Slashdot Mirror


The Internet, Divided Between the US and China, Has Become a Battleground (wsj.com)

The global internet is splitting in two. From a report: One side, championed in China, is a digital landscape where mobile payments have replaced cash. Smartphones are the devices that matter, and users can shop, chat, bank and surf the web with one app. The downsides: The government reigns absolute, and it is watching -- you may have to communicate with friends in code. And don't expect to access Google or Facebook.

On the other side, in much of the world, the internet is open to all. Users can say what they want, mostly, and web developers can roll out pretty much anything. People accustomed to China's version complain this other internet can seem clunky. You must toggle among apps to chat, shop, bank and surf the web. Some websites still don't seem to be designed with smartphones in mind. The two zones are beginning to clash with the advent of the superfast new generation of mobile technology called 5G.

China aims to be the biggest provider of gear underlying the networks, and along with that it is pushing client countries to adopt its approach to the web -- essentially urging some to use versions of the "Great Firewall" that Beijing uses to control its internet and contain the West's influence. Battles are popping up around the world as Chinese tech giants try to use their market power at home to expand abroad, something they've largely failed to do so far. Some Silicon Valley executives worry the divergence risks giving Chinese companies an advantage in new technologies such as artificial intelligence, partly because they face fewer restrictions over privacy and data protection.
Further reading: Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Predicts the Internet Will Split in Two By 2028 -- and One Part Will Be Led By China.

78 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. With or without China's urging... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... I expect the Internet world to segment into Internet countries. The Internet, as we know it today, will be a relic in 20 years.

    1. Re:With or without China's urging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yea, the powers that be try to wrestle control away from the people and to governments and lobbies.

      Russia recently had their "disconnect from the rest of the world" test.
      China has its Great Firewall.
      The EU soon gets filters and Internet-"light" as to not run afoul of copyrights.
      In the US it's more driven by private companies that separate between what they deem acceptable and what not.

      We had a good run.

    2. Re:With or without China's urging... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The internet was great while it lasted.

      If you want to have something like that, I guess you have to do it yourself in the future.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:With or without China's urging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes. In fact, that is true going backwards too: the internet we knew 30 years ago is a relic, and what have today is a poor imitation with much less control for users and much more control for multinationals and authoritarian governments.

      That trend shows no sign of slowing down.

    4. Re:With or without China's urging... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      Downgraded due to "overrated?" Wow.

    5. Re:With or without China's urging... by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Internet, as we know it today, will be a relic in 20 years.

      That will obviously be true regardless. However, I think the early internet will resurface and some censorship-free platform, at least in countries that don't just ban all encrypted packets not to a whitelisted endpoint. Perhaps something like a v2 of Freenet, with its technical problems addressed. Something with no servers to take down. Hiding from large governments is hard - impossible if they just effectively ban encryption - but we could at least be free from corporate oversight, on a platform optimized for privacy over business.

      For now people are happy with VPNs, but with the rise of corporate censorship and the ever-increasing political power of content distribution corporations, I don't think that's stable.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:With or without China's urging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry friend. I got downvoted into he ground the other day for criticizing mass surveillance. Among tech people that isn't controversial at all, so I don't know who does this.

      Could be paid government shills, but Occum's razor it's probably just boot-licking citizens, who follow tow the media line, and don't really understand tech issues.

      This cancer has spread to all corners of the internet, /. HN Ars reddit

    7. Re:With or without China's urging... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      It pretty much is already de facto segmented by language and local norms. I don't know about you, but I use zero Chinese, Russian, Iranian, etc websites now. But segmented how, exactly? As in, no longer using one global IP address space? Or some interconnectivity, but using firewalls to filter traffic? Or literally physically separated from the internet?

    8. Re:With or without China's urging... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      You don't have to speak Russian to use shady VPN services to conceal yourself when you want it. One thing the citizens of each country can agree upon: We may not like the other countries politics, but our government's having 0 good relations, and our citizens being able to connect to one another, might be valuable in bypassing each of our governments various totalitarian excesses (just make sure the crime you commit on that foreign VPN isn't being committed in that foreign country).

