image courtesy of Forbes.com
With the September 30th deadline looming and a decision to be made whether or not we will cede control of the internet, meaning ICANN to international control through the United Nations there are some basic concerns that everyone easily dismisses. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN is the administrative body for website hosting and distribution, that may be the easiest way to explain it for now. This sudden change to how the Internet is controlled doesn’t seem to make sense against the fact that countless times WE in the United States have pushed for less control and watched closely for coercion between companies in Silicon Valley and Totalitarianist governments.
Currently the narrative is that standing against giving international control is either greedy or xenophobic, but let’s be realistic here. One complaint that we haven’t heard is that the United States has been ridiculous or overly controlling of the information infrastructure that makes up the internet, in fact, it’s one of the freest markets that exists and has fundamentally changed how we live our lives. Please point out which of these other countries believes that speech is an inherent human right? The answer is that none of them do, not one.
Giving the internet to people like Germany, who denies the sexual assaults of their own people to further a pro-refugee narrative, or perhaps we can let the United Kingdom who tells newspapers they can’t publish a story because they believe it would be disrespectful to the stature of a person, there are countless amounts of why this is a terrible idea and we should be standing en masse against it.
We can’t fight companies like Twitter or YouTube who specifically have censored content like Hillary fainting on 9/11 or silence any dissenting opinion against Black Lives matter because we allow businesses to do as they please and service who they wish, that is a principle of free market. The issue isn’t a business deciding that a certain brand of politics shouldn’t be allowed to be expressed (now I believe this is a morally deficient stance and would never ask for Liberals to be silenced) we are talking about mandating this type of censorship, because it is already happening all across Europe, under these supposed “progressive’ regimes.
Imagine a world where supporting your religious ideals on marriage is considered cyber bullying, yet someone can talk about destroying the state of Israel. How about you questioning legislation that says your daughter has no say in whether a man enters her locker room at school, you get blocked from protest, but claims that all men are cis-gendered evil rapists? Let’s say that we want to expose that Hillary Clinton sold 192 seats in committees for the state department to supporters of her foundation, nothing to see here, not on the “progressive” international internet.
It isn’t just an issue for the Right, the Left has just as much to lose. What about feminists who want to stand against the brutal treatment of women in the middle east, that’s a big “Shut up your bigot” from the international community, who by the way contains these countries. Maybe you want to discuss the oppression of a minority group in the eastern bloc, but that would be bad for trade with the EU, congratulations at getting censored you Xenophobe. This is quite literally Fascism and the United States of America as an institution based on freedom should not stand for it.
This is not just one of those situations where we need to stand against it, it may be the last vestige of freedom we have in a digital world. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let these regimes have as much of a say in your expression as the constitution does, that is something you should never stand for.