politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Who here is old enough to remember the "internet kill switch"?
many countries have them. they are used to orchestrate media blackouts.
Not sure why you are downvoted. Some countries even use them during testing times so students don't cheat or get distracted or whatever when taking tests. I'm not even kidding
https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/tracking-internet-shutdowns-in-2023
Back when that bill I linked was introduced, the generally-accepted narriative was that "sure most governments can shut off the internet to their own countries, but the U.S. can shut off the internet for the whole world." So, yes, other countries have internet kill switches, but if that's (still) true, probably no country can more drastically hobble the worldwide internet as a whole.
The root DNS servers are in the U.S.. The first internet backbone is in the U.S.. In 2010, it seemed like the U.S. government did have the power to make virtually the entire internet grind to a rapid halt.
IIRC there was also language in the bill saying all kinds of bullshit things about how since the internet was started in the U.S. by a U.S. government agency, the U.S. "owned" the internet and thus... had every right to shut off the internet if they so chose or some shit.
Since I first saw your comment, I did a little googling. Not a ton, and the sources I've found so far aren't all that reliable. But mostly the answers I've found say that the U.S.' ability to shut down the internet to other parts of the world is more limited than I'd heard it was in 2010. I'm not sure if it was overstated back then or if things have changed since then (or if the sources I found are wrong and the U.S. government could pretty much destroy the whole internet if it chose to.) But hopefully it's true that the U.S. doesn't have that kind of power.
Root DNS servers are geographically spread and definitely not only in US.
https://www.pingdom.com/blog/dns-root-server-geography-facts/
And you don't even need them, for the short term. Virtually all of your DNS queries are answered by machines much closer to you than the root servers. If you don't have it in a local DNS cache, you go to the authoritative nameserver for the domain you're requesting, which is also not a root DNS server, but one of the millions of other zone nameservers. Shutting down the root servers can also be routed around by setting up a different configuration, or just routing the addresses for the roots to something else that you control.
Then you get to the backbones, which are a bigger deal. Shut a few of those down--maybe with the enforcement help of local cops and the FBI, assuming you can get them on board--and you'll slow traffic to a crawl. No Netflix for most folks, not for a while. But communication itself would still find a way around.
And all of that assumes he can even get anyone to agree to this, and he's probably the only person with any power who's stupid enough to think this is a good idea. It just doesn't work, not on any level, not even if he takes office, still thinks this is a good idea (which he doesn't, this is an obvious bluff), and can find a bunch of idiots in power willing to help.
Originally, sure, but now of days its anycasted. And should we lose root servers, it'd be chaos for a while, but we'd survive.
i didn't say it was a good thing. i think "media blackouts" is obviously negative enough.