Should there be some kind of control put on the internet by government no matter what respective country of origin you live in? Should there be a governing body to control the usage of the internet in a “Fair” way only considering the country’s populations and access to the internet without any regard to that country’s wealth? Is the internet only a wealthy country’s play thing of privilege?
A report by the BBC news and technology. http://bbc.in/VeBkxN
A UN agency is trying to calm fears that the internet could be damaged by a conference it is hosting.
Government regulators from 193 countries are in Dubai to revise a wide-ranging communications treaty.
Google has warned the event threatened the “open internet”, while the EU said the current system worked, adding: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the agency said action was needed to ensure investment in infrastructure to help more people access the net.
“The brutal truth is that the internet remains largely [the] rich world’s privilege, ” said Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the UN’s International Telecommunications Union, ahead of the meeting.
“ITU wants to change that.”
What seem interesting with these kinds of proposals of how the internet should be controlled or regulated (no matter who is behind the regulation like the UN or its socialist partnership country’s) is that these country’s in favor of regulations also have a negative view of successful country’s and their economy’s, when compared to their own economic might.
Isn’t it social justice to want even distribution the world over of “Fairness” for all? Of course who determines “Fairness” and the amount of that each country should receive. The tenets of social justice is a progressive socialist idea that never takes in account that in order to creat fairness for all it requires to take success from some, to then be given still to others in the hopes to satisfy any offences that may have happened along the way. But re-offending one because the other has suffered some offences of the past, is just playing musical chairs with the offended only changing positions of the players on an economical scale.
Mr Kramer has suggested that “a variety of nations in the Arab states” also
supported the idea.
No real surprise here. Because the Arab states seem to promote thin-skinned people who are easily offended at a drop of a hat. Yet have little problems or remorse in offending others.
Politian’s the world over are falling over themself’s to convince the easily fooled that they don’t want to take total control of individuals lives from cradle to grave. But still we have the proposals of organisations like those of the UN and alike to control some aspect of life using foolish excuses, “that this would be better for everyone”.
Remember when president Obama gave his speech to the UN, he said. “The future shouldn’t belong to those who would offend the prophet Mohamed.” But then the United States when out of their way to convince the world and the respective population that some guy releasing a video on the internet, was the object that offended muslims the world over. Touching off deadly protests in the Arab world, and what seem to be now why they are most in favor of regulation of the internet.
The reality here is that we are trying to punish people for some mythical offence of the thin-skinned, because the thin-skinned also like to protest violently are we thinking this is what it is to be peaceful? But when we alow the muslim religion to have a free pass to offend anyone they please to, like the Jews, or Christen and their belief systems, or their buildings, because they are viewed as subservient to they’re religious beliefs; where is the willingness of the world to impose the need of…… “Fairness for all”, by the use of the powers of the UN, Instead of the kiss-butt attitude of supporting a less offensive stance towards those who just demand it?
The United Nations (UN) isn’t good for anything really. Look at all of the wars they’re try to resolve in ending conflict, by interjecting human forces under the UN flag that then become human targets for both sides to shoot at. Was there any resolution? Has armed conflict disappeared? Look at all of the UN efforts with the Palestinians. Despite building schools for the Palestinians, the people still have the educated (or uneducated new education, presented to them by the UN) giving them the same views of wanting to wipe out Israel. Peace comes and goes only in an effort of ether side to reorganize, rearm, and live to fight another day with the same attitudes of yesterday towards each other. The UN seems to have disregarded reality, with regards to people living according to human nature. Every person demonstrates by their actions the power of choice when choosing between good and evil.
“A person changed against their own will, is of the same opinion still!”
For the UN to even make any presentations, or have any debate over regulating the internet, by disgruntled governments for the possible support of regulation, smacks of censorship on a grand scale and must be opposed vigorously. For on the basis of fairness if it truly can exist within governmental policies of regulation, must begin with the individual citizen ability to express themself’s openly and unopposed from governmental oversight. Nothing is un-say-able! If you don’t like what is being said, then don’t read it, just exercise your right of freedom to self-regulation, over that of forcible imposed compliance.
Falling under the spell of the “DO SOMETHING DISEASES” the UN has become over inflated with self-importance! The UN is no sort of body to bully itself into controlling others through the use of political interests. When their only interests are that of taking….. that what isn’t theirs to take. When millions of people in the world live without decent water
supplies, heat or education, the UN worries about something that does not concern
“What is most unnerving and out-of-place, is that there are some politicians that are also willing to give regulating powers away for what seem like, “FOR FREE” to the unelected political body of the UN, in exchange for a diminished sovereignty over a nation that they were elected to govern; all this while under oath of preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while also protecting it from all foreign and demotic enemy’s of freedom!? Makes one wonder if regulation of the internet is such a small thing after all, compared to dancing on the fine lines of treason?” mindwarpfx