Mediaboss Marketing

Four Internets: Data, Geopolitics, and The Governance of Cyberspace By Kieron O'Hara and Wendy Hall Oxford University Press 342 pages ISBN: 978-0-19-752368-1 22.99

The early days of the internet were marked by cognitive dissonance expansive enough to include both the belief that the emerging social cyberspace could not be controlled by governments and the belief that it was constantly under threat of becoming fragmented.

Twenty-five years on, concerns about fragmentation -- the 'splinternet' -- continue, but most would admit that the Great Firewall of China, along with shutdowns in various countries during times of protest, has proved conclusively that a determined government can indeed exercise a great deal of control if it wants to.

Meanwhile, those who remember the internet's beginnings wax nostalgic about the days when it was 'open', 'free', and 'decentralised' -- qualities they hope to recapture via Web3 (which many argue is already highly centralised).

The big American technology companies dominate these discussions as much as they dominate most people's daily online lives, as if the job would be complete after answering "What's to be done about Facebook?". The opposition in such public debates is generally the EU, which has done more to curb the power of big technology companies than any other authority.

In Four Internets: Data, Geopolitics, and The Governance of Cyberspace, University of Southampton academics Kieron O'Hara and Wendy Hall argue that this framing is too simple. Instead, as the title suggests, they take a broader international perspective to find four internet governance paradigms in play.

These are: the open internet (which the authors connect with San Francisco); the 'bourgeois Brussels' internet that the EU is trying to regulate into being via legislation such as the Digital Services Act; the commercial ('DC') internet; and the paternalistic internet of countries like China, who want to control what their citizens can access.

You can quibble with these designations; the open internet needed many other locations for its creation besides San Francisco, but the libertarian Californian ideology dominated forward thinking in that period. And where I, as an American, see Big Tech as creatures of libertarian San Francisco, it's in Washington DC that their vast lobbying funds are being spent. Without DC's favourable policies, the commercial internet would not exist in its present form. O'Hara and Hall are, in other words, talking policy and ethos, not literally about who created which technologies or corporations.

Much of the book outlines the benefits and challenges deriving from each of these four approaches. Each provokes one or more policy questions for the authors to consider in the light of the four paradigms, and emerging technologies that may change the picture. A few examples: how to maintain quality in open systems; how to foster competition against the technology giants; whether a sovereign internet is possible; and when personal data should cross borders. None of these issues are easy to solve, and authors don't pretend to do so.

"This is not a book about saving the world," O'Hara and Hall write. Instead, it's an attempt to provide the background and understanding to help the rest of us find workable compromises that take the best from each of these approaches. Compromise will be essential, because the authors' four internets are not particularly compatible.

RECENT AND RELATED CONTENT

Brazil bans Telegram over unresponsiveness around tackling disinformation

OMB's Zero Trust strategy: Government gets good

Cybersecurity 101: Protect your privacy from hackers, spies, and the government

Chinese tech companies must undergo government cyber review to list overseas

Chinese government declares all cryptocurrency transactions illegal

Read more book reviews

See original here:
Four Internets, book review: Possible internet futures, and how to reconcile them - ZDNet

On this Monday's Reason Roundtable, with Katherine Mangu-Ward out, Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and special guest Fiona Harrigan discuss the latest on the war in Ukraine and the ongoing Disney "groomer" panic.

1:37: Ukraine update: What the U.S. should and shouldn't do in Ukraine

19:27: The great "groomer" debate.

38:01: Weekly Listener Question: "Can a tent be too big? I understand the definition of libertarianism is fluid, but there has to be limits to that. Any time someone tries to nail down a few ideas, it's always countered with them saying "no true Scotsman fallacy" or "libertarianism is the goal, but we need to be pragmatic in the short term". All of this, however, is a convoluted way for me to say the LP of NH, the Mises Caucus, and last week's Roundtable emailer are not libertarian and should stop using the word. DeSantinistas, Trumpers, pro-Putin trad cons, and all right-wing reactionaries need to be disavowed and loudly."

