|
-- EDIT
Ok it seems most people have missunderstood completely, one person, a ministry or a triumvate as someone suggested per country to take care of matters regarding internet law issues in whatever country they are citizens of. I did not mean one guy/internet government to rule the whole internet on a worldwide basis.
I don't see why people are so scared of this, if it's done properly it could be very successfull. I'll for instance take Sweden has an example. Thomas Bodström was Minister of justice, there were again and again calls from USA to regulate and make laws that limited the freedom of the internet to combat piracy, Bodström told the Americans no we will not do that. Enter 2012, government has changed, Bodström is out - Sweden has voted yes on several laws and agreements(among them ACTA) that regulates the internet and allows for all sorts of surveillence of traffic.
Now imagine of Bodström had been "Minister of ze internetz" independent of a general government election, running "Ministry of teh interwebz", those laws i hope wouldn't have passed. But hell i'm only speculating.
---
A couple months ago i interviewed some Swedish politicans regarding the ACTA agreement, mostly general stuff why it was conducted the way it was and how it would affect the Swedish people. During the interview one politician told me his idea of a new position: Minister of the Internet/Internet Minister so to say, his argument was that current politicians are either too old, technologicaly inept or simply blind when it comes to dealing with questions regarding the internet. This is something i think most people on TL can agree on.
He also mentioned that this post would be indifferent from the current election and candidacy would be voted forward by the academic community rather then the people to ensure a top specialist that actually understands what the internet is about. As such the minister would have no open party affections and could hence operate more objective and solely focus on whats good for the internet in his country.
The main argument was however that it is wrong to post laws and restricting something that we in a sense have no right to restrict, the internet or the web rather belongs to everyone, and was as such "given away for free" by its creators.
Everything can ofcourse be debated and changed for whatever might be the best, such as how the voting takes place and such things but overall i am really for the idea. I'm pretty tired of having politicians in their 50's and 60's who can barely browse an online newspaper vote on laws regarding something i hold very dear, which is the internet. As an example Sweden has an "Information Technology minister" Anna-Karin Hatt, who has studied political science, international relations and conflict and peace studies. No tech background in her education at all, so how can she be the minister of such a subject? I just find it very odd.
What does TL think about this?
 
|
It could be biased, i dont think it's a good thing to impose some kind of control over the internet by any party.
|
On March 25 2012 05:14 empty.bottle wrote:
It could be biased, i dont think it's a good thing to impose some kind of control over the internet by any party.
Well the idea is that u have a person who is not a member of any party and who has an education that makes them have a clue about technology have the final say in dealings with the internet, i dont see how theres any difference is being biased to what we currently have. Atm all sorts of insane laws regarding the internet are being passed in Sweden due to a majority government, so i mean they can pass whatever they want - how is this any different if you are afraid of people being biased?
|
Everyone should leave the internet alone as a whole. If you buy/own websites then you can control whatever the hell you want. Though if you don't own a domain name you shouldn't be able to police/Tamper with it.
|
On March 25 2012 05:18 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 05:14 empty.bottle wrote:
It could be biased, i dont think it's a good thing to impose some kind of control over the internet by any party. Well the idea is that u have a person who is not a member of any party and who has an education that makes them have a clue about technology have the final say in dealings with the internet, i dont see how theres any difference is being biased to what we currently have. Atm all sorts of insane laws regarding the internet are being passed in Sweden due to a majority government, so i mean they can pass whatever they want - how is this any different if you are afraid of people being biased?
Don't be naive, politicians aren't clueless, they are just bought. You can have an "independent" person as a "minister of the internet" (whatever that means) but there still needs to be a process to select them. If he or she will have significant power than obviously the same interests that influence politicians now will try to influence the selection process.
What makes you think you can defend the selection process from negative influences?
|
LOL SORRY but i allrdy have a goverment that take sh1t from me at my country, i dont need a digital one to take more. thank ou.
|
That would ruin the entire idea of the internet...