    9. Re:With or without China's urging... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It'll happen. It's already happening. But it won't be a mass-access thing - it'll be something users need to actively seek out and educate themselves on in order to gain access. Almost all users will be happy to use FacebookNet, because it does what they want: They can do the social media thing, look things up, chat to friends, check the news, contact their bank, buy goods, etc. It'll just be the minority who want to sneak over to the bad side of town, into that lawless realm.

    10. Re:With or without China's urging... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      Only VPNs that specialize in geo-unblocking are useful for this. Most VPNs are just too easy to detect and block. The VPN has to actually be willing to engage in a cat and mouse game which is no doubt expensive. I think it won't be too long before the arms race escalates enough that the sorts of servers most VPNs use now will be useless. Only genuine consumer ISP IP addresses will be accepted by the 1/3 of the internet that geoblocks. I can only hope that at least some VPNs will be able to make a deal with ISPs for some of their addresses so that VPN blocking tech truly won't be able to tell the difference.

      A lot of the internet is already off limits in many poor countries if you don't use a VPN. It has become common practice it seems to basically just whitelist rich North American and European and Asian countries and just geoblock everyone else. A truly sad turn of events. I just noticed that any web site that uses Amazon AWS requires a VPN for me to download from or browse and of course there is no warning message. It just fails silently.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  2. This is stupid by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is just stupid. What does the speed of wireless networks have to do with ANY of the other aspects in the story at all? At 4G I am not bandwidth bound. I can stream video at a far higher resolution than needed for a 4" screen. It has no impact on shopping, messaging, banking, etc. Further, what does the network have to do with the apps that communicate over that network? We tried AOL once. It had everything this story talked about in one unified place and interface. It sucked. It went away because that's how our markets work. People use what they want to use, which is typically based on what gives them what they want and the way they want it.

    The fact that China will be producing networking 5G networking gear is... inconsequential. I'm sure there are many, many products created in China that are sold at tremendous volume that the West does not buy nor care to buy. No one here is going to buy 5G hardware with built in Chinese Government Approved and Controlled AI to restrict communication just because they make a lot of them or use them there.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one here is going to buy 5G hardware with built in Chinese Government Approved and Controlled AI to restrict communication just because they make a lot of them or use them there.

      Yeah, instead we'll just buy United States Government approved and backdoored chips to execute US corporate AI that monitors and analyzes our thoughts and movements for the powers that be to utilize and profit from in any way they see fit.

      Seems like hardly any difference between the two, except the US govt can put you in jail or do other things to you that the Chinese gov't can't do without somehow getting you to visit China first.

    2. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can stream video at a far higher resolution than needed for a 4" screen.

      Hi Grandpa!

      You may not have noticed, but 4" screens are o-o-old. The phablets we used to make fun of back when 4" was considered large have taken over. "Phones" with screens approaching (if not exceeding) 7" are common. And they have insanely high-res screens. The kids streaming video to these devices won't be satisfied with something as low-res as full-HD; it's got to be quad-HD or UHD or whatever the highest-res they can get is. Never mind that you're unlikely to be able to see a significant difference between UHD and SD on a screen that small, they paid for all those pixels so need to justify them.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I see a cloud that needs shouting at.

    3. Re:This is stupid by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      AOL didn't go away. It is still used by the less computer literate for just the reason you mention. I has everything in one place.

    4. Re:This is stupid by budsetr · · Score: 1

      Wait...but that means..OMG, China is AOL! This adds so much depth to You've Got Mail. A story of two unlikely Chinese lovers: one a traditionalist bookstore owner, the other a Communist Party corporate overlord.

    5. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At least the US government is obligated to give you a trial before it ruins your life.

      No they don't, and in fact haven't since 9/11. You do know what indefinite detention is ? It isn't applied only for Guantanamo prisoners that are tortured.
      It is also applied to US citizens in the US mainland. People held in jail for several years without having their day on court. It happens to people all over the country. Even in liberal bastions like New York city.

    6. Re:This is stupid by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      No one here is going to buy 5G hardware with built in Chinese Government Approved and Controlled AI to restrict communication just because they make a lot of them or use them there.

