internet
Europe tells America what to do
05/05/09 12:18 Filed in: Internet
I’m trying not to giggle at this. Really I am.
The European Union is - wait for it - asking
President Barack Obama to hand over control of the
Internet to an international body. They think
he’s going to do this and will see the sense of
it. There’s a report here.
First let me say that I think the idea that a single country holds all of the aces as far as such an internationally-important resource is concerned sucks big time. Nobody needs to convince me that we would all be better off if America had a significant say in, rather than total control of, the Internet. This is because I am wise, balanced, sensible, oh yes, and not American.
President Obama, on the other hand, is indeed American. He is, as of November last year, one of the most important Americans on the planet. And his responsibility is to defend America’s interests wherever he goes. That part of his job seems to have been forgotten by a great many of his supporters in the international press and it’s unfortunate. It could make a lot of the decisions he’s bound to take look quite jingoistic as a result - not to the same extent as those of his predecessor but trust me, he’s going to start doing things that are very pro-America soon. He’s obliged to. It’s his responsibility.
So when I see a story entitled ‘Europe tells Obama to...’ well, anything, I start to get a bit giggly. The President will not and should not do anything contrary to his country’s interests, and handing over control of the Internet without some sort of good reason or evidence of payback certainly counts. I’d be pleased to be proven wrong, in principle the Internet is too big to be the property of any individual territory - but it’s America’s playground. Why should they give it up?
First let me say that I think the idea that a single country holds all of the aces as far as such an internationally-important resource is concerned sucks big time. Nobody needs to convince me that we would all be better off if America had a significant say in, rather than total control of, the Internet. This is because I am wise, balanced, sensible, oh yes, and not American.
President Obama, on the other hand, is indeed American. He is, as of November last year, one of the most important Americans on the planet. And his responsibility is to defend America’s interests wherever he goes. That part of his job seems to have been forgotten by a great many of his supporters in the international press and it’s unfortunate. It could make a lot of the decisions he’s bound to take look quite jingoistic as a result - not to the same extent as those of his predecessor but trust me, he’s going to start doing things that are very pro-America soon. He’s obliged to. It’s his responsibility.
So when I see a story entitled ‘Europe tells Obama to...’ well, anything, I start to get a bit giggly. The President will not and should not do anything contrary to his country’s interests, and handing over control of the Internet without some sort of good reason or evidence of payback certainly counts. I’d be pleased to be proven wrong, in principle the Internet is too big to be the property of any individual territory - but it’s America’s playground. Why should they give it up?
0 Comments
Spreading falsehood on the Web
20/04/09 12:11
Probably the most interesting thing about the case
reported in the Guardian, in which a man in Korea has
been acquitted of spreading falsehoods
on the web, is the way it highlights the
differences in culture and emphasises that the
Web might make us look at the same thing but
through many different sets of eyes. I sound
like Marco Pierre White at his most cryptic, I
know.
But it’s true. This Park guy sets himself up as an economic prophet. To a Western pair of eyes we see the word ‘prophet’ and already start to write him off as a chancer. He’s not serious, he’s calling himself a prophet, it’s a ludicrous title...but there it is. He’s one of these odd people you get from time to time who might, concievably, have something to say. Elsewhere it appears they take him seriously enough to take him to court when they find that some of his credentials are bogus.
There are areas in which it would be the same over here. Had he styled himself as an independent financial advisor in the UK without the right qualifications or offered actual financial advice without the right title there would have been regulatory questions to answer. But prophet? It sounds almost like guru. I hate to think of how many new media or social networking ‘gurus’ would be in serious trouble if they actually had to quantify their expertise.
But it’s true. This Park guy sets himself up as an economic prophet. To a Western pair of eyes we see the word ‘prophet’ and already start to write him off as a chancer. He’s not serious, he’s calling himself a prophet, it’s a ludicrous title...but there it is. He’s one of these odd people you get from time to time who might, concievably, have something to say. Elsewhere it appears they take him seriously enough to take him to court when they find that some of his credentials are bogus.
There are areas in which it would be the same over here. Had he styled himself as an independent financial advisor in the UK without the right qualifications or offered actual financial advice without the right title there would have been regulatory questions to answer. But prophet? It sounds almost like guru. I hate to think of how many new media or social networking ‘gurus’ would be in serious trouble if they actually had to quantify their expertise.