On the nonverbal tests you mention, I test significantly lower (~125) than on the ones geared specifically to test verbal IQ (~165). The ones not designed to filter in or out verbal skills I test in the 140 range (depending on the specific test). On the SAT (which, when I took it in the late 1970's, lined up fairly well with IQ test results) I got 1330, which translates roughly to a 133 IQ. On tests of structural visualization, I test at just marginally higher than average; one friend pointed out that I use other mental gymnastics to come up with the answers for structural visualization questions without actually visualizing structures, so I suspect that my score on such tests should be even lower than average.
So which one do I say is "my" IQ?
All of my results are significantly above average, but none of them agree with each other, and the differences are huge. I can believe that I'm atypical in showing a 40 point variation among differently designed tests, but I can't imagine that I'm atypical in showing a significant variation at all.
While I agree that IQ tests measure something, and that they roughly correlate with subjective impressions of intelligence and with academic success, the design of the test can make a huge difference.
Er... beg to differ with the grammatical objections. Aside from a disturbing lack of end punctuation, there is nothing at all wrong with the grammar.
It's a straightforward use of zeugma, a very common rhetorical device which (in this instance) links two direct objects of the same verb together without having to repeat the subject and verb.
Here is it with the implied subject and verb repeated in square brackets:
"I DO support open source, but [I do support] no p2p."
"I DO enjoy p0rn, but [I do enjoy] no pedophilia."
Perfectly grammatical.
I'll leave it up to someone else to defend the comparison of p2p with open source.
This is an oft-stated but ill-supported definition of "species". It's more problematic in botany than in zoology -- i.e., it seems to be far easier to create hybrids across species lines when interbreeding plants (think tangelos) than when interbreeding animals. But even in zoology it's not a firm rule. For example, donkeys and horses are considered separate species, but they produce viable offspring, and sometimes (rarely) those offspring are fertile.
At the other end of the species definition problem you have things like ring species. Are the individuals at either end of the ring different species, because they can't interbreed with individuals at the other end? Or are they the same species, because they can each interbreed with individuals from the intermediate areas?
Granted, these are rare phenomena. But they serve to illustrate that the definition of "species" is much hazier than the "can breed" sound byte suggests.
Your analogy doesn't hold up. The difference is not in what kind of equipment was used to commit the crime; if that were the case, we'd hear about "Delling" vs. "HPing". Also, if protecting oneself against a Ford required different measures than protecting oneself against a Chevy, then yes, by all means, those terms should be used. But defenses against the online scams and other forms of fraud, unlike getting run over by a car, do all require different tactics. Hence the different names.
Also, "DETROIT THRASH-CORE" may be the only kind of "heavy metal" that Bob's friend enjoys. If you're shopping for music that Bob's friend would like, it would be thoughtless to buy just anything that's "heavy metal" because you think drawing distinctions among kinds of heavy metal is "silly" or snobbish.
To put it another way -- I like citrus fruit a great deal. I love grapefruit and tangerines and kumquats and lemons and limes and key limes all about equally. I also like oranges -- but I am allergic to them. If you "call it what it is" and give me a citrus fruit (which happens to be an orange), then you will give me severe digestive discomfort.
Calling it "fraud" in not a better way of helping anyone prepare against the specific type of fraud that is called "spear phishing." Absolutely, spear phishing is fraud. But not all fraud is spear phishing.
The response to spear phishing requires precautions different from those against, say, a Ponzi scheme, or being sold a lemon at the car dealer's, or getting "slammed" by a long-distance provider, or stiffed by a customer if you're a server in a restaurant -- all of which are also types of fraud, with their own specialized terminology appropriate to the situation. There are some general guidelines you can follow to help avoid your vulnerability to any kind of fraud, but the general guidelines will only help you so far. To truly protect yourself, you need to prepare against the specific types you're likely to encounter. Sadly, nowadays "phishing" is one that most people who are at all wired are likely to encounter. It's possible that "spear phishing" (which requires a little more sophisticated response to guard against) may be another that we'll soon be more likely to encounter.
I repeat -- lumping them all together under one term is sometimes useful. But it is also useful sometimes to refer to them by different names. Ignoring that usefulness is far more "silly" than the practice of inventing new terms when new methods surface.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private university which receives some state funding; Pennsylvania State University is a public, state-funded university. This was the example with which I was most familiar. Do you have a source where I can check which of the ones in your list (or suggested as being included) might be in similar situations.
