else publish the Yellow Pages.

UN taking it over is just speculation. There is no indication that they are actually going to.

CaseyJones
08-29-2016, 05:51 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165 (Paywalled, see 2nd Link)
http://www.infowars.com/un-to-take-control-of-internet-october-1st/



WSJ Link is paywalled.

---

If you think the US turned the internet into corporatized garbage, just wait until the UN gets its hands on it.

ya I quoted the entire wsj article here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500252-An-Internet-Giveaway-to-the-U-N

oyarde
08-29-2016, 06:01 PM
So if I take over the UN i will own the world wide web ? That should not be so hard , :)

John F Kennedy III
08-29-2016, 06:14 PM
Should be interesting.

Lucille
09-20-2016, 04:02 PM
What could go wrong?

alucard13mm
09-20-2016, 04:13 PM
George soros also donates 500million usd for refugees services. Hmmmm george soros + globalist and open border propnents have the same goals!

Lucille
09-22-2016, 11:27 AM
Trump Sides with "Lyin Ted" - Blasts Obama's Internet Transition Plan
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-22/trump-sides-lyin-ted-blasts-obamas-internet-transition-plan


Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, after a brutal Republican primary season with a whole lot of name calling and allegations, may have finally found some common ground. According to The Hill, Trump is now siding with Cruz and other House Republicans in speaking out about the Obama administration's plan to relinquish the Department of Commerce's oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).


"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world,” Trump campaign senior policy director Stephen Miller said in a statement.

“The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful,” he added. “Congress needs to act, or internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost."

For those not familiar with the particulars, Conservative lawmakers in Congress are leading an effort to block the Obama administration's "internet transition" plans by inserting language into a funding measure that would result in another government shutdown if not passed by September 30th.

ICANN stands for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. ICANN is a California nonprofit that has supervised website domains since 1998, essentially under subcontract from the Commerce Department. Under the Obama transition plan, in October, oversight by the U.S. Commerce Department would end and be replaced by a multi-stakeholder community, which would include the technical community, businesses, civil society and governments.

Opponents of the "internet transition, claim it could give hostile countries power over the internet ecosystem to censor content. On September 8th, Ted Cruz delivered remarks on the Senate floor saying the proposed transition would wreak "irreparable damage not only on our nation, but on free speech across the world" by allowing "countries like Russia, like China, like Iran to be able to censor speech on the Internet, your speech."

bunklocoempire
09-22-2016, 12:31 PM
Another "brier patch" crisis?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMVNq36oQs

Lucille
09-29-2016, 07:09 AM
https://youtu.be/-xu5p_nDcrg

juleswin
09-29-2016, 07:14 AM
I present to you the coverage of the transfer of icann responsibilities by the US to the UN. Just listen how thse two alternative media vlogs presented the information to the audience and see which side is dishonest and the side that withholds vital information from the story to scare their audience. And which side gives the full story, honest and even gives the audience a free market solution to US or UN alternative of controlling domain registry.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbJ6lZLy7X4
Just watch first 4 mins
VS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMVNq36oQs
start listening at 5:20 - 9:30

I wonder who wins this, Corbertt or Jones?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?500403-Alt-vs-Alt-Which-Alt-is-right

Danke
09-29-2016, 07:18 AM
http://82.221.129.208/basepagee8.html

Lucille
09-30-2016, 08:41 AM
4 States Sue To Block Obama's Internet Transition Set For Tomorrow Night
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-29/4-states-sue-block-obamas-internet-transition-plan


The US government, much to the chagrin of Senator Ted Cruz, is set to officially relinquish the Department of Commerce's oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as of tomorrow night at midnight. ICANN is a California nonprofit that has supervised website domains since 1998, essentially under subcontract from the Commerce Department. Under the Obama transition plan oversight by the U.S. Commerce Department would end and be replaced by a multi-stakeholder community, which would include the technical community, businesses, civil society and governments.

Cruz had attempted to block the internet transition by tying the recently passed funding bill to the reversal of the ICANN turnover. That said, apparently his harsh admonishments on the Senate floor failed to draw enough support from his fellow republicans to force a government shutdown over the topic.
[...]
Supporters of the plan counter that critics' harsh rhetoric fails to recognize that ICANN will be turned over to management by an independent board with representation from all over the world with no single body holding undue influence over decisions. According to Yahoo, the transition has drawn support from Google and several democrat senators who commented to TechCrunch that "the internet belongs to the world, not to Ted Cruz."
[...]
But, in a last ditch effort to block the transition, 4 state attorneys general from Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas, have filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court alleging that the transition, in the absence of congressional approval, amounts to an illegal forfeiture of U.S. government property. According to Politico, the lawsuit also expresses concern that the reorganized ICANN would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”


“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General 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.”

