SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
One week after the news the non-profit .org internet registry was to be sold to a private equity firm, the board of the organization that has to approve the purchase met in private to discuss the situation.
Four days later, on November 21, that organization – ICANN – has yet to say a word about what it discussed or decided.
This past weekend, the board of the organization that is selling the rights to .org, and which will likely make $1bn or more from the sale, the Internet Society, met. On both the Saturday and Sunday, the proposed sale was a key topic of conversation. It has just to provide any details on what was discussed or decided.
The same cannot be said for those opposed to the deal.
One of the earliest indicators that the deal was going to meet a very different response from the internet community than the Internet Society (ISOC) expected came in the form of an article written by one person who has set up and run their own registry.
Co-founder of the .eco top-level domain Jacob Malthouse wrote an impassioned plea online that began, “I woke up this morning feeling a profound sense of loss.” An environmental campaigner as well as a former staffer of ICANN, Malthouse compared the sale of the .org registry to the paving over of forests.
The proudly non-profit .org registry, that had for years sold its domains for just $1 to non-profits in developing countries, is “our Yosemite,” Malthouse opined, referring to America's world-famous national park. In selling it to a for-profit private equity firm, he argued, “we’ve lost more than a digital Yosemite. We’ve lost our principles. We can do better. The millions of nonprofits who rely on .org deserve better.”
That sentiment was quickly echoed in the broader internet industry community, which, even in the era of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, continues to rely on mailing lists as its main form of communication.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
A major problem is that power isn't evenly distributed. Even if it were, it would destabilize, if only due to random influences.
When there are ways of leveraging power of any sort to achieve greater power, they will be used, and those who achieve greater power will be some fraction of those who used the power available to achieve greater power. Which means that greater power will be achieved by some of those who lust for greater power. This is a positive feedback loop. True, there are "frictional losses", i.e. some of those who strive to achieve greater power will lose at least some portion of the power that they have, but that is inherent in a system that facilitates the increased centralization of power.
Since I, personally, generally disfavor the centralization of power, I'm all in favor of increasing friction applied to those who are increasing their control of power, as long as it's applied to, and preferably applied more strongly to, those who are gaining increased power. The nature of the friction is also important. If increased friction is applied to those wishing to benefit from those because they are less powerful (i.e. if the means of benefit depends on their being less powerful), then I am more strongly in favor of that increased friction.
One example is the graduated income tax, though the current system is ridiculously complex. I favor a system where the income tax would be based around at minimum a linear relationship to the amount of income, and preferably something less than the square of the income. Say tax = rate*income^e - base, where base is a positive number and rate is a positive percentage, income reflects all sources of income whatsoever, and 1 e 2. Tentatively I'd suggest e = 1.25. This applies increased friction as the income increases, but it's important that ALL sources of income be counted. So if you have a long term investment that is not yielding income, even if it increases in value, then it doesn't affect you at all. Income only counts when it turns into cash (or accessible accounts).
(Sorry, the details drifted off the point. But this is an example of what I mean by friction.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @02:11AM
> I'm all in favor of increasing friction applied to those who are increasing their control of power,
I think the friction (on people increasing their control of power) should be increased until they get stuck. Wouldn't it be funny to see rich fuckers lined up at the emergency room?