Have cake. Eat cake
I'm not sure we can have both free expression and social justice.
All the social justice warriors want to do is limit free expression.
The internet could go one of three paths in the next decade, according to an elite group of policymakers: open and global; unequal and uneven; or dangerous and broken. And the path to righteousness? It's contained in the recommendations of the 140-page report that the grandly named Global Commission on Internet Governance ( …
>All the social justice warriors want to do is limit free expression.
Yep everything would be better if we just let the corporations practice their desired religion unfettered and spend unlimited amounts of money in the political process (it's free speech after all). OCP approves.
Predicting the future is a bit hard, isn't it? I think the safest thing to do with reports like this is to use them to occupy spare disk space, sit back, and see what actually happens.
the approach taken by such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Society (ISOC) and so on "may not always be sustainable, particularly as the pioneers who established and remain key supporters of these bodies disappear from the scene." Well, I don't think the dependency on the pioneers is very important. What I see in those organizations is regular turnover in the leadership. OK, Steve Crocker wrote RFC 1 and is currently chairing ICANN, but he's virtually the only pioneer still in such a position. (Tim Berners-Lee is an upstart, whose Internet history only started in 1989.)
"The internet could go one of three paths in the next decade, according to an elite group of policymakers: open and global; unequal and uneven; or dangerous and broken."
It looks like option three has been the default for about thirty years now, if most tech headlines are anything to go by.
I've often wondered if we'll end up with more than one 'type' of internet. I know nothing about it so probably barking up the wrong tree.
One would be a Gov't and business internet for inter and intra-business/Gov't activity only. It would have access to all the premium routing/resilience/hardware and security measures. It may even have it's own unique proprietary protocol.
Another would be for business interface to customers and academic interchange. As a commercial space they'll insist on any user being registered and identifiable and open to monitoring to reduce fraudulent activity. It would have 2nd level premium routing/resilience/hardware and security measures.
There will be more 'island' internets emerge that have hard borders to ward off the intrusion of the state actors like US, UK, China and Russia.
Then there would be the general purpose web, the poorer cousin with non-premium routing and hardware, a free-for-all approach to security, essentially what we have now. Businesses operating here are more likely to be using crowd-funding and digital currencies. The elites will attempt to let this internet wither and die by making it more attractive to sign up to the 'business' internet. But it may end up evolving in unexpected ways through clever innovation and peoples general desire to not be dictated to by business and Gov't.
--
One would be a Gov't and business internet for inter and intra-business/Gov't activity only. It would have access to all the premium routing/resilience/hardware and security measures.
--
In what world would the security measures be used for the benefit of the businesses that are not already "connected" to the government. Long before the various TLAs got busy scanning for nude selfies, they were often engaged in industrial espionage, to privilege their favorites over those who had not properly supported the ruling party. What evidence suggests this would change?