      Sure, no one here will but telecom companies that gets a deep discount (because it's subsidized) on the 5G hardware totally will. Do you really think businesses are above this?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:This is stupid by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They won't listen in the U.S. either. You won't be disappeared, but you will be pepper sprayed.

      But the point is if you are an American living in the U.S., a Chinese government back door and spying is less dangerous to you than a U.S. government back door and spying.

      The converse is also true.

    8. Re:This is stupid by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The problem, or not problem but interesting fact is: you don't grasp how backyard you are.
      America has internet everywhere (more or less?), but broadband only where it "pays off".
      The stories that "this city" or "that town" sill has no broadband, fibre, DSL - you name it - are all over /.

      But your country is doing nothing about it, because: private business.

      In China perhaps 80% of the rural population has no internet or is stuck with DSL.

      Everything they build up now there will be G5.

      Guess what kind of connectivity they will have in 10 years? G6 and fibres.
      In 20 years, G7 or G8 and fibres.

      And your country will still be stuck in the middle ages of "the internet".

      Must really suck to live in corporate USA as some call it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:This is stupid by sjames · · Score: 1

      The Feds don't pay teacher salaries.

    10. Re:This is stupid by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      If your country is part of the 5 eyes group then no, no you won't get that hardware in telecos.

      See TPG in Australia. They have pulled out of the 5g rollout here because huawei hardware was blocked on security grounds.

    11. Re:This is stupid by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      This is just stupid. What does the speed of wireless networks have to do with ANY of the other aspects in the story at all? At 4G I am not bandwidth bound. I can stream video at a far higher resolution than needed for a 4" screen. It has no impact on shopping, messaging, banking, etc. Further, what does the network have to do with the apps that communicate over that network? We tried AOL once. It had everything this story talked about in one unified place and interface. It sucked. It went away because that's how our markets work. People use what they want to use, which is typically based on what gives them what they want and the way they want it.

      Yes, you are not consuming state sponsored and approved and paid for publicity messages, especially downloading at a rate the government deems necessary. And you see to require a lot more of it, so you need to upgrade 5G where ambient speed exures you're seeing party messaging allt h time.

    12. Re:This is stupid by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If your country is part of the 5 eyes group then no, no you won't get that hardware in telecos.

      I certainly hope you are right because we have fucking idiots in charge. They ZTE off the hook and tried to pay to make a FoxConn factory.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    13. Re:This is stupid by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I can tell you've never been to China. Get two people together over a beer or a coffee in Shanghai and the first thing they'll start talking about is all the ways they think the government is fucking them over.

    14. Re:This is stupid by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      A close friend of mine owns a specialist telco. The hoops that they have to jump through for hardware compliance are significant.

      The concern is less about whether a foreign country can snoop on data than a foreign country could bring down the network by changing settings in the core networking equipment. While it is possible to isolate an internal network device, a core switch has to have its management interface accessible, and it is there that the risk is perceived.

    15. Re:This is stupid by strikethree · · Score: 1

      But the point is if you are an American living in the U.S., a Chinese government back door and spying is less dangerous to you than a U.S. government back door and spying.

      That is exactly why I have a Huawei smart phone. If there is going to be a backdoor, I want the organization that has access to it to not have any direct control over my life. China doesn't care about me. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    16. Re:This is stupid by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      Honest question. Would they do it in a room full of people? Would they post it in WeChat or QQ?

  3. not designed for smartphones by Megane · · Score: 2

    Some websites still don't seem to be designed with smartphones in mind.

    #secondworldproblems

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:not designed for smartphones by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah-not-this-crap-again.jpg

      First world = the USA and its allies (back when they pulled their weight and weren't useless freeloaders). Second world = the USSR and its satellites. Third world = everyone else.

      The second world ceased to exist around 1991. No, China isn't a part of it, they broke with the Soviets in the 1960s.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:not designed for smartphones by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is the US version of the mantra.

      First world: the developed word around 1950, that included USSR (and others).
      Second world, poorer countries mostly agriculture, less industrial development.
      Third world, poorly developed lacking infrastructure, starvations, dictatorships, usually no industries.
      Fourth world: even worth.

