Ban the Internet

[picoico]

@ravage

The same argument applies to facebook.

Please do not explain to me what “the Internet” is. All my three degrees have been in computing, and I am pretty familiar with the mechanics of computing.

What’s your speciailization, out of curiosity? Regardless, the point remains; there is no single Internt as such.

To be more specific when I say “the Internet” I refer to domains outside of the direct control of Pakistan. To be more specific I refer to some of the few big names that comprise or are a part of most of internet usage. Thus my emphasis on google. It is my contention that were I to shut off a few key domains, “the Internet” as the term is understood would cease to exist for Pakistanies.

Google itself relies on ISPs to get its content out. These ISPs can loosely be described as the heart of the Internet. IBM, Qwest, UUNET, etc. Google isn’t in that game, afaik.

Not really. Im not trying to make a causal argument that banning facebook will lead to banning the internet. I can apply it, Im not arguing that they will.

You missed the part about seeking perfection. Also, the chain of reasoning is still broken, specificially because of the distinction between content and medium. It’s for this same reason why the Google analogy doesn’t work…you gloss over the fact in your initial post that Google doesn’t actually host content.

Second, you also falsely reason that sites are “hosted” on an Internet. The Internet, and WWW specifically, is infrastrucutre. Specific companies and organizations host content, and interlink through the Net. Yes, you may know this, so spare me a credential flash. Other readers may not.

If your intent was to show that the wholesale ban on facebook is nonsensical, I actually agree…it really should be specific content that is banned or not. Why pick on facebook as a whole? Because that’s the finest grain organization that is ultimately responsible for disseminating published content. Occam’s razor…doesn’t make sense to bring in Google, or the Internet as a whole. It adds no value in persuing specific content that is objectionable, and it is my understanding that this is in strict response to the Draw Muhammad (pbuh) Day. If not, then I digress…

There is a greater context to this issue, and that’s about Net regulation, and I go on about that here and there. By no means do I construe this to be a social justice issue…

So you dont dispute that most internet access could be arbitrarily denied, merely that it need not be.

Yes. Indeed, even facebook serves as a dual to the Internet; in some sense they’re a medium in their own right. Unlike the Internet, they have full control over their content.

Fine. I dont think courts should have the authority to take arbitrary, unprincipled action, you do.

Unprincipled ? Hardly. Arbitrary…the extent to which laws are applied often seem so. What of it? As I said, not all speeders get speeding tickets. So what of it?

I think precedents matter, you dont.

On the contrary; what you miss out is that a single court case sets the precedent. And in no way does this take us down the slipper slope of banning the Internet…or air for that matter.

We just have very different takes on what the function of courts should be. For me, its the provision of justice and uniform enforcement of law, for you its strategic fencing with multinational corporations.

Oh, come on. You know well that a big function of government in general is regulating industry. This is hardly a social justice issue.

so you’re saying its not a bad thing for ‘such’ sites to be eliminated. may I ask if you are in a profession related to the field?

Keep yer shorts on. Google et all being shut down because they refuse to abide by local laws…that’s a-okay. Side effect I suggested (half in hest) is that such events can actually help local business…e.g. Chinese companies swooped in and took market share from google. The only drawback I see is that inferior products and services may supplant existing ones; and local companies will loose any motivation to improve.

Yes, I was a glorified code monkey, who now resides in a comfy ivory tower.

I have already explained why a) I am not arguing against the banning of sites in principle, but the reasons given, and b) why Im not saying what this will happen, therefore its not a causal argument at all.

Reason? Site X has illegal content. Site X blocked until it takes action on any such content. End of story. Perhaps a bit of a heavy handed approach (should have probably approached face book first), but I don’t really know how things unfolded except from what we read in the papers.

So if there’s any problem with the situation, it’s how things were done, not why.