Hi Aron,
* At the same time that states, and other large bodies/organisations,
assert increasing un-questionable, hence anti-democratic controls,
we have
domain names moving away from geographic based, to thematic. wikileaks
moved from usa based .org to, for example. .ch as a way to keep its
servers up. How would that operate under thematic domain names?
(eg .art
.travel, etc..)
The way, I understand this, the domain name doesn't make a difference.
It looks possible that, if you are in Brasil, you may not be able to
access wikileaks anymore, unless they get a server in the country. If
this legislation will actually happen, that is.
* Am wondering whether some of the language in the post bellow
doesn't, in
itself, perhaps points towards possible required self critique that
might
be required for ironing out plausible dents in thinking? For
example, can
we have a free web, and a decentralised internet, if - as it seems -
stuff
like "bigname players" - even as a concept, seems to be acceptable
or even
sort of legitimate?
'bignameplayers' was my way of summarising a long list of commercial
companies mentioned that are commercial competitors; my summary of the
text is very brief and hence is not following the contents of the
article indepth. However, I guess you cannot deny that large companies
(faceapplegogglepoggleandyahho) dominate public perception of the
internet ... Facebook, for example, to me, is not really 'a free web'
but people obviously love it
The article I linked is pointing out, that there is a very likely
possibility that a decentralised web is not the www of the future, but
that states might tighten and limit access in a foreseeable future.
Cheers and have fun during various
https://thedaywefightback.org/international/ events..
thanks
Jorn
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
