Internet shutdowns used to be rare. They're increasingly becoming the norm in much of the world

[PatrickforO]

This is scary, because many of us depend on the internet. For many things - communication, cloud computing, news, and research. So now, besides the Arjit Pai ruling that allows ISPs to slow or speed streaming based on how much you pay, we have countries jamming access as well.

Here's an excerpt:

Hong Kong (CNN)At the start of this year, as Zimbabwe cut off internet access across the country following anti-government protests, the internet pressure group Keep It On warned that such "shutdowns must never be allowed to become the new normal."

An ongoing internet blackout in Indian-controlled Kashmir is now the longest ever in a democracy -- at more than 135 days -- according to Access Now, an advocacy group that tracks internet freedom. Only the autocratic governments of China and junta-era Myanmar have cut off access for longer.

The blackout came as Indian troops flooded into Kashmir following New Delhi's removal of the region's legal autonomy. But the shutdown left some Kashmiris unaware of the reason the internet had been cut. And without internet access, they have been largely removed from the conversation ever since, so difficult is it for people in the region to get their messages out.

India's increased internet censorship has been greeted with delight in China, however, where state-run media pointed to it as an endorsement of Beijing's own authoritarian approach. The People's Daily said this week that India's example showed "shutting down the internet in a state of emergency should be standard practice for sovereign countries."

[Skittles]

1. Trump would LOVE to be able to control the internet

fits right in with his dictator-wannabe fantasies

[PatrickforO]

2. Yeah, that's what is scary here, because our government definitely has this

capability, and apparently Russia has created a 'mirror' internet so they can shut down all outside influences and still be online with government approved sites. Here's a link to a business insider article: https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-internet-shutdown-statistics-2019-6#mauritania-in-the-midst-of-a-near-total-internet-blackout-4

[keithbvadu2]

5. Does his 'national emergency' give him such powers?

[mwooldri]

3. Maybe time I got my amateur radio license.

It's the pre-Internet way of communicating beyond country borders, and shortwave radio was how nation states broadcast their view of the world. Shortwave radio is still in use, and amateur radio operators still exist. Modern computers have made learning Morse obsolete, and sending email via shortwave amateur frequencies is well established.

[Hoyt]

4. Too much money would be lost in USA. Heck, trump would freak out if he

couldn’t tweet his BS to millions of ignorant white wingers.

[keithbvadu2]

6. 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142128590

“Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.”

So that 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media?via=twitter_page

[IronLionZion]

7. Trump admin would love to shut it down in blue liberal areas

or target liberal sites like DU. You know, for "national security".

[hurple]

8. What we need is a firewall around russia

Block them out of worldwide internet traffic, completely. Seal the whole country in its own little box.

[Moostache]

9. Ham Radio time...

Reminds me of the old Christian Slater movie "Pump Up The Volume" (1990)...taking back the airwaves and communication from the corporate beast just might become VERY necessary sooner than many believe possible...

[Stonepounder]

10. As much as I agree that shutting down internet access is a terrible thing,

I don't think it could happen here. We depend in commerce via internet way to much. I write one check a month. Every other bill is paid via the internet. Even when I go grocery shopping, I use a debit card rather than having to carry cash. Amazon, Chewy, eBay, and the like would crater. Many of my bills come 'paperless' - in other words I get an emailed invoice.

Would Trump love to control the internet? Certainly. Would corporate America allow it? Highly doubtful.

[Crash2Parties]

11. There's no need to brute force shut off the internet

The FCC already allowed & encouraged IPS's & backbone carriers to shape traffic depending on their business needs with the death of Net Neutrality.

Management of the .org top level domain was sold off to a private equity firm owned by the likes of Ross Perot's family, Mitt Romney's family and a handful of others. It was done in a fascinating bit of self-dealing by the prior head of the group that controls the domain structure (ie how sites are named & accessed) of the Internet; he's now part of that private equity firm. Oh, and just prior he & his buddies removed price caps on the cost of .org domains.

It's little steps like these that will shape our Internet user experiences going forward. Those who control our access in so many subtle ways as a matter of profit also happen to be tightly aligned with the Republican Party and it's goals and values.

But so long as they can stream the latest movie, or still access propaganda sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & others, most people will be "happy enough" with the Internet. Most won't even realize the slow shifts as they occur.

[Igel]

12. And might become more common.

Social media has two questionable things going for it these days.

1. It can reach a lot of people very quickly. Easy to organize, easy to respond, easy to disperse and regroup. That means a lot of different things, from "go away, they're using teargas" to "the cops are assembling at Elm and Main, that's where you want to attack." Focus on one and not the other = ignore bad things and appear to support them. Good guys use social media, bad guys use social media.

2. A lot of false or, worse, incomplete information can be sent out, absorbed, and acted on before the truth or additional information is being typed. "They killed my baby!" can get a huge response before the first picture of the kid standing up after passing out is even taken.

It also has a good thing going for it.

3. The flip side of (2). Accurate information when the government's lying to you (not that big government is bad, of course) can be easily spread. Problem is that these days truth is often perception and feelings, so the "truth" may not actually be veridical, whoever's doing the promulgating. Take the USSR. Samizdat and rumors often provided much better information than Pravda and Izestiya, and that's what we remember. But at the same time, *most* of the rumors were simply false or ruinously incomplete. The only thing left is a deep suspicion of government, and the downside of that is a gullible belief of anything opposing the government.

The Internet is the heir of samizdat and the rumor-as-truth mill. It gave us Twitter and 8chan, Facebook and Myspace and Tiktok. Just as with samizdat and the rumor-as-truth mill, it doesn't provide us with higher thinking skills.