This week's links:

"The Case for Pursuing the Issue of Russian War Crimes in Ukraine - Even Though Putin is Highly Unlikely to Ever be Tried and Punished" by Ilya Somin

"From Iraq to Ukraine, the American Press Loves a War" by Fiona Harrigan

"Ukraine Crisis: U.S. Must Use Restraint" by Nick Gillespie

"'Equity,' 'Multiculturalism,' and 'Racial Prejudice,' Among Concepts That Could Be Banned in Schools by Wisconsin Bill" by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"40 Years of Free Minds and Free Markets" by Brian Doherty

"Goodnight, Moonshot" by Matt Welch

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

Tired of feeling like someone's always watching you on the internet? Maybe advertisers know a bit too much about you, or you're concerned about the privacy of your identity. Using incognito mode won't solve the problem either. IPVanish VPN is here to protect your right to privacy and help you stay anonymous online.

IPVanish helps you safely browse the internet without exposing your private details to third parties, such as hackers, your ISP, or advertisers.

You can use IPVanish on unlimited devices without sacrificing on speed: your computers, tablets, phoneseven devices like your Firestick when you're streaming media. When you use IPVanish, all of your data is encrypted. This means that your private details, passwords, communications, browsing history, and more will be completely shielded from falling into the wrong hands. Even your physical location will be hidden. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. It's that simple.

Whether I'm at home or in public, I don't go online anymore without using IPVanish. IPVanish is offering an incredible 70 percent off their yearly plan for our listeners with a 30-day money-back guarantee. That's just like getting 9 months for free.

IPVanish is super easy to use. All you have to do is tap one button, and you're instantly protected. You won't even know it's on. Stop sharing with the world everything you watch, everything you search for, and everything you buy. Take your privacy back today with the brand rated 4.6 out of 5 on Trustpilot.

Go to IPVANISH.com/roundtable and use promotional code ROUNDTABLE to claim your 70 percent savings. That's I-P-V-A-N-I-S-H.com/roundtable.

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty and Adam Czarnecki

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

Here is the original post:
The Real War in Ukraine and the Culture War in Florida - Reason

The Dudley Council elections are traditionally close between Labour and the Conservatives

Traditionally a neck-and-neck race between Labour and the Conservatives, the borough has turned decidedly blue over recent election cycles.

The Tories now hold 45 of the 72 available seats, with Labour trailing behind on 23.

This year two seats will be contested in Halesowen South following the death earlier this year of Conservative councillor and deputy leader David Vickers.

Labour is campaigning for more funding from central government and highlighting perceived Conservative failings on a national level, including over taxes and Partygate.

The group has also targeted local issues including the loss of the Anchor Lane tip which has infuriated many residents in the north of the borough and the 100,000 spent on the MIPIM conference trip.

Under leader Councillor Qadar Zada, the dwindling group is desperate not to lose anymore seats after suffering a catastrophic set of results in 2021, when the Tories managed a dozen gains.

Labour believes that picking up councillors in a couple of tightly-contested wards such as Halesowen North and Upper Gornal and Woodsetton is not out of the question.

This year the party's candidates include Hilary Bills, who is back for a crack at Halesowen North, having lost her seat there last year.

Long-standing councillor and former mayor Steve Waltho is standing down in St Thomas's after serving for 24 years over two stints on the council.

In Castle and Priory, Councillor Alan Finch another former mayor is stepping down after 18 years and has been replaced by Keiran Casey, who lost his seat in Upper Gornal and Woodsetton in 2021.

Conservative leader Patrick Harley, who defends Kingswinford South, will be quietly confident of picking up at least another couple of seats next month.

Indeed, party campaigners believe that hitting 50 seats is not beyond the realms of possibility. Brierley Hill is a key target, with Labour in turmoil there after Councillor Zafar Islam was suspended over social media posts.

The Tories also fancy Brockmoor and Pensnett, which Labour won by just 47 votes in 2018, while Netherton and a couple of gains in the seats around Stourbridge have not been ruled out.

Mr Harley's group is confident of retaining both Norton and Halesowen South, where respective councillors Colin Elcock and Ray Burston were booted out from the party for making inappropriate comments.

The Conservative campaign is focused on continuing the regeneration of the borough as part of an overall plan for the next four years.