Not all libraries have security tapes. My library added them only five years ago, and only because of rampant physical vandalism by teens. Even so, we don't have any cameras trained on the Internet terminals (aside from a brief time a few years back during a child pornography investigation by the local police department). You might be able to match up the time of occurrence with the appearance of individuals on the tapes showing the entrances, parking lots, restroom doors, or other areas of the library. But that wouldn't provide direct evidence that person X used computer Y, only that person X was in the library during the span of time when computer Y was used to commit crime Z.
Now I'm hungry for alphabet soup, for some reason...
My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.
However, since you took it a different way...
I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)
::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.
Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.
As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.
You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.
"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.
Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.
As a reference librarian, I have no illusions about the reliability of Wikipedia. But unlike an awful lot of non-librarians, I also have no illusions about the reliability of the standard reference tools, either. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, World Almanac, and the OED have problems, too -- fewer, I'll readily grant you, but also far, far slower to come to light and be corrected.
How do you vet the "real sources"? What criteria do you use to decide that they are reliable? What criteria do you use to decide that what you think is an error in Wikipedia is indeed an error?
Ultimately, with Wikipedia as with the rest of the information world, you have only one guide to trust: your own judgment.
I work in a library. We provide free Internet access to literally thousands of patrons every week. Under state law, what you do in the library is confidential, so we do not keep any record of your Internet usage. Should an anonymous Wikipedia account be traced to a library IP, there is no possible way to determine who was using a particular library computer at a particular time on a particular day.
It might narrow you down to a particular physical community, or at least to being within driving distance of a particular community. But otherwise it sounds pretty darn anonymous to me.
Coughing is a symptom of many different diseases. However, this does not mean that it it definitionally impossible to choose to cough without being physically ill.
My definition of filthy is simple profanity without reason and the different flavors of hate speech... the anti-semitic and racist posts that I see
This is not a straightforward definition (despite its brevity). Define "profanity." Define "reason." Define "hate speech." Define "anti-Semitic." Define "racist."
I am sure that you have clear conceptions of each of these (and your conceptions of them might not be all that different from mine), but I guarantee you that your definitions of each will vary widely from other people's. What's more, though I suspect we agree substantially on these definitions, I must admit that I disagree quite strongly that such things constitute "filth".
So whose definitions would you want Slashdot to use to determine "filth"? Yours? What privileges your definition over anyone else's? Why not mine? Why not Larry Flynt's? Why not those of the very people who post what you consider "filth"?
I just wouldn't want any kids under say 14 years old reading some of the posts.
So you are saying that if my kid is under 14 years old, you would prevent him from reading them? That would be my decision as a parent to allow or forbid it. I don't recall surrendering my parental rights or responsibilities to anyone else. If you want to keep your own kids under 14 from reading them, fine and dandy. That's your right as a parent. (Mind you, I'll think you're silly, and naive, and doing your kids a disservice. But I will still support your right, because they're your kids.) Don't fancy, however, that your own necessarily subjective standard should apply to other people's kids.
Finally, just to keep this even marginally on topic, the same applies to the.xxx domain. Whose standards do we use to determine what belongs there? My father thinks Ernest Hemingway is pornographic. Shakespeare has been called that, too. The movie Midnight Cowboy earned an X rating when it was first issued. If it were released today, it might merit an R, but even so, it's significantly milder than much other "R" stuff out there nowadays. I don't doubt that various religious groups would put Baywatch or Richard Hatch's bare-assed antics on the original Survivor into the porn category. Robert Mapplethorpe's photography was attacked in the 1980s as pornographic. Parents have been hauled into court to defend innocent photos of their own nude children. So who gets to decide what qualifies as.xxx material and what doesn't?
If it's meant to be a system whereby people can opt to register as.xxx to make the pornographic nature of their goods clear, then well and good. But if it's meant as a way of preventing "pornography" from being available anywhere but a.xxx domain, then (just as with the parent's apparent desire to filter Slashdot for the rest of us) I would oppose it on both philosophical grounds (as being de facto censorship) and pragmatic ones (as being impossible to draw the line).
You don't have to change Slashdot to prevent yourself and your children from seeing the things you find "depressing".
There are many commercial filters that can filter out offending sites by keyword blocking. The things you object to on Slashdot could probably be blocked, if you truly don't want to read them. The downside is that you would probably wind up being mostly unable to read Slashdot if you applied such a filter.
Alternatively, you could write (or hire someone to write) a plugin for your browser that would find offensive words and, say, display them only in a white font, or insert the word "Smurf" every time an offensive word appears, or any other workaround that would prevent you from seeing the terms that offend you. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already written these, or sells software that does effectively the same thing.
If, however, you meant that you think you have the right to decide what my children should be allowed to read, that's a completely different matter. I will not help you find ways to do that, and I will oppose any effort to impose your standards of what qualifies as "filth".
