Trump proposes internet censorship, mocks freedom of speech.

[Purple]

Did you take even two seconds to read my reasoning before dismissing and insulting me?

Yes, I'm sure a lot of individuals can function without the internet. Hell, I could if I had to.

Its the fucking global economy, infrastructure, and bureaucracy that I'm not so confident about.

Let's start with the basics. Firstly, even if you could somehow cut a country off from the global web that would do nothing to actually destroy the internet within said country. You'd still be networked with your local provider and those cables ain't going away. So the local infrastructure and economy would be just fine. Same with the local bureaucracy. Now what would suffer is the global market, in particular businesses like amazon that rely on global internet trade. And to a lesser extent you'll see a drop across the board as any export companies find it more difficult to compete with foreign advertisements and such. But it's not an end of the economy scenario by any means. At least not unless you target a really huge country with a huge market like the entirety of america or the EU and that causes a ripple effect.

[The Romulan Republic]

The global market suffering means a lot of individual people and countries suffer. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

In any case, we are discussing the Trump proposition of shutting down chunks of the internet. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that doing this on a large scale is impossible, because Trump is stupid as well as nuts. In which case, its not a real threat, of course.

But if it hypothetically were possible, it would be a tremendous threat.

[Purple]

The global market suffering means a lot of individual people and countries suffer. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Yea but like it would be nowhere close to in scale to anything more than what happens when say a single large bank bursts.

In any case, we are discussing the Trump proposition of shutting down chunks of the internet. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that doing this on a large scale is impossible, because Trump is stupid as well as nuts. In which case, its not a real threat, of course.

But if it hypothetically were possible, it would be a tremendous threat.

Honestly I think it is entirely possible. Most countries only have a few major physical landlines that connect them to the rest of the world. These are huge buried cables and such. Cut those and you've effectively crippled that country as far as internet access goes. People can still smuggle some via wireless across the border and such but that's not going to be meaningful.

[Broomstick]

Did you take even two seconds to read my reasoning before dismissing and insulting me?

I gave it the time it deserved.

Yes, I'm sure a lot of individuals can function without the internet. Hell, I could if I had to.

I actually did so for most of my life.

Its the fucking global economy, infrastructure, and bureaucracy that I'm not so confident about.

We had all of those before the internet, too. The global economy would be the most affected, but my local bureaucracy would continue to function without it, albeit slower.

[The Romulan Republic]

I gave it the time it deserved.

Or you were lazy.

I actually did so for most of my life.

Good for you. Also pretty much irrelevant.

We had all of those before the internet, too. The global economy would be the most affected, but my local bureaucracy would continue to function without it, albeit slower.

The fact that we could function without the internet in the past does not mean we could do so anywhere near as well now when our system is built to use it. I mean, we functioned for thousands of years without oil. Does it then follow that if all the oil got wished away by Q tomorrow that the world would be fine?

[Grumman]

But if it hypothetically were possible, it would be a tremendous threat.

So is bombing trade routes to destroy a nation's capacity to export oil. If there is a problem here - and I believe there is - it's that I do not trust the United States to treat the capacity to cause an internet blackout in a region with any more respect than they do the capacity to drop a Hellfire missile on some guy you don't like. Such acts should be treated as acts of war, and not as toys the President and a bunch of his mates can play with without oversight.

[Purple]

The fact that we could function without the internet in the past does not mean we could do so anywhere near as well now when our system is built to use it. I mean, we functioned for thousands of years without oil. Does it then follow that if all the oil got wished away by Q tomorrow that the world would be fine?

I mean no offense with this but the fact that you can even compare the two is showing of your ignorance. Especially since unlike oil the internet is not a liquid flowing through pipes. If you cut a country off from the internet it does not "black out". It just turns the entire country into an isolated LAN. You'll still be able to make an online payment at your local post office. You just won't be able to buy stuff on Amazon.

[The Romulan Republic]

The fact that we could function without the internet in the past does not mean we could do so anywhere near as well now when our system is built to use it. I mean, we functioned for thousands of years without oil. Does it then follow that if all the oil got wished away by Q tomorrow that the world would be fine?

I mean no offense with this but the fact that you can even compare the two is showing of your ignorance. Especially since unlike oil the internet is not a liquid flowing through pipes. If you cut a country off from the internet it does not "black out". It just turns the entire country into an isolated LAN. You'll still be able to make an online payment at your local post office. You just won't be able to buy stuff on Amazon.