      Your "definition" never was an established one, and it is not the one the creators of the terms defined.

      I wonder why one of your age in our times still/silly reiterates that myth. Political orientation or blocks never where a metric for defining if one is a first world or a second world country.

      If that was the case, we only had first world now and China. Or do you consider Russia an "opponent" (why you consider China an opponent is beyond me anyway).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:not designed for smartphones by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This is literally what First World, Second World, and Third World mean. There was no such fourth world. All terms were in common usage - except Second World which ceased to exist thirty years ago. This led people unfamiliar with the terms, but nonetheless hearing "first world" and "third world" erroneously concluded that "second world" must be some kind of intermediate step. It is not, it refers to the Soviet bloc. I wish you all the best in your ongoing battle with reality. Yours respectfully, a logical person.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:not designed for smartphones by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      This is literally what First World, Second World, and Third World mean.
      No it is not, I explained what it means in my previous post.

      There was no such fourth world.
      Yes there was, e.g. Somalia and Ethiopia belonged to the fourth world, now they are third world, Ethiopia even approaching "developing nation" status.

      Your definition is a retarded american redefinition of the original terms, and was never used anywhere outside of the US. I doubt it was the standard in the us anyway.

      It is not, it refers to the Soviet bloc. It never did :D It referred to countries changing from mainly agrarian to industrialized countries, which overlaps partly obviously with the former eastern block.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:not designed for smartphones by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You are literally wrong. There was no such concept of fourth world. Third World was unaligned countries, India and so forth. These terms are in common usage and for you to invent new ones is utterly retarded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Second World is a term that was used during the Cold War to refer to the industrial socialist states that were under the influence of the Soviet Union."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  4. Not all the West... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe much of the West is a theocracy, but the U.S. government was explicitly designed with the concept of separation of church and state - we may be unique in that regard.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not all the West... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And, ironically, people vote their religion more in the US than in much of the rest of the civilized world's representative governments.

    2. Re:Not all the West... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Separation of state and legacy religions perhaps, but not between state and the new god called capitalism.

      In the same way that older governments promoted one religion in a way that screwed everyone, modern governments often promote capitalism in a way that screws everyone. America is probably the worst example, with politics dominated by corporate interests and corporate money.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Not all the West... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe much of the West is a theocracy, but the U.S. government was explicitly designed with the concept of separation of church and state - we may be unique in that regard.

      Explain that to the schools that are forced to teach backwards ideas like intelligent design as if it were based in fact rather than fantasy at the expense of teaching actual, fact-based science. Explain that to the places where teaching any form of contraception but the rhythm method is heretical, where teenagers are not allowed access to proper sex education and protection. Explain that to places where abortion is discouraged by killing people and firebombing clinics, assuming clinics are even allowed to open in the first place. Explain that to homosexuals who still have to live in the shadows or face ostracism and physical abuse. (Sure, things are improving, but glacially slowly.)

      The U.S. may pay lip service to the separation of church and state, but in practice the church holds plenty of sway over the state.

    4. Re:Not all the West... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, right, "in god we trust", "put your han on the bible and repeat after me" etc. etc.

    5. Re:Not all the West... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      we may be unique in that regard.
      Sure ... how dumb are you actually?

      Has someone hacked your account?

      Half your posts make sense.

      The other half is beyond nonsense.

      Name me a a secular state which's population is more than 905 muslim? Wow, you can't. You fail.
      Show me a single european nation that is not secular ... good luck.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Not all the West... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's a bit more complicated than that. The US government was designed by a lot of people, with a need to appease a lot of interests, so most of the constitution is some sort of compromise for the time. The constitution does prohibit the government from either prohibiting free exercise of respecting an establishment thereof, but throughout most of US history it was very common for government agencies and officials to openly endorse Christianity - and no-one minded, because when 95%+ of the country are Christian, who is going to object? So long as they avoided endorsing any particular denomination, all went well. It's only in the last century that serious disputes arose because the country became more religiously diverse.