"I think, as a matter of philosophy, turning this over ultimately is maybe a great idea in the long run," the attorney general said, "but I do think there are a lot of stakeholders involved, and we want to make sure no one in the future can limit or suppress access to the internet or punish people for speaking their minds."

Given Obama's recent humiliating loss on the 9/11 lawsuit bill, we're sure that efforts to block his internet transition plan will draw some attention at the White House.

pcosmar
09-30-2016, 08:53 AM
What could go wrong?

Hmm,

I had avoided using this tool for years,, Knowing some potential dangers.
It is still a useful tool. for as long as it lasts.

I think more is made of this than it is. and other government actions could overshadow it.

Lucille
09-30-2016, 02:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jkuNj2m87U

Lucille
10-01-2016, 08:24 AM
Court says Obama's internet transition can go forward
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/obama-internet-transition-courts-228992#ixzz4LqLRDGTL


A federal judge gave a green light to the Obama administration’s hotly contested plan to cede oversight of the Internet to the international community.

In a ruling issued Friday, Judge George Hanks Jr. denied a request from four Republican state attorneys general to temporarily halt the transition just hours before the handoff was scheduled to occur at midnight Friday. The AGs had argued the move violated the U.S. Constitution.

The decision marks a major victory for the Obama administration and its plan to transfer oversight for the Internet's address system to the global nonprofit known as ICANN. And it delivers a win for the tech sector: Companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google have stressed the transfer is important for their industry — an argument they made to the court on Friday.

Lucille
10-01-2016, 01:45 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-01/judge-denies-attempt-block-transfer-internet-oversight


As a result, the transfer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) from the U.S. to an international entity representing 162 countries will proceed on Saturday as planned.

As WND reported, it was the late Phyllis Schlafly who, earlier this year, characterized Obama’s plan as “like telling the fox to guard the chicken coop,” trusting the likes of Cuba, Venezuela and China to ensure the continued freedom of the Web.

The transfer of oversight to an obscure non-profit called the Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, set for Saturday, “could be the most dangerous use yet of Obama’s now-famous pen,” the conservative icon said at the time. The states’ lawsuit against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Department of Commerce and others sought a halt to the transfer.
[...]
As WND adds, the lawsuit wasn’t the only opposition that has arisen in the fourth quarter. A coalition of 77 national security, cybersecurity and industry leaders wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just days ago asking for intervention.

“As individuals with extensive, first-hand experience with protecting our national security, we write to urge you to intervene in opposition to an imminent action that would, in our judgment, cause profound and irreversible damage to the United States’ vital interests,” the letter said.

“Indeed, there is, to our knowledge, no compelling reason for exposing the national security to such a risk by transferring our remaining control of the Internet in this way at this time. In light of the looming deadline, we feel compelled to urge you to impress upon President Obama that the contract between NTIA and ICANN cannot be safely terminated at this point.”
[...]
“It is profoundly disappointing that the Obama administration has decided to press on with its plan to relinquish United States oversight of crucial Internet functions, even though Congress has not given its approval. For years, there has been a bipartisan understanding that the ICANN transition is premature and that critical questions remain unanswered about the influence of authoritarian regimes in Internet governance, the protection of free speech, the effect on national security, and impacts on consumers, just to name a few,” they said.

“Without adequate answers to these questions, it would be irresponsible to allow the transition to occur in 15 days simply because of an artificial deadline set by the Obama administration.

“In fact, Democrats at both the state and national level have echoed many of these concerns. For example, former President Bill Clinton has warned that ‘[a] lot of people who have been trying to take this authority away from the U.S. want to do it for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empower[ing] their people.’

“The issue of Internet freedom should unite us Americans – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. Partisanship and political gamesmanship have no place when it comes to the Internet, basic principles of freedom, and the right of individuals in our great nation and across the globe to speak online free from censorship.” In the lawsuit, the states warned that .gov addresses are at risk.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/09/14/internet%20for%20sale_0.jpg

Lucille
10-03-2016, 09:53 AM
UN intervenes into American society
"If the United Nations is to survive, those who represent it must bolster it; those who advocate it must submit to it; and those who believe in it must fight for it." - Norman Cousins
https://www.intellihub.com/un-intervenes-into-american-society/


By now you have heard that the control of ICANN has been ceded to the globalists. The Wall Street Journal acknowledges that An Internet Giveaway to the U.N. is the result of this transfer. A last ditch attempt to forestall this treachery was dashed by the Court rejects Arizona lawsuit suit over US control of internet group. This ruling comes as no surprise. The pattern of systematic international integration is the hallmark of efforts to stamp out national sovereignty and independent countries. The United Nations from the very beginning of its inception has been a fraud of incalculable proportions and a nemesis on humanity.

Soon the internationalists will push into high gear censorship of voices of opposition and resistance to the consolidation of global compliance and force a climate of universal surrender to authoritarian elites. So with the Obama-UN Internet Takeover Is Just Hours Away, explain the following.