I am not saying the two are identical. I am using oil as an obvious example of how we can become dependent on something we weren't previously dependent on. Which is a point so obvious it shouldn't need explaining, but here we are.

Or to put it more simply, do you understand the meaning of the word "analogy"?

[Purple]

I am not saying the two are identical. I am using oil as an obvious example of how we can become dependent on something we weren't previously dependent on. Which is a point so obvious it shouldn't need explaining, but here we are.

Or to put it more simply, do you understand the meaning of the word "analogy"?

I am. But basically the issue is that your analogy falls flat because the degrees of dependance are just too far apart. If oil was to vanish it's not just you with your car that would suffer but the power plants, factories, central heating, global shipping etc. If the internet was to vanish, even completely from the face of the earth it'd literally not be a big deal by comparison.

[Wild Zontargs]

Taking down the internet in a modern economy wouldn't kill people directly, but I'm prepared to be the economic chaos and breakdown in communications would kill a lot of people indirectly.

Quite a few of us remember how to do things without the internet. It would be inconvenient, not a disaster. Stop hyperventilating.

While people do, companies do not. As just one example: stores, restaurants, etc. order their stock via automated online systems. Even if they magically re-hired the staff to make and take orders by phone, the landline telephone system is mostly VoIP once it leaves your house/building in many (most?) areas.

For another, I know of several smallish electrical generating plants in my area that have no full-time staff, and are managed remotely over the internet. Even the big ones with staff get their orders from the main utility control center over the internet/phone. See above.

If the internet magically disappeared tomorrow, we'd be in a world of hurt while frantically trying to re-invent the wheel for things like the above.

[That said, I'm not too worried about it. The level of destruction or stupidity that would make the internet permanently disappear in a short time-frame is likely to be fatal anyway.]

[Broomstick]

The fact that we could function without the internet in the past does not mean we could do so anywhere near as well now when our system is built to use it. I mean, we functioned for thousands of years without oil. Does it then follow that if all the oil got wished away by Q tomorrow that the world would be fine?

I mean no offense with this but the fact that you can even compare the two is showing of your ignorance. Especially since unlike oil the internet is not a liquid flowing through pipes. If you cut a country off from the internet it does not "black out". It just turns the entire country into an isolated LAN. You'll still be able to make an online payment at your local post office. You just won't be able to buy stuff on Amazon.

Well, maybe you and RR won't be able to purchase from Amazon, but I still would be able to do so.

Getting my Doctor Who fix, though, might be a lot more difficult.

But yeah, RR is an ignorant tool.

[Broomstick]

While people do, companies do not. As just one example: stores, restaurants, etc. order their stock via automated online systems. Even if they magically re-hired the staff to make and take orders by phone, the landline telephone system is mostly VoIP once it leaves your house/building in many (most?) areas.

Really? Since when?

For another, I know of several smallish electrical generating plants in my area that have no full-time staff, and are managed remotely over the internet. Even the big ones with staff get their orders from the main utility control center over the internet/phone. See above.

If the internet magically disappeared tomorrow, we'd be in a world of hurt while frantically trying to re-invent the wheel for things like the above.[/quote]
Except we still have a bunch of old fogeys such as myself who remember how to do things without the internet as a resource, and that would go a long way to "re-inventing" whatever is needed.

That said, I'm not too worried about it. The level of destruction or stupidity that would make the internet permanently disappear in a short time-frame is likely to be fatal anyway.]

You'd need something like a continent-wide EMP, after which ordering shit on-line will take a back seat to simple needs like getting enough food and keeping warm in the winter.

Meanwhile, as noted, cutting a nation off from the internet would still leave connections intact within that nation. In other words, your local chain grocery store would still be able to communicate with the local warehouse and get supplies in.

[LaCroix]

The only thing the US could do without actually cutting cables is stop the DNS service or blocking their IP for US traffic. Which means that contacting the rest of the world will work fine, with as much as a switch of the DNS server address to a non-US one, if they actually used one, at all. Even Amazon and stuff would most likely still be accessible via the non-us servers &domains.

And even If they bring backhoes and cut the lines to a country (on another countries territory - who will most likely not like that for it affects them as well) the whole country will still have local internet. So as long as these restaurants do not routinely order stuff from other countries (and frankly, a full economic blockade would be enacted LONG before someone would cut the internet), they'll be fine.

[Wild Zontargs]

While people do, companies do not. As just one example: stores, restaurants, etc. order their stock via automated online systems. Even if they magically re-hired the staff to make and take orders by phone, the landline telephone system is mostly VoIP once it leaves your house/building in many (most?) areas.