It has pledged to build on successes such as the new leisure centre, the transport interchange, the upcoming Metro line and the university campus development.

Voting takes place on May 5.

Current state of play: Cons controlled administration Cons (45), Lab (23), Indep (3), Vacant (1)

Results last time these seats were contested in 2018: Cons (14), Lab (10).

Seats up for grabs: 25 (including one by-election).

*denotes party that won seat in 2018

Sarah Furhuraire (Lib Dem)

Wayne Lewis (Libertarian)

Halesowen South (two seats)

Hayley Green & Cradley South

Kingswinford North & Wall Heath

Jonathan Bramall (Lib Dem)

Elizabeth Geeves (Lib Dem)

Gary Farmer (Libertarian)

Netherton Woodside & St Andrew`s

Pedmore & Stourbridge East

Glen Wilson (Libertarian)

Quarry Bank & Dudley Wood

Upper Gornal & Woodsetton

Wollaston & Stourbridge Town

Elaine Sheppard (Lib Dem)

Key: TUSC = Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

View original post here:
Election 2022: Full list of candidates standing for place on Dudley Council - Express & Star

A foreign-policy alliance between the New Right, realists and libertarians, and the Old Left would pose a real threat to the Washington uniparty.

(From left to right) Dan Caldwell, Adam Korzeniewski, and Russ Vought speak at TAC and American Moment's Up From Chaos conference, March 2022.

The interventionist uniparty is afraidvery afraid. Afraid enough, in fact, to sling oodles of mud at a rising national coalition for foreign-policy restraint.

This new restraint coalition encompasses three camps: the broad New Right (including political Catholics, national conservatives, Claremont folks, and some Trumpy populists); libertarians and old-school realists (whove long bandwagoned together); and what might be called the traditional left (the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, and myCompactcolleague Edwin Aponte). The three camps came together for TACsUp From Chaos snap conference in Washington last month, and tosignCompacts recent statement calling for de-escalation over Ukraine.

These camps disagree about a lot of issues, of course; in domestic policy, the libertarians are especially at odds with the other two, which increasingly coalesce over the need to save representative government from the predations of private, corporate poweror, to put it another way, to democratize the economy. Yet the American system generously rewards precisely such alliance-building around discrete issues. In this case, three groups are joining forces, as yet often loosely and unofficially, to give voice to the millions of Americans who drew the right conclusions from the last 20 years bloody and wasteful exercises in imperial expansion, who now seek a more realistic, less ideological posture abroad.

Such an alliance could have potentially wide ramifications in U.S. politics, especially if it is institutionalized to a greater extent than it is today. Which is why, I suspect, the bipartisan hawks are working double-time to smear the coalition as unpatriotic, pro-Putin, and worse.

Witness MondaysWall Street Journalop-ed by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, in which the former Trump administration apparatchik accused therestraint coalition of falling for the Russia temptation, as the headline put it. In the piece, Shapiro fretted that too many populist conservatives had fallen for Russian propaganda and bought into Putins narrative. But while the piece was heavily weighted with conclusory statements, it was light on actual evidence of restrainers succumbing to the Russia temptationrather than calling for less ideology and more caution in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine, which is something else entirely.

Shapiro cited an online discussion group where some of his former Trump administration colleagues allegedly traded pro-Putin sentiments in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Yet Shapiro didnt name names, making it impossible to substantiate what amounts to chatroom gossip. Beyond that, he came up mostly empty-handed.

Shapiro dinged Washington state congressional candidate Joe Kent for treating Putins negotiating demands as a decent starting point, which is effectively what the Kiev government is doing. Shapiro also assailed TACs Helen Andrews for saying, Ukraine is a corrupt countrywhich is a statement of fact, reflected in Ukraines abysmal Transparency International rankings as well as countless State Department reports and New York Timeseditorials lamenting Ukrainian graft. Is acknowledging inconvenient realities now a pro-Putin act?