She said no such thing. Reread her letter if that is the impression you took from it. What she said was: "The history of the Internet's extraordinary growth and adaptation , based on private-sector innovation and investment, offers compelling arguments against burdening the network with a new intergovernmental structure for oversight. It also suggests that a new intergovernmental structure would most likely become an obstacle to global Internet access for all our citizens."
Note that the "new intergovernmental structure" was what she didn't want controlling the Internet. "Intergovernmental" implies that more than one country would be involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, here's an example (me).
On the nonverbal tests you mention, I test significantly lower (~125) than on the ones geared specifically to test verbal IQ (~165). The ones not designed to filter in or out verbal skills I test in the 140 range (depending on the specific test). On the SAT (which, when I took it in the late 1970's, lined up fairly well with IQ test results) I got 1330, which translates roughly to a 133 IQ. On tests of structural visualization, I test at just marginally higher than average; one friend pointed out that I use other mental gymnastics to come up with the answers for structural visualization questions without actually visualizing structures, so I suspect that my score on such tests should be even lower than average.
So which one do I say is "my" IQ?
All of my results are significantly above average, but none of them agree with each other, and the differences are huge. I can believe that I'm atypical in showing a 40 point variation among differently designed tests, but I can't imagine that I'm atypical in showing a significant variation at all.
While I agree that IQ tests measure something, and that they roughly correlate with subjective impressions of intelligence and with academic success, the design of the test can make a huge difference.
Please tell me that you don't seriously believe that Cleveland is farm country ... ?!?
Ah, librarian stereotypes. Always good for a cheap laugh.
Wow. I didn't even know that Psych 101 was even taught on an airplane. Dang. I think I went to the wrong college, dude ...
Done. Now believe.
I don't know that I'd agree. That Mr MacDonald was recently arrested, don't you know.
Was that his name? Oh!
Er ... beg to differ with the grammatical objections. Aside from a disturbing lack of end punctuation, there is nothing at all wrong with the grammar.
It's a straightforward use of zeugma, a very common rhetorical device which (in this instance) links two direct objects of the same verb together without having to repeat the subject and verb.
Here is it with the implied subject and verb repeated in square brackets:
"I DO support open source, but [I do support] no p2p."
"I DO enjoy p0rn, but [I do enjoy] no pedophilia."
Perfectly grammatical.
I'll leave it up to someone else to defend the comparison of p2p with open source.
This is an oft-stated but ill-supported definition of "species". It's more problematic in botany than in zoology -- i.e., it seems to be far easier to create hybrids across species lines when interbreeding plants (think tangelos) than when interbreeding animals. But even in zoology it's not a firm rule. For example, donkeys and horses are considered separate species, but they produce viable offspring, and sometimes (rarely) those offspring are fertile.
At the other end of the species definition problem you have things like ring species. Are the individuals at either end of the ring different species, because they can't interbreed with individuals at the other end? Or are they the same species, because they can each interbreed with individuals from the intermediate areas?
Granted, these are rare phenomena. But they serve to illustrate that the definition of "species" is much hazier than the "can breed" sound byte suggests.
Tyranosaurus are carnivorus too, never eat one of them.
... :-)
Present tense? And here I was thinking they had gone extinct
::sings:: Weeee're on the islannnd of miiiisfit tooooyyyys....
Okay, I'll go sit in my [square] corner now.
Swear to God, that's what I thought I read.
I think it's time for bed now.
Don't you mean you call marklar "Marklar", to avoid marklar? :-D
Okay, all smartass response is turned off.
Your analogy doesn't hold up. The difference is not in what kind of equipment was used to commit the crime; if that were the case, we'd hear about "Delling" vs. "HPing". Also, if protecting oneself against a Ford required different measures than protecting oneself against a Chevy, then yes, by all means, those terms should be used. But defenses against the online scams and other forms of fraud, unlike getting run over by a car, do all require different tactics. Hence the different names.
Also, "DETROIT THRASH-CORE" may be the only kind of "heavy metal" that Bob's friend enjoys. If you're shopping for music that Bob's friend would like, it would be thoughtless to buy just anything that's "heavy metal" because you think drawing distinctions among kinds of heavy metal is "silly" or snobbish.
To put it another way -- I like citrus fruit a great deal. I love grapefruit and tangerines and kumquats and lemons and limes and key limes all about equally. I also like oranges -- but I am allergic to them. If you "call it what it is" and give me a citrus fruit (which happens to be an orange), then you will give me severe digestive discomfort.
