Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One of the things that a lot of the idealistic internet people tend to forget is that governments operate in ways that are outside the ability of normal companies. It is doable from a governmental level to simply nationalize and take over its country's Inter-network. Quite disruptive and would be fairly ham-handed, I'm sure, but it is possible.

If the internet is to remain free, spokespeople will have to come forth and present cogent arguments that demonstrate how it is both (1) in the interests of the populace, corporations, and governmental elites and (2), for the aforementioned to encounter negative impacts for the Internet not to remain free. For individuals (e.g., Cory Doctorow) to simply abstain from this discussion is not going to work.

I appreciate the blathering about New Democracy! Disruption! Social Media Revolutions!, but those are not realpolitik, and, today, we need - all of us need - realpolitikers who are committed to a free internet.



> For individuals (e.g., Cory Doctorow) to simply abstain from this discussion is not going to work.

Doctorow isn't abstaining from the discussion. Far from it; he's been an early and regular reporter and popularizer of important events and arguments related to freedom and the internet. As I understand it, he didn't want to lend credibility to this particular forum by attending it.


I wouldn't say that non-attendance of a geopolitical summit means Doctorow is abstaining from the public debate. Part of the responsibility of people who care about the internet as a platform for free speech is to avoid unduly privileging the preferred broadcast channels of governing elites.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: