The Internet Is Going The Way Of Television

[Flanders]

Yesterday, I saw a few mentions of the Internet-giveaway on television. Neither mentioned the United Nations. No doubt the media is still honoring the promise made in the early 1950s:

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg
Quote...Ten Years Later
11-21-1

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."​

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."​

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg Quote...Ten Years Later​

Or maybe talking heads were ordered not to cover the Internet-giveaway story in depth because of the free speech implications. The similarities between the Internet-giveaway and television are glaringly obvious. Governments, especially ours, want more control over the Internet than it has over television. I don’t see how they hope to achieve their goal since the government’s control over television is absolute.

Don’t look for truth on television about anything, but you can find good stuff on the Net. Charles C. W. Cooke over at the National Review Online covers free speech pretty good. He even nails the United Nations and global governance. Put this in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Rockefeller:

Consider how different the story might have been had the system’s guts been controlled by someone else — even by a relatively free country such as Britain or Canada, where the government is benign but speech is curtailed by law. Is it not possible that the temptation to bring the Web into line with “reasonable” limits on expression would have been too much to resist? Can one not imagine a pressure for “common sense” reform building from inside and outside — and leading to censorship of language that gave offense to, say, gays, or Muslims, or police horses? If so, imagine what less amiable nations might seek to impose. The reality of today’s “global governance” is that it will not be Britain or Canada champing at the bit, but Russia and China and, through the pernicious United Nations, global Islam, which has already managed to secure various Human Rights Council resolutions that prohibit criticism of religion. Ready?

XXXXX​

“The United Nations has been angling quietly to become the epicenter of Internet governance,” warned Mary Bono Mack, a Republican from California, after the unanimous House vote. “We cannot let this happen,” she vowed gravely. Just a year later, we are. Yesterday, the United States found itself in an advantageous and virtuous position: the benign steward of an astonishing network that it developed, refined, and then gave to the world without caveat. Today, provoked and shamed into action by actors who have neither the moral nor legal claim to its work, it is on the cusp of giving up control. An unforced error. For shame.

Mr. Cooke deserves the undying gratitude of folks like me for translating the mysteries of Geek-speech into English:

The “DNS’s authoritative root zone file” is effectively a master directory of website addresses, kept in one place to avoid duplication and to guarantee that when everybody types “nationalreview.com” into their browser, they get the same page; “IP addresses,” to put it oversimply, are the Internet’s “phone numbers,” assigned to each computer (or router) so that they can be contacted by others; “protocol parameters” inform the basic architecture by which the Internet operates — variables such as which characters may be used, and in what form commonly used services such as e-mail and Web pages are to operate. You get the idea.

As you might imagine, it matters a great deal who is in charge of this compendium, for whoever controls it can use the thing essentially as a global on/off switch. As it stands, a tyrant is able to restrict access to certain parts of the Internet in his own country, but he is unable to make a page or a server or a service disappear completely. To wit, if I write something nice about Taiwan on NRO, the Chinese government can restrict access to that page in any territory that it controls — in the name of “national security” or what you will. But it can’t delete NRO entirely; nor can it restrict access to our servers from outside its jurisdiction.

XXXXX​

For its operation, sustenance, and energy, the Web could rely wholly on private enterprise, deregulated markets, and civil society; for its essential freedom and the integrity of its operation, it was beholden to a small amount of governance. Without it, there would be anarchy.

The question at hand, therefore, is less whether there should be any oversight of the Internet’s basics, and more who is best placed to perform this role. “Without the U.S. government providing an effective backstop to ICANN’s original operating principles, there would be no mechanism in place to stop foreign governments from interfering with ICANN’s operations,” the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s Daniel Castro wrote on Friday. He’s right. Across two decades, multiple administrations, and a host of dramatic changes, the American state has proven itself a worthy overseer of the work of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). We might worry about who is reading our e-mails, but we don’t fret about the Internet’s being restricted at its core. We may be concerned about the lack of free communication in other countries, but we don’t have to sweat about those countries’ governments shutting off our access here. And yet, having grown cocky in its maturity, the U.S. government is now considering inviting those countries’ censors to the table and giving them a vote on how to fix a problem that never was.

March 18, 2014 4:00 AM
Handing Over the Keys to the Internet
It’s nuts to cede control of the Internet to countries with poor records on free speech.
By Charles C. W. Cooke

Handing Over the Keys to the Internet | National Review Online​

Finally, government control-freaks will never understand the most important thing about freedom of speech; the most offensive speech requires the most protection.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Television doesn't inform, it entertains.

 

[Flanders]

Television doesn't inform, it entertains.

To Delta4Embassey: “News” shows seldom inform and they never entertain.

Straight-up interview shows like Charlie Rose list to port 99 percent of the time. It seems that every time I surf into Rose BY ACCIDENT he is interviewing a Hollywood liberal talking about movies like every frame is a masterpiece on par with the Mona Lisa.