Calling it "fraud" in not a better way of helping anyone prepare against the specific type of fraud that is called "spear phishing." Absolutely, spear phishing is fraud. But not all fraud is spear phishing.
The response to spear phishing requires precautions different from those against, say, a Ponzi scheme, or being sold a lemon at the car dealer's, or getting "slammed" by a long-distance provider, or stiffed by a customer if you're a server in a restaurant -- all of which are also types of fraud, with their own specialized terminology appropriate to the situation. There are some general guidelines you can follow to help avoid your vulnerability to any kind of fraud, but the general guidelines will only help you so far. To truly protect yourself, you need to prepare against the specific types you're likely to encounter. Sadly, nowadays "phishing" is one that most people who are at all wired are likely to encounter. It's possible that "spear phishing" (which requires a little more sophisticated response to guard against) may be another that we'll soon be more likely to encounter.
I repeat -- lumping them all together under one term is sometimes useful. But it is also useful sometimes to refer to them by different names. Ignoring that usefulness is far more "silly" than the practice of inventing new terms when new methods surface.
The University of Pennsylvania is a private university which receives some state funding; Pennsylvania State University is a public, state-funded university. This was the example with which I was most familiar. Do you have a source where I can check which of the ones in your list (or suggested as being included) might be in similar situations.
Not all libraries have security tapes. My library added them only five years ago, and only because of rampant physical vandalism by teens. Even so, we don't have any cameras trained on the Internet terminals (aside from a brief time a few years back during a child pornography investigation by the local police department). You might be able to match up the time of occurrence with the appearance of individuals on the tapes showing the entrances, parking lots, restroom doors, or other areas of the library. But that wouldn't provide direct evidence that person X used computer Y, only that person X was in the library during the span of time when computer Y was used to commit crime Z.
...
Now I'm hungry for alphabet soup, for some reason
My point in posting my comment was not to say "this is the way things should be" (although see below), but to point out that logging IPs is not, even remotely, any guarantee of being able to identify the wrongdoer.
...
::shrugs:: The attorneys & the retired judge on the library board, licensed with the state bar, are the ones who decided that our practice best complies with the applicable laws, including the state's law regarding confidentiality of library records. I happen to agree with them, but if you want to take our policy to task, then you really need to address the Ohio state legislature and bar. Your own state's requirements, of course, may differ. Even within Ohio, different libraries have interpreted the law differently in terms of day-to-day practice (although in my experience, most of them that have consulted attorneys have devised systems roughly as anonymous as ours; the ones still keeping name logs or other patron-identifying records are generally the ones who think they need to consult an attorney only after they have gotten into hot water). Many states have no library confidentiality law at all.
However, since you took it a different way
I have to say, I wonder if "state law" here is really not just an excuse to avoid responsible management of the network which includes logging and identifying patrons with some kind of sign-in system (Of course it's cheaper to have no sign in system at all, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do.)
Before Ohio passed the confidentiality law, my library used to keep a sign-in sheet at the desk where patrons signed in to use the computers. We had one particularly chilling example of the dangers of this when a stalker would come to sign up for the computers just as an excuse to look at the logs and see if his "ex-girlfriend" had been in the library that day. Luckily, no direct harm came to the ex-girlfriend through the library's disregard of her confidentiality. But the potential for such harm is one good reason not to keep logs.
As jahudabudy says, The library is there to provide tools. The people in charge decided that more good could come of providing free research access to anyone and everyone than harm.
You can scoff at it as irresponsible if you choose. Perhaps you're not aware that, quite independent of the legality of the issue, patron confidentiality is one of the core (although sadly, not universally practiced) professional ethics of librarianship, developed through a long collective process of debate and discussion among librarians worldwide. If you're interested in the topic, you might want to read what the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom has to say about Privacy and Confidentiality.
"But it's a library" may not carry the same weight as "but I'm his doctor" or "but I'm his attorney", but it does carry some weight (yes, even with the courts in some cases) insofar as it is a core ethic of the profession -- one of the practices, like doctor-patient confidentiality, or the seal of the confessional, that best enables the profession to fulfill its duties.
Finally, in light of the USA PATRIOT Act's granting of broad powers to the federal government to investigate your library records without your knowledge -- without a subpoena -- without the library staff even being allowed to tell each other, much less anyone in the general public, that there is even an investigation going on -- I rest much easier knowing that we keep no library records any longer than absolutely necessary for us to conduct the business of the library. This way there is no chance that a federal agency might abuse information about an innocent library patron's use of the library.
Define "real sources".
As a reference librarian, I have no illusions about the reliability of Wikipedia. But unlike an awful lot of non-librarians, I also have no illusions about the reliability of the standard reference tools, either. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, World Almanac, and the OED have problems, too -- fewer, I'll readily grant you, but also far, far slower to come to light and be corrected.