I can't believe anyone even had the notion that this would be at all a reasonable idea...
|
Oh my god never please. The internet is already muddled with governments and all kinds of shady unsanctioned forms of control.
|
President of the Internet sounds like some stupid meme.
|
Hyrule19241 Posts
I can see it now: HotBid elected to Prime Minister of the Internet, declares Internet Sovereign nation.
|
if im reading what your saying correctly this minister of the internet would be responsible for things such as policy towards piracy and copyright infringement within a selected country which i admit could be useful as the current ministers of trade don't generally know how to deal with an online service properly. i think i would be okay with this so long as there was a permanent inquisition into this officials dealings and a very clearly defined constitution with no wiggle room or exploitable loopholes which i know is an impossibility but still
also about the "bought" nature of politicians i agree that this person would have their own views and as such i would suggest that instead of a single minister it be a trimuvate or something similar
|
While it is true the average politican is pretty disconnected from what the internet is actually used for and what it represents, I don't think a technocracy is the way to solve that. Technocrats are just as easy to corrupt, but are even harder to nail on it since they have the authority of academia.
A better thing to do would be to STOP TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET, to the point of letting each elected official know their job is on the line if they do not cease. Giving an individual ultimate power over internet law would be an absolute disaster.
|
On March 25 2012 06:14 tofucake wrote:
I can see it now: HotBid elected to Prime Minister of the Internet, declares Internet Sovereign nation.
I, for one, welcome our new HotBid overlords.
|
Ok it seems most people have missunderstood completely, one person, a ministry or a triumvate as someone suggested per country to take care of matters regarding internet law issues in whatever country they are citizens of. I did not mean one guy/internet government to rule the whole internet on a worldwide basis.
Saying we need to stop trying to regulate the internet is freaking naive, that will never happen - and that's sad. But that is the reality. Atleast this way decisions would be made by people who actually have a clue how the internet works and what it is and we wouldn't get things like ACTA and SOPA which are trying to stop piracy with the same efficiency as trying to kill mosquitos with hand grenades, there's quite a bit of collateral damage.
Ofcourse anyone can be corrupted but the alternative is corrupted people making decisions on an issue they have zero understanding of.
|
On March 25 2012 05:41 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 05:18 unkkz wrote:On March 25 2012 05:14 empty.bottle wrote:
It could be biased, i dont think it's a good thing to impose some kind of control over the internet by any party. Well the idea is that u have a person who is not a member of any party and who has an education that makes them have a clue about technology have the final say in dealings with the internet, i dont see how theres any difference is being biased to what we currently have. Atm all sorts of insane laws regarding the internet are being passed in Sweden due to a majority government, so i mean they can pass whatever they want - how is this any different if you are afraid of people being biased? Don't be naive, politicians aren't clueless, they are just bought. You can have an "independent" person as a "minister of the internet" (whatever that means) but there still needs to be a process to select them. If he or she will have significant power than obviously the same interests that influence politicians now will try to influence the selection process. What makes you think you can defend the selection process from negative influences?
Politicians are pretty much clueless, sorry but they are. If they are lobbied aswell, yes most likely. But that doesn't further from the fact that they are in fact completely clueless.
The selection process i have no idea, a sort of panel of experts select viable candidates and then people vote?
Anything would be better then the current system, where sweden has an IT Minister that has zero tech background.
|
On March 25 2012 06:28 darkscream wrote:
While it is true the average politican is pretty disconnected from what the internet is actually used for and what it represents, I don't think a technocracy is the way to solve that. Technocrats are just as easy to corrupt, but are even harder to nail on it since they have the authority of academia.
A better thing to do would be to STOP TRYING TO REGULATE THE INTERNET, to the point of letting each elected official know their job is on the line if they do not cease. Giving an individual ultimate power over internet law would be an absolute disaster.
Well if its for example a triumvate of people, how would it differentiate from say the supreme court? the central bank? Hell any ministry for that matter, we leave ultimate power to ministries in all sorts of issues, why not the internet?
I don't see why people are so scared of this, if it's done properly it could be very successfull. I'll for instance take Sweden has an example. Thomas Bodström was Minister of justice, there were again and again calls from USA to regulate and make laws that limited the freedom of the internet to combat piracy, Bodström told the Americans no we will not do that. Enter 2012, government has changed, Bodström is out - Sweden has voted yes on several laws and agreements(among them ACTA) that regulates the internet and allows for all sorts of surveillence of traffic.
Now imagine of Bodström had been "Minister of ze internetz" independent of a general government election, running "Ministry of teh interwebz", those laws i hope wouldn't have passed. But hell i'm only speculating.
|
It feels kind of like giving control over the internet to a minister which just sounds bad all around : )
|
On March 25 2012 06:14 tofucake wrote:
I can see it now: HotBid elected to Prime Minister of the Internet, declares Internet Sovereign nation.