“October 1 is D-Day for the start of the international takeover of the Internet, a scheme the Obama administration and the United Nations have been advancing for years. Why are GOP leaders AWOL as President Obama and the United Nations move to transfer critically important jurisdiction over the Internet to an unaccountable UN-aligned monopoly? Why are Ryan and McConnell doing nothing?”

It is called business as usual by the beltway establishment, who are committed globalists.

The United States is undoubtedly the ultimate prize to impose all-inclusive capture or destroy the society completely. The United Nations is a predator of infiltration, subversion and treachery.

Silencing dissent starts with blocking the internet from voices of opposition. [...]

The White House press release before the 71st secession reads like an encore to Obama’s infamous apology tour.

“So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration. Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions — economic, political, and cultural — that are caused by integration are squarely addressed.”

What will it take for the public to see through the deception that comes out of the General Assembly plans for turning the United States into an occupied colony? [...]

You are entering the outer limits of a society that does not have the guts to remove the curse of globalism from the planet. Barack Obama has consistently fostered an agenda that advances The United Nations Just Officially Announced a Global Communist Takeover, The New World Order Reconvenes.

“The UN at the seventy-first regular session has aggregated the role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human order into their agenda. In addition to the aforementioned under section A. titled, “Promotion of sustained economic growth and sustainable development in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and recent United Nations conferences” is also the plan for total Globalization and interdependence.”

Obama in his final speech before the UN echoes these words. “We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set are more than words on paper.”

So prepare for draconian methods to proliferate as the UN applies a Totalitarian Collectivism to a “Political Correct” internet that will soon filter out critical discourse and content. Banishing sites to the infamous Leon Trotsky’s vision of Marxist utopian will put new meaning to: “You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on / into the dustbin of history!”

[...] Brent Jessop’s account, on the basic objective of the UN to impose world governance will end America as an independent nation, and such history will be eradicated from the web.

timosman
09-22-2018, 10:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhY9Zxv1-oo

nikcers
09-22-2018, 11:05 PM
You can't take over the internet by controlling DNS. I'm sure there would be a market alternative if they started to censor. I'm more afraid of control of the data by the TPTB. The defacto virtualization and takeover of content was constant during the 2016 election. Everything that wasn't the narrative they were trying to push was buried. The so called "pied piper" and "anti war socialist", the 20 candidates running for president including one that data mined the liberty movement and claimed to be the rightful successor to the liberty movement when we still had Rand Paul in the race. These people get hypnotized constantly being fed false information until they think up is down.

timosman
09-22-2018, 11:10 PM
[QUOTE=nikcers;6684528]You can't take over the internet by controlling DNS. I'm sure there would be a market alternative if they started to censor./QUOTE]

There is but not very successful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root - most users wouldn't even know how to switch.

Zippyjuan
09-23-2018, 11:35 AM
You can't take over the internet by controlling DNS. I'm sure there would be a market alternative if they started to censor. I'm more afraid of control of the data by the TPTB. The defacto virtualization and takeover of content was constant during the 2016 election. Everything that wasn't the narrative they were trying to push was buried. The so called "pied piper" and "anti war socialist", the 20 candidates running for president including one that data mined the liberty movement and claimed to be the rightful successor to the liberty movement when we still had Rand Paul in the race. These people get hypnotized constantly being fed false information until they think up is down.

Knowing everybody's address does not mean you control what sort of mail they receive.

nikcers
09-23-2018, 01:59 PM
Knowing everybody's address does not mean you control what sort of mail they receive.

That's exactly what I said when I said you can't take control over the internet by controlling DNS. Its the posts like this that make me truly wonder if you are a real person Zippy, I guess I wrote too much stuff for you parse what I was saying. You didn't even reply to what I was posting that just underlies the fact I was trying to point out. It doesn't matter if people receive the best information if you flood them with so much shit they can't understand information.

Zippyjuan
09-23-2018, 02:15 PM
That's exactly what I said when I said you can't take control over the internet by controlling DNS. Its the posts like this that make me truly wonder if you are a real person Zippy, I guess I wrote too much stuff for you parse what I was saying. You didn't even reply to what I was posting that just underlies the fact I was trying to point out. It doesn't matter if people receive the best information if you flood them with so much $#@! they can't understand information.

I was agreeing with what you said. I had posted this early on in the thread as well (see post #13 from two years ago).

nikcers
09-23-2018, 02:48 PM
I was agreeing with what you said. I had posted this early on in the thread as well (see post #13 from two years ago).

I think taking over DNS could cause a lot of people a lot of problems like timosman was saying- the only thing standing in their way is the market, its the demand for uncensored information. I'm optimistic they can't control that market force, which is what created the internet in the first place. If you want to look at how internet censorship can work look at China. If they crack down on internet access or religion the people resist and use VPNs and secret churches.