****but if this were really some ceding of free speech that subjected the US internet network to foreign control the net would be on fire about it.****
This is what concerns me. If this is just not understood there would still be lots of talk about it.
Is it possibly widely understood that this is nothing more than a curtail of conservative and christian speech, therefore the liberal community is well aware of it but chooses to endorse it? As well as be silent about it?
I can't imagine that if that were true, that conservatives and Christians would be so quiet about it. And all the most prominent conservative talk show hosts also have web sites where they post and stream all their opinions, so Limbaugh and Levin and Hannity and all of them would be affected by any curtailing of free speech on the net. If there were any certainly to this move, they would all be talking about it daily.
There is always a danger that when the US starts fooling around with international bodies that the US way of doing things might be diluted, but I still say few really understand what this move means.
“****but if this were really some ceding of free speech that subjected the US internet network to foreign control the net would be on fire about it.****
This is what concerns me. If this is just not understood there would still be lots of talk about it.
Is it possibly widely understood that this is nothing more than a curtail of conservative and christian speech, therefore the liberal community is well aware of it but chooses to endorse it? As well as be silent about it?”
Is it possible we are exaggerating the danger? The article says “an advisory board”—that doesn’t sound like control to me.