This sounds good to me lol <3
|
i would love to see you get China to agree with any Western nation on how to run the internet.
|
As far as a president or prime minister, i think its a terrible idea. Having the government more involved in the internet is the last thing we need, take SOPA for example. This president/Prime minister would require a government behind it and that government would most likely just be a puppet of an already corrupt government like the U.S.A.. Just my thoughts on the subject.
|
On March 25 2012 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
i would love to see you get China to agree with any Western nation on how to run the internet.
Why would they have to?
|
On March 25 2012 07:23 Hobbesstarcraft wrote:
As far as a president or prime minister, i think its a terrible idea. Having the government more involved in the internet is the last thing we need, take SOPA for example. This president/Prime minister would require a government behind it and that government would most likely just be a puppet of an already corrupt government like the U.S.A.. Just my thoughts on the subject.
They are already very much involved, hence SOPA, PIPA, ACTA etc.
|
On March 25 2012 07:26 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
i would love to see you get China to agree with any Western nation on how to run the internet. Why would they have to?
if you want someone (or group, or whatever) controlling all issues affecting the internet, you are going to have to get all of the countries to abide by that person's decisions. china has been less than steller in freedom on the internet, and i doubt they would agree with Western nations.
|
On March 25 2012 07:08 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 05:41 hypercube wrote:On March 25 2012 05:18 unkkz wrote:On March 25 2012 05:14 empty.bottle wrote:
It could be biased, i dont think it's a good thing to impose some kind of control over the internet by any party. Well the idea is that u have a person who is not a member of any party and who has an education that makes them have a clue about technology have the final say in dealings with the internet, i dont see how theres any difference is being biased to what we currently have. Atm all sorts of insane laws regarding the internet are being passed in Sweden due to a majority government, so i mean they can pass whatever they want - how is this any different if you are afraid of people being biased? Don't be naive, politicians aren't clueless, they are just bought. You can have an "independent" person as a "minister of the internet" (whatever that means) but there still needs to be a process to select them. If he or she will have significant power than obviously the same interests that influence politicians now will try to influence the selection process. What makes you think you can defend the selection process from negative influences? Politicians are pretty much clueless, sorry but they are. If they are lobbied aswell, yes most likely. But that doesn't further from the fact that they are in fact completely clueless. The selection process i have no idea, a sort of panel of experts select viable candidates and then people vote? Anything would be better then the current system, where sweden has an IT Minister that has zero tech background.
If they are clueless about an issue it's by choice. Most successful politicians are extremely intelligent. It's a very competitive field with extreme payoffs. Especially if you're the kind of person who desires power.
You need to pander to a wide range of people who barely pay attention, while keeping your competitors at bay both within and outside your party. No stupid (or even average) person can survive in that kind of environment.
Of course you don't want to look too smart, it might put off your voters.
|
On March 25 2012 07:26 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
i would love to see you get China to agree with any Western nation on how to run the internet. Why would they have to?
China is one of the largest population that uses internet.
|
On March 25 2012 07:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2012 07:26 unkkz wrote:On March 25 2012 07:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
i would love to see you get China to agree with any Western nation on how to run the internet. Why would they have to? if you want someone (or group, or whatever) controlling all issues affecting the internet, you are going to have to get all of the countries to abide by that person's decisions. china has been less than steller in freedom on the internet, and i doubt they would agree with Western nations.
On March 25 2012 09:11 shaftofpleasure wrote:
China is one of the largest population that uses internet.
Not what i meant. Have explained this several times, didn´t mean a global internet government.
|
|
|
Sure, we all need more hierarchy in this world, it's definitely best if one person or one small organization decides things for everyone. So lets do all we can to convert the most powerful equalizing many-to-many means of communication and social organization in the world into a hierarchical system overseen by a small cabal. What could go wrong? Theres no way that the king of the internet will ever get co-opted by narrow powerful interests or anything. Besides, then we'd all get to marvel at how cool a title 'king of the internets' or 'president of the internets' or 'captain internet' would be.
Sorry if sarcasm seems blunt. I just think its a really really bad idea. If its a ministry that advises on technological issues, that's maybe possibly cool if its country-specific and just advises on policy. If its a worldwide body with power, it's actually kinda scary.
|
Yeah, cause the whole democracy thing is working so well already.
|
if we have to have one, It obviously has to be Al Gore
|
|
|
lol.
BA content:
Good idea. Go make it happen now.
|
Minister of Technology for each country is a fine idea. President of the internet sounds retarded.
What we really need is system that makes sure that acts like sopa and acta don't get put in. Just because some inexperienced oldies in Parliament get pushed to do it by big business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
