nanog mailing list archives

Re: The role of Internet governance in sanctions


From: jim deleskie <deleskie () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 11:34:58 -0400

I respect the people and goals here, but strongly echo Mel's statement.
This is a much larger hammer then mail filtering lists.


-jim

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 11:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:

In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:

“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are
potential targets of sanctions.”

What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate
for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the
political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.

I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential
for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended,
politically-driven consequences

 -mel beckman

On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:

maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try
not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority.  maybe that
in itself is hubris.

as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can
not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc.  so i have donated to
folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical
support.

randy


Current thread: