To be honest with how things are looking. I'm just a little bit scared...

From what I understand, ICANN, who gain control of this can pull websites from the DNS, taking it offline. So a private naming system or direct IP connection will still work, right? Or changing the site name can work for a period of time.

If that's all they could do then I wouldn't be too worried, although in theory they could make duplicate sites that are like amazon and then DNS link to the fake sites or middlemen sites.

No I'm more worried since I thought I heard that the internet DMCA and other rules would fall under other countries laws. Let's assume the UK got ahold of the internet and was in control, they have a 'forget me' law which they would enforce making history and backtracking of a lot of figures just disappear. Let's assume Donald Trump decides he enforces it on the UK to activate that law, all searches resulting in him would turn up empty, all history dealings or someone laying out shady deals, leaks, public information would disappear. DMCA takedowns on Youtube just for having his name/likeness in them regardless of fair use would go through as well.

I'm referring to internet censorship of a level we haven't seen before; While the actual protocols (at a technical level) are probably just fine (although if they are forced to change I wonder how they would go).

Naturally I could be totally wrong on the meanings of this, as I'm hearing some of this second/third/fourth hand. But the idea of mass censoring just gives me a very very bad feeling.

I don't think this would make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. As long as the Internet remains a free and open form of technology then I don't care. However, if censorship results from this decision ... there will be rioting.

I can only imagine what a web surfer riot would look like. :P

This sort of thing gives me seizures. What kind of ridiculous spin doctors have associated DMCA takedowns with the IANA, which is what's being "taken out of America's control" and "put in the hands of godless commies" or whatever people are saying? This is exactly the same thing - EXACTLY - as the nonsense that was getting thrown around just last year when the FCC decided they were going to make broadband a utility. Even many of the same posters here, crying about how it would crush the national economy and lead to jackbooted control over the internet.

The IANA is the organization that gives out IP addresses, basically. And IP addresses were globally assigned for IPv6 (because IPv4 ran out and couldn't ultimately be scaled to a world with a hundred billion connected devices) anyway.

Those IP addresses are then bundled into supernets and routed along the internet backbone; they're broken out locally and routed/switched in greater detail once the data gets close to its destination. None of this is global censoring. None of this is letting DMCA notices fall under the laws of other nations. In fact, have you ever wondered why there's so much angst about the DMCA takedowns in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's in large part because they don't have to obey national laws. International corporations *already* have different laws. Whoever's funding and hosting the IANA has no effect on that.

I just wish more people could take the time to distinguish content from traffic. These news articles are the IT equivalent of CSI:Cyber hacking scenes.

Like with many laws and losing control of many things, it's small incremental changes. Maybe they can block IP's for sites that they don't like, I don't know. Or maybe the IANA gets all jurisdiction for all internet related activity, I don't know. As I said I heard this second/third hand, and haven't had a chance to fully investigate. Although investigating it may be difficult depending on what documents, and how big they are.

Yeah, ok. I dislike the slippery slope fallacy on principle, but that doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes predict accurately.

Here's the deal. Don't for a second think the IANA gets "all jurisdiction for all internet related activity". Don't think that China will get to decide who gets DMCA notices. Generally, when you see articles like the really poorly-researched garbage that have been linked in this thread, take it all with a big double handful of salt.

IP addressing began in the USA because as a lot of people know the Internet was first (D)ARPANET. But there's been no purpose in having one country ostensibly control the registrars or DNS or whatever. And the physical location of a thing is 100% a red herring when you're talking about the internet, where all you have to do is run a batch job and copy data from one device in Oppressionland to another in Libertytown.

The USA in fact lost control of IP addressing around the turn of the century. IPv6 by about 2002-2003 had already been well-defined and address blocks had been handed out based on geography, thanks to the work of the IETF, which *is* a US-controlled entity. But even then, you're only seeing a tiny part of the picture: the IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group, which is exactly what it sounds like) has been multinational since before I got heavily into networking in the late 90s.

Content on the WWW hasn't been under control of the USA since at least the late 1990s, that I know of. (And of course, content on *the internet* which is totally different may have been out of US control a solid decade before that, since DNS became a thing in about '87). You can see that by simply looking up how the global DNS works.

Finally, worrying about ICANN losing control of the internet is a very short-term memory kind of concern. There wasn't an ICANN to control internet decisions until well after we had a WWW; it's been around less than 20 years. Some might suggest it's even appropriate to get ICANN out of the picture since the USA just sort of muscled on in wearing sunglasses and said, "deal with it."

My last post might have sounded a little critical of you - hope you didn't take that away. But I do mean to be critical of whatever nonsense news sources you're looking at. Not nearly everyone should be so aware of how the internet actually works (how would I get paid, elsewise?), but at least consider looking up some of the things I've mentioned, if you want to see some good reasons not to worry about this.

The police are already wetting themselves from fear ...
Why the 27th of this month?

I'm going to take a wild guess it's when the interest/payment is due.

I'm going to remain afraid until my fears are unfounded and disproved...

I suppose what he really meant to say is that in the war against stupidity, nominalism, and vapid hedonism, we should pursue our enemies wherever they may be, and attack them and any nations that harbor them. And no cost is too great, and no UN charter should stop what is rightous and just. Which may or may not include nuking America to the ground. All options are on the table.

Which clearly is much less offensive, and - according to the grand chronicler of truth in the OP's post - practically common sense. As "history will judge" whether something irreversibly stupid was done in the past. And until then, we are simply going to hold as reasonable that... all options are on the table in the war on stupidity, and that this may or may not include nuking America to the ground.

It's just common sense, and there's no reason to fret about it. Let's just wait and see what happens instead, and be entirely reasonable about this. By which I mean you should shut the hell up and not criticize my opinions, like good citizens shouldn't.

The Dollar collapses? Any sources to confirm this?

Beyond the sheer amount of debt that can never be paid back ever? It's going to happen, sooner or later.