    7. Re:Not all the West... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The US Federal Government was designed to stay out of the way of the individual States having their own individual religions.
      Read the 1st amendment, it only banned Congress, not the States, from enacting certain laws infringing on speech and religion.
      Now look at current US politics, where religion plays a large part, larger then many (most?) western nations. I'm only aware of one Canadian politician who stated his religious believes whereas almost every American politician asserts their religion, and it is very hard for a non-Christian sect politician to get elected and it was a big deal when a Catholic got elected back in 1960. You have become more accepting of Jews though and it is mostly tradition rather then law that makes the USA a religious based country.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Not all the West... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      A large segment of or population flat out disagrees with that assertion. If it grows, it will eventually become the reality as far as case law is concerned.

    9. Re:Not all the West... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Especially that new religion, endemic mostly to the US and Canada, that doesn't identify as a religion. Its core tenets are racism, privileges and invented genders, it's extremely vile towards unbelievers, and it has taken over quite a few state and city governments.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re: Not all the West... by SETY · · Score: 1

      Thatâ(TM)s only on paper. In reality he USA is probably more of a theocracy than most (all?) western nations today. Even trump goes to church for show, otherwise you are unelectable.

  5. buzzword compliant by bigdavex · · Score: 2

    Some Silicon Valley executives worry the divergence risks giving Chinese companies an advantage in new technologies such as artificial intelligence, partly because they face fewer restrictions over privacy and data protection.

    Umm, yeah, and block chain.

    --
    -Dave
  6. One app to rule them all? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    No thanks! I don't want my banking app to do anything else!

    And websites designed "with smartphones in mind" tend to stink on a desktop. I really don't want my experience to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

  7. That's not at all the case by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Informative

    The right wing is hardly religious at all any more. If you want to look for modern day puritanism you have to look to the left, who are busy shutting down sex workers and decreeing women dress modestly, and do not allow people to voice open options on anything not approved of by the priests of the left...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That's not at all the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The right wing is hardly religious at all any more.

      It's fascinating to observe the absolute and unmitigated bullshit you continue to post here.
      Good Job Ken, keep it up!

    2. Re:That's not at all the case by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, that sounds like a fair description of the right too. On the particular issues you mention,it can be hard to tell them apart at times.

    3. Re:That's not at all the case by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      See, exactly! While liberals are puckered up so tight nothing will fit. Partial proof is in declining birth rates in strongly liberal areas.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:That's not at all the case by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You are one slimy little shit.
      You know damn well modesty regulations and laws come from the conservative side of the spectrum. In fact, you know you're full of shit on every point you made.
      You're just trying to replace reality with a convenient interpretation because you thrive on the confusion. You're a sycophant. I hope you aren't long for this world.

    5. Re: That's not at all the case by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Great, so there are no threats to womens right to have abortions.

      Only from over-reaching Democrats who decided killing babies after birth is just fine. Until that point there was no danger no.

      No overt religious agenda on that one... right?

      Religion seriously has nothing to do with abortion, it's a purely moral issue that exists outside of religion.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Re:Just a matter of time by Megane · · Score: 1

    hell even the core elements of Taoism preach this.

    I'm pretty sure that's Confucianism. People seem to get them confused as much as they do patents, copyrights, and trademarks.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  9. Totalitarian Dictatorship by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China is a Communist Totalitarian Dictatorship with a thin veneer of capitalism.

    Never forget that. Never be surprised at the atrocious things it does.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Totalitarian Dictatorship by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They aren't even that communist. Lots of public-private partnerships though.

    2. Re:Totalitarian Dictatorship by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake, EVERY company is beholden to the government in one way or another. Any consequential company undoubtedly has government representatives embedded.

      You are just being fooled by that thin veneer.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Totalitarian Dictatorship by aybiss · · Score: 1

      How is that different to how the US works? Mind your own thin veneer before you worry about everyone else's.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    4. Re:Totalitarian Dictatorship by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      No, China's totalitarian government would have collapsed if it hadn't abandoned communism. In the long run communism is simply not a viable economic system, but capitalism is not freedom. Capitalism is a socialist economic system that is entirely compatible with authoritarian government.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  10. Internet is not the only thing it wants to control by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All mosques must fly Chinese flag along with any religious flags they choose to fly. All imams must be approved by the government.

