As we come up on the dawn of IPv6, it will be simpler and less resource intensive for ISP's to block regions of the world due to the geographical hierarchy of the addressing structure. The truth of the matter is that we're better off letting China, Russia, Iran, etc. splinter off their internet. Let them filter and remove the entire essence of the internet - freedom of speech and choice - from their people/slaves/sheep, and succeed at one thing - making THEIR internet completely irrelevant to the rest of the world and even their people/slaves/sheep. Even better, it will give the US and whatever other nations of the world valid reason to finally just block IP ranges from China, Russia, Iran, etc which house the majority of all botnet herders, spammers, and blackhat hackers of the world - especially China and Russia who have been known to fund these endeavors with government funds. The politicians are too entrenched in diplomacy to just go ahead and cut the cord, so we continue to be hacked and spammed without even a slap on the wrists to the culprit. When was the last time you were on a Russian or Chinese hosted website (and weren't browser hijacked to redirect to it)?
This is not a revolutionary idea. In the lower ISP levels, things like this are done at customer request all the time. I've had customers of mine actually request to have an entire foreign nation/continent blocked at the border router level from accessing specifically their systems, due to repeated Nigerian scammers flooding their site with fake orders, Russian based DDoS attacks, etc. The end result was that our customers stopped getting hit with scams, and they didn't care much about their lack of ability to reach African or Russian hosted websites.
The western world built the initial internet based on freedom of speech and choice. It was, and still is, a disparate mesh of parts that no one entity controls. Most of this debate in the UN is purely masterbatory, similar to most of what the UN does. The truth is that these ill-educated politicians think there's a mainframe somewhere that controls it all, and therefore THEY should control it. Strangling free speech on the internet in the name of "decency" would just strangle it into a slow obscure death, followed by the rise of a more disparate network of computers where free speech will reign and the next iteration will begin.
Slashdot Mirror
As we come up on the dawn of IPv6, it will be simpler and less resource intensive for ISP's to block regions of the world due to the geographical hierarchy of the addressing structure. The truth of the matter is that we're better off letting China, Russia, Iran, etc. splinter off their internet. Let them filter and remove the entire essence of the internet - freedom of speech and choice - from their people/slaves/sheep, and succeed at one thing - making THEIR internet completely irrelevant to the rest of the world and even their people/slaves/sheep. Even better, it will give the US and whatever other nations of the world valid reason to finally just block IP ranges from China, Russia, Iran, etc which house the majority of all botnet herders, spammers, and blackhat hackers of the world - especially China and Russia who have been known to fund these endeavors with government funds. The politicians are too entrenched in diplomacy to just go ahead and cut the cord, so we continue to be hacked and spammed without even a slap on the wrists to the culprit. When was the last time you were on a Russian or Chinese hosted website (and weren't browser hijacked to redirect to it)? This is not a revolutionary idea. In the lower ISP levels, things like this are done at customer request all the time. I've had customers of mine actually request to have an entire foreign nation/continent blocked at the border router level from accessing specifically their systems, due to repeated Nigerian scammers flooding their site with fake orders, Russian based DDoS attacks, etc. The end result was that our customers stopped getting hit with scams, and they didn't care much about their lack of ability to reach African or Russian hosted websites. The western world built the initial internet based on freedom of speech and choice. It was, and still is, a disparate mesh of parts that no one entity controls. Most of this debate in the UN is purely masterbatory, similar to most of what the UN does. The truth is that these ill-educated politicians think there's a mainframe somewhere that controls it all, and therefore THEY should control it. Strangling free speech on the internet in the name of "decency" would just strangle it into a slow obscure death, followed by the rise of a more disparate network of computers where free speech will reign and the next iteration will begin.