Really? Since when?

Since (at least) the last decade or so for the phones, and two or more for companies ordering crap? At least here in Canada, one of our biggest phone companies just last month or so lost most of its service for the Eastern half of the country when (iirc) one link went down. Just because it doesn't act like VoIP at your handset doesn't mean it isn't really VoIP on the main trunk. As for companies, I know from personal experience that McDonalds up here used all on-line orders 15 years ago, and so do the invoicing systems for major trucking companies and all the major suppliers that I have dealt with at other large corporations since then.

For another, I know of several smallish electrical generating plants in my area that have no full-time staff, and are managed remotely over the internet. Even the big ones with staff get their orders from the main utility control center over the internet/phone.

See above.

If the internet magically disappeared tomorrow, we'd be in a world of hurt while frantically trying to re-invent the wheel for things like the above.

Except we still have a bunch of old fogeys such as myself who remember how to do things without the internet as a resource, and that would go a long way to "re-inventing" whatever is needed.

The fogeys can remember all they want, but if the staffing and infrastructure isn't there, we're still boned. To do non-just-in-time deliveries, we'd need warehousing and delivery trucks that are no longer in place, staff to take orders that are no longer around, etc. You can run power plants locally, but that requires trained operators for each shift at each facility, manual equipment that was ripped out and never replaced (or never even installed in the new plants), and enough redundancy and spare capacity to do without centralized real-time management of the grid.

That said, I'm not too worried about it. The level of destruction or stupidity that would make the internet permanently disappear in a short time-frame is likely to be fatal anyway.]

You'd need something like a continent-wide EMP, after which ordering shit on-line will take a back seat to simple needs like getting enough food and keeping warm in the winter.

Meanwhile, as noted, cutting a nation off from the internet would still leave connections intact within that nation. In other words, your local chain grocery store would still be able to communicate with the local warehouse and get supplies in.

This is true. As I said, barring something insane that gives us more to worry about than "OMG no cat videos", I'm not that worried.

[Broomstick]

While people do, companies do not. As just one example: stores, restaurants, etc. order their stock via automated online systems. Even if they magically re-hired the staff to make and take orders by phone, the landline telephone system is mostly VoIP once it leaves your house/building in many (most?) areas.

Really? Since when?

Since (at least) the last decade or so for the phones, and two or more for companies ordering crap? At least here in Canada, one of our biggest phone companies just last month or so lost most of its service for the Eastern half of the country when (iirc) one link went down. Just because it doesn't act like VoIP at your handset doesn't mean it isn't really VoIP on the main trunk. As for companies, I know from personal experience that McDonalds up here used all on-line orders 15 years ago, and so do the invoicing systems for major trucking companies and all the major suppliers that I have dealt with at other large corporations since then.

OK, you're in Canada.

I seriously doubt that's the case here in the US because no one wants to spend even pennies on the infrastructure. Our cities are a hash of infrastructure dating back to the mid-19th Century (Chicago keeps finding wooden water mains from time to time when they break). As long as copper and other cable are still functioning it's not likely to be replaced in the US.

That could leave to odd sorts of functional/not-functional regions if the internet went down.

The fogeys can remember all they want, but if the staffing and infrastructure isn't there, we're still boned.

Great, we'll be able to employ all those people looking for work.

To do non-just-in-time deliveries, we'd need warehousing and delivery trucks that are no longer in place, staff to take orders that are no longer around, etc. You can run power plants locally, but that requires trained operators for each shift at each facility, manual equipment that was ripped out and never replaced (or never even installed in the new plants), and enough redundancy and spare capacity to do without centralized real-time management of the grid.

Can't speak for the power industry, but I do work in retail and now I'm in inventory/pricing/ordering. Even the best internet system for ordering doesn't work perfectly, in fact, part of my current job is dealing with anything that falls through the cracks. There exist mechanisms for human ordering still. Those mechanisms will be used to order essential items (such as food) until the system can ramp up to ordering everything needed and wanted.

Another generation and we'll be much more screwed, but as long as you still have human beings with knowledge of past systems it will be much easier to recreate those systems if needed. Yes, it would be highly annoyed, awkward, and disruptive but so are tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Folks deal with the problems.

[Elheru Aran]

If we're talking about an area like Syria... odds are pretty good they're largely used to conducting their affairs without the Internet. Your local grocer down the street in Damascus or Aleppo isn't going to suffer particularly much, since he probably does most of his ordering by phone or mail (when either work), or in person by going down to the local warehouses. Restaurants and other businesses will work much the same way. Provided they're working at all after the current disruption in general affairs, anyway.