How do you vet the "real sources"? What criteria do you use to decide that they are reliable? What criteria do you use to decide that what you think is an error in Wikipedia is indeed an error?
Ultimately, with Wikipedia as with the rest of the information world, you have only one guide to trust: your own judgment.
I work in a library. We provide free Internet access to literally thousands of patrons every week. Under state law, what you do in the library is confidential, so we do not keep any record of your Internet usage. Should an anonymous Wikipedia account be traced to a library IP, there is no possible way to determine who was using a particular library computer at a particular time on a particular day.
It might narrow you down to a particular physical community, or at least to being within driving distance of a particular community. But otherwise it sounds pretty darn anonymous to me.
Wait -- those were actors?!?!!?
Funny, I never noticed any unpleasant taste with decaf beer...
Not at all.
Coughing is a symptom of many different diseases. However, this does not mean that it it definitionally impossible to choose to cough without being physically ill.
My definition of filthy is simple profanity without reason and the different flavors of hate speech ... the anti-semitic and racist posts that I see
.xxx domain. Whose standards do we use to determine what belongs there? My father thinks Ernest Hemingway is pornographic. Shakespeare has been called that, too. The movie Midnight Cowboy earned an X rating when it was first issued. If it were released today, it might merit an R, but even so, it's significantly milder than much other "R" stuff out there nowadays. I don't doubt that various religious groups would put Baywatch or Richard Hatch's bare-assed antics on the original Survivor into the porn category. Robert Mapplethorpe's photography was attacked in the 1980s as pornographic. Parents have been hauled into court to defend innocent photos of their own nude children. So who gets to decide what qualifies as .xxx material and what doesn't?
.xxx to make the pornographic nature of their goods clear, then well and good. But if it's meant as a way of preventing "pornography" from being available anywhere but a .xxx domain, then (just as with the parent's apparent desire to filter Slashdot for the rest of us) I would oppose it on both philosophical grounds (as being de facto censorship) and pragmatic ones (as being impossible to draw the line).
This is not a straightforward definition (despite its brevity). Define "profanity." Define "reason." Define "hate speech." Define "anti-Semitic." Define "racist."
I am sure that you have clear conceptions of each of these (and your conceptions of them might not be all that different from mine), but I guarantee you that your definitions of each will vary widely from other people's. What's more, though I suspect we agree substantially on these definitions, I must admit that I disagree quite strongly that such things constitute "filth".
So whose definitions would you want Slashdot to use to determine "filth"? Yours? What privileges your definition over anyone else's? Why not mine? Why not Larry Flynt's? Why not those of the very people who post what you consider "filth"?
I just wouldn't want any kids under say 14 years old reading some of the posts.
So you are saying that if my kid is under 14 years old, you would prevent him from reading them? That would be my decision as a parent to allow or forbid it. I don't recall surrendering my parental rights or responsibilities to anyone else. If you want to keep your own kids under 14 from reading them, fine and dandy. That's your right as a parent. (Mind you, I'll think you're silly, and naive, and doing your kids a disservice. But I will still support your right, because they're your kids.) Don't fancy, however, that your own necessarily subjective standard should apply to other people's kids.
Finally, just to keep this even marginally on topic, the same applies to the
If it's meant to be a system whereby people can opt to register as
You don't have to change Slashdot to prevent yourself and your children from seeing the things you find "depressing".
There are many commercial filters that can filter out offending sites by keyword blocking. The things you object to on Slashdot could probably be blocked, if you truly don't want to read them. The downside is that you would probably wind up being mostly unable to read Slashdot if you applied such a filter.
Alternatively, you could write (or hire someone to write) a plugin for your browser that would find offensive words and, say, display them only in a white font, or insert the word "Smurf" every time an offensive word appears, or any other workaround that would prevent you from seeing the terms that offend you. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already written these, or sells software that does effectively the same thing.
If, however, you meant that you think you have the right to decide what my children should be allowed to read, that's a completely different matter. I will not help you find ways to do that, and I will oppose any effort to impose your standards of what qualifies as "filth".
She said no such thing. Reread her letter if that is the impression you took from it. What she said was: "The history of the Internet's extraordinary growth and adaptation , based on private-sector innovation and investment, offers compelling arguments against burdening the network with a new intergovernmental structure for oversight. It also suggests that a new intergovernmental structure would most likely become an obstacle to global Internet access for all our citizens."
Note that the "new intergovernmental structure" was what she didn't want controlling the Internet. "Intergovernmental" implies that more than one country would be involved.