Finally, Shapiro criticized theCompactdeclaration for calling for de-escalation and good-faith peace talks and for demanding that President Biden renounce regime change in Moscow. But how is any of this alarming, as Shapiro insists? The politicians and writers Shapiro criticizes have, contra his assertion, all denounced Russian aggression. What Shapiro seems to want, but cant bring himself to say outright, is escalation and regime change. So, instead, he frames opposition to such dangerous policies as extreme isolationism and Putinism, all in an attempt to erect a cordon sanitairearound foreign-policy realism.

An even more mendaciousindeed, downright vileattack was mounted last week against Dan Caldwell, a vice president at the Koch-affiliated group Stand Together, which advocates foreign-policy restraint from a libertarian perspective. Judd Legum, a former Center for American Progress and Hillary Clinton campaign staffer, published an email sent by Caldwell to the Stand Together staff and claimed that Caldwell had called for a partial victory for Russia.

Yet asReasonsRobby Soave noted, nowhere in his article does Legum share the email in its entirety: Instead, he selectively quotes from it, leaving out important, clarifying context. Indeed. There is selective quotingand then there is Judd Legum-style selective quoting. Far from making a merely boilerplate condemnation of the invasion, as Legum claimed, Caldwell had written, Russias invasion of Ukraine is immoral, unjustified, and should be immediately halted. In addition, the regime of Vladimir Putin is authoritarian and has inhibited the Russian people from enjoying the benefits of a free and open society.

As for the victory bit quoted by Legum, he really only quoted the single word, victory, and added his own verbiage to make it seem as if Caldwell hadcalledfor a partial Russian win. Heres what Caldwell had actually written to the Stand Together staff: An outright victory by either Russia or Ukraine is increasingly unlikely, and a diplomatic resolution is the path that best limits the bloodshed and minimizes the risk that the current war could escalate into a larger conflict. Now, you might agree or disagree with Caldwell on this analysisI happen to think hes dead-rightbut only an idiot or a malicious hack could interpret these words as support for a partial Russian victory.

Legum also blasted Caldwell forsaying that overly-broad sanctions rarely workas if he had caught his subject making a racist remark into a hot mic, rather than making a statement about the efficacy of sanctions, a question over which many reasonable experts disagree. Again, as Soave notes, its absurd to characterize Stand Togethers skepticism of sanctions as anything other than a sincere belief held by some libertarians, noninterventionists, and a great many progressives.

Then again, thats precisely what terrifies uniparty mouthpieces like Legum: that these different camps might share more than mere sentimentsand instead make common cause around shared purposes. Hence, the cheap smears from hawks.

Read the original post:
Why Hawks Fear the Restraint Coalition - The American Conservative

Calvin Robinson's comments come after both Carrie and Boris Johnson were issued with fixed penalty notices over the Partygate scandal

The Government's downfall began when Carrie Johnson took over as the person whispering in Boris ears, Conservative commentator Calvin Robinson says.

Ms Johnson, along with her husband Boris Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak were issued with fixed penalty notices on Tuesday for their roles in the Partygate scandal.

And Mr Robinson thinks Mr Johnson's issues started when former Chief Adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings resigned in November 2020.

Speaking on Dan Wootton Tonight, Mr Robinson said: That was the start of the downfall when (Dominic) Cummings got ousted and Carrie 'Antoinette' took over as the person whispering in Boris ears.

Calvin Robinson GB News

Prime Minister Boris Johnson with his wife Carrie Jacob King

Everything shes been involved in has been damaging for him and he cant see it.

All of her policies are the antithesis of what we voted Boris in for, shes left-wing, shes green, shes liberal.

Shes everything that stands against him as a libertarian or what we thought was a libertarian.

We wanted him to get Brexit done, we wanted him to be pro individual rights or liberties and he hasnt supported everything shes been involved in.

But entrepreneur and author, Angelica Malin believes that Ms Johnson should not be blamed for the incident.

She said: I dont think its something as simple as saying you can blame the wife, hes a grown man.

He wasnt forced and he has to be held accountable.

Earlier on Tuesday, a spokesman for Ms Johnson confirmed that she had since paid the fine relating to a gathering on the afternoon of June 19, 2020.

Ms Johnson apologises unreservedly for the incident, the spokesman added.

See the original post here:
Prime Minister's downfall began when Carrie Johnson 'took over as the person whispering in Boris' ear' - GB News