Frankly, calling a disruption in Internet service comparable to a nuclear strike is just asinine and short-sighted. In a First World country, sure, it'd cause a bit of social and economic havoc. In a Third World country like Syria? That's called 'business as usual'.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll acknowledge that I may have overstated it somewhat, and its fair to say that the degree of destruction would vary from country to country (which is true of any form of attack), but we should at least be able to agree that it would be devastating to a first world economy/country. And I'll note that Grumman at least felt that shutting down a country's internet was serious enough that it should be considered an act of war.

Well, maybe you and RR won't be able to purchase from Amazon, but I still would be able to do so.

Getting my Doctor Who fix, though, might be a lot more difficult.

But yeah, RR is an ignorant tool.

I must say, your insult to actual substance ratio is rather sad.

Nothing else to say here, because you haven't really given me anything else to respond to.

[Elheru Aran]

I don't think anybody's denied that it's actually a fairly serious act. The specific consequences of that act are another matter. Diplomatically speaking, it would be a Big Deal, unless it's some sort of special situation such as a pariah nation like North Korea and was part of some international consensus. But the United States or Russia or whomever deliberately cutting off a country's Internet access to the rest of the world, yes, that would probably constitute severe aggression in most countries' books.

Comparing it to a nuke was just silly, though. A better parallel would have been running a fence all around the country and preventing egress, something like that.

[Patroklos]

Your initial response to being called out on your childishly stupid comparison, which you just above agreed was exactly that in your own failing-to-save-face pussy footing way, was:

Take your stupid, condescending, contentless ad hominem and shove off.

Oh poor you. Was the interwebs too mean to you you? There there...

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that reevaluating one's position in the face of convincing arguments qualified as "...failing-to-save-face pussy footing..." I guess no one should ever change their mind or concede a point when they've been proven wrong, for fear of being dishonest and weak. Thanks for enlightening me, asshole.

As to your first post, I essentially called it a poor quality post because it was one.

Even if your conclusion was right, you post was still a stupid, condescending, contentless ad hominem. Your latest one, despite your going back and editing it, is hardly any better in quality.

The way I see it, you're the one trying to save face here. I have no problem admitting to being wrong. You are the one who seems to think that doing so is a sign of weakness of character and dishonesty.

[Patroklos]

You didn't actually admit you were wrong, and given you just spent god knows how many posts insulting everyone who told you you were wrong its sort of irrelevant until you apologize for being an ass. I have no expectation you will do that, and you should have no expectation you will get a way with a "well I just a exaggerated a LITTLE " when you are just flat out wrong backwards and forwards.

[LaCroix]

A better parallel would have been running a fence all around the country and preventing egress, something like that.

Which the US actually can't do to anyone but countries that only have cables/satellites under US control (which is a number very close to zero). The US would need the help of all countries sharing a connection point with that particular target country to isolate it. If just one neighboring state doesn't play ball, the target still has a connection to the world (Minus the states that blocked them from accessing their territorial networks, but that's it.)

Just look at this map of the global backbone hidden for size

Even at that level, there is no way the US can cut off an arbitrary nation without help.

[The Romulan Republic]

Patroklos: As I already explained, my insults to you were directed at the poor quality of your posting. Your insinuation that I insulted anyone simply for disagreeing with me is, I believe, false. I would certainly, and gladly, apologize for doing so if it were shown that I had actually done so.

As to your insinuations of dishonesty, if you feel I have violated a policy of this board, make a report instead of trying to play the role of personal arbiter of my character. Because right now, you're coming off as a petty asshole who can't let it go that I insulted you.

To clarify my position on this issue:

I initially said that destroying the internet for a country would be "almost comparable" to nuking. When I made this admittedly rather dramatic claim, I believe I was thinking in terms of the economic/infrastructure damage that would be caused, rather that direct casualties, as some seemed to believe. Nonetheless, in hindsight, I recognize that the claim may have been excessive, and finding myself unable to defend it, am willing to concede it. I have also acknowledged already that the extent of the damage would vary depending on the country.

However, I do still think that some people are downplaying the effect that losing the internet could have. I would think that the last seven-plus years, in which a recession has lead directly and indirectly to significant violence and political upheaval around the world, would have taught people better than to minimize the significance of something that would seriously damage the global economy, even if it had no other effects whatsoever. Comparable to nuking? No. Still really bad? Yes.

Fair enough?

Edited for clarity.