    All bishops in all churches must be state approved. Vatican is ok with this arrangement it seems

    All Buddhist monastery lamas must be state approved. It has disrupted the centuries old tradition of Panchan lama finding the reincarnation of the Dalai lama and Dalai lama finding the reincarnation of Panchan lama. The current Dalai lama is in exile. Old Panchan lama is dead, replaced by government approved lama. They did not permit current Dalai lamas emissaries into China looking for the reincarnate. So Chinese government will identify the next Dalai lama once the current one dies.

    Now, internet? Why would anyone think China will accept an international control of the internet?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Pretty sure the EU has the Internet by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, it was designed to be segmentable.

    Just block stuff from countries that host hackers

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  12. Re: It really wasnt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The internet turned whole generations into morans that know nothing unless they have their phone.

  13. Do Not Want. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    The Internet in many ways is already turning into a shithole even without it being like in China; if the Internet as a whole went the way China would have it, then I'd yank it out of the wall and forget about it, it wouldn't be worth having anymore.

  14. More US siliness about 5G by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    "China aims to be the biggest provider of gear underlying the networks, and along with that it is pushing client countries to adopt its approach to the web -- essentially urging some to use versions of the "Great Firewall" that Beijing uses to control its internet and contain the West's influence."

    Pure nonsense, nowhere does China try to urge anyone to use its firewall.

    "Users can say what they want, mostly, and web developers can roll out pretty much anything."

    Laughable considering how gab.com was no-platformed for allowing "pretty much anything".

  15. Not my experience. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Turns out the Chinese people are exactly like you and I. They use more than just smartphones... lol

    --
    [($)]
  16. Re:Internet is not the only thing it wants to cont by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    No worries, the next Dalai Lama will be identified. And most certainly not by Chinese officials.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. Funny by sjames · · Score: 1

    I love how the SV guys try to slip in a permission slip to violate privacy and be careless with our data. Perhaps THAT is why things fall behind. We don't have mobile payments because the banks are too busy fighting over whose fee will reign supreme.

    It's all a totalitarian play, the only difference is who gets to be the God Emperor.

  18. Re:Internet is not the only thing it wants to cont by kbahey · · Score: 1

    And there is a massive push by the Chinese government to 're-educate' the ethnic Uyghur Muslims in western China, at an unprecedented scale.

  19. Re: It really wasnt. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    it's in the same dictionary as 'whoooooosh' i think

  20. Say thank you by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Say thank you that it's not the other way arround. If the state would diktate corporate interests you would be China. I like your kidney.... can I has it?

  21. glacially slow ? by gDLL · · Score: 1

    glacially slow is far better than black vans, son. Which is what we had in the 50s. Kiss the next dollar bill you see, it means you got freedom.

  22. Re: It really wasnt. by quenda · · Score: 1

    I believe you meant morons...I don't know what a moran is.

    Get a Brain, AC!

  23. Disconnect China, Iran, and Russia by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

    We need a secure and anonymous internet where all traffic and content are encrypted and no bulk surveillance or government manipulation are possible or allowed. If the evil dictators cannot accept this, they do not deserve to be connected to the rest of the world - disconnect them. In reality, the internet is already fragmented anyways. Disconnecting the evil dictatorships would help to reduce the hacking and massive spam currently tainting our internet.

    1. Re:Disconnect China, Iran, and Russia by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      We would, but their citizens are worth too much money to our megacorps.

  24. Re:It depends on where your history lies... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The freedom to mention:
    Tiananmen square protests in 1989.
    Share a cartoon bear.
    That Taiwan is real China.

    Thats the difference between the freedom of the USA and the control of the Communist party.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. 5G E by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    the superfast new generation of mobile technology called 5G.

    "5G E is better. It has more E." - AT&T.

  26. One App ?? by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    One side, championed in China, is a digital landscape where mobile payments have replaced cash. Smartphones are the devices that matter, and users can shop, chat, bank and surf the web with one app.

    Sounds like Genisys.

  27. Rommance of the networks by MariusBoo · · Score: 1

    The internet long united, must divide; long divided, must unite. Thus it has ever been.