Fictional TV shows, especially lawyer shows and cop shows, are so imbued with propaganda they can hardly be called entertainment.

Games shows are probably the least offensive of television shows, yet even Jeopardy manages to sneak in a question or two about International law. Asking the question implies there is such a thing.

I’ve never watched a minute of any reality TV show; so I won’t comment.

Ultimately, television is an instrument of sales; either products or government propaganda. Products are easy. Companies advertize on TV to get you to buy their product. Propaganda sells dreams and illusions. No less of an expert than Joseph Goebbels put it this way:

It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.

Does anyone doubt what would have happened to the Internet in Nazi Germany?

The topics of government propaganda are often about selling profane societal changes like same sex marriage. Government propaganda never used well-known profane words to describe the actual practices of the people involved. In fact, prohibitions against hate speech were invented to prevent vulgar descriptions of true activities. No such sensibilities with product sales:

Profanity And Vulgarity In TV Commercials
By J.D. Longstreet Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Profanity And Vulgarity In TV Commercials

Wouldn’t it be a kick if liberals challenged profanity in product commercials as hate speech!

Finally, did it ever occur to you that government officials are determined to eliminate freedom of speech on the Internet because they are such liars. In basic terms they are judging by their own standards. Obviously, they hate the truth being told about government tyranny; nevertheless, technology is forcing them to proceed as though everything on Internet is put there by liars like themselves.

 

[Flanders]

I firmly believe that the government ordered television to stop talking about HillaryCare II. Whether or not I am right about the ACA —— talking heads truly believe that da plane, da plane, is more important than is giving away control of the Internet:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTs3uzChx8k&feature=player_detailpage]Da plane! Da plane! - YouTube[/ame]​

Notice that the government claims ownership of the Internet but fails to mention that telephone technology was invented in the private sector. The Internet is built atop telephone technology. In other words parasites fed off of others as usual. In effect, giving away the Internet also gives away telephone technology:

Slipping quietly under the radars of many people is the decision by the U.S. government to release its effective control of the internet and to hand over the “keys” to international bodies such as the United Nations and its front group, the ICU (International Telecommunications Union).

I’ve found a few drips and draps about the giveaway. Today’s piece by Tim Dunkin over at Canada Free Press is one the best on a topic that television refuses to touch:

Obama’s Backdoor Censorship of the Internet
By Tim Dunkin Saturday, March 22, 2014

Obama?s Backdoor Censorship of the Internet

 

[Flanders]

Bill Clinton defends American control of Internet domain name system
By Tim Mak | MARCH 22, 2014 AT 10:25 AM

Bill Clinton defends American control of Internet domain name system | WashingtonExaminer.com News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

Nobody ever said that boy couldn’t tell which way the wind was blowing. Bubba being Bubba I’ll reserve final judgement on his sincerity. After all, he has designs on the post of UN Secretary General. Coming out against UN control of the Internet is out of character for him.

Also, the media is a week or so late, but the Internet giveaway is finally getting some coverage.

 

[Ava]

Bill Clinton defends American control of Internet domain name system
By Tim Mak | MARCH 22, 2014 AT 10:25 AM

Bill Clinton defends American control of Internet domain name system | WashingtonExaminer.com News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

Nobody ever said that boy couldn’t tell which way the wind was blowing. Bubba being Bubba I’ll reserve final judgement on his sincerity. After all, he has designs on the post of UN Secretary General. Coming out against UN control of the Internet is out of character for him.

Also, the media is a week or so late, but the Internet giveaway is finally getting some coverage.

From Bill Clinton, who agrees with Republicans on this:

Count former President Bill Clinton among those who are skeptical of the new Obama administration plan to give up Internet oversight authority.

SNIPS:

Clinton talked in some detail about why the U.S. should retain oversight over Internet domain names and addresses during a panel at a weekend meeting sponsored by the Clinton Global Initiative.

Noting that the Edward Snowden revelations of National Security Agency data collections has given “new energy” to the belief internationally that the U.S. should not even be in “nominal control of domain names,” Clinton argued that the U.S. has still done a pretty good job of keeping the Internet open and free.

“A lot of people … have been trying to take this authority from the U.S. for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empowering their people,” Clinton said during a panel discussion Friday night.



Bill Clinton Joins Republicans in Criticizing Obama's Internet Plans | National Review Online

 

[Flanders]

Bubba being Bubba I’ll reserve final judgement on his sincerity.

“A lot of people … have been trying to take this authority from the U.S. for the sole purpose of cracking down on Internet freedom and limiting it and having governments protect their backsides instead of empowering their people,” Clinton said during a panel discussion Friday night.

To AquaAthena: Then there is this:

We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation? Hillary Clinton

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'​