I’m not sure I follow your logic. If countries are getting more authoritarian and nationalistic, and China is already blocking Tor, why would they feel compelled to not block something that even more blatantly a nationalistic American project?
Because it’s all trade and balance, so it’s probable that such a window into the world (which will have its own censorship) might be allowed. Probably throttled. Probably allowed and throttled depending on some kind of social rating and individual permissions.
Unlike Tor, it’s not escaping censorship, it’s one portal (it’s in the name) somehow allowing access to a few select “free speech” (quotes mandatory no matter how you feel about actual free speech) directions.
USSR had tourist permissions and allowed directions, and friendly socialist countries for which it was easier to get such a permission, and unfriendly capitalist countries for which it was pretty rare and involved state security following you, and so on.
This might be similar.
If you don’t see how something can be divided into levels of access for different citizens, then that’s just lack of imagination. They will think of a way.
I’m aware of authoritarian regimes that block internet based on the class of people that are accessing it, thanks. China already does this.
But I don’t see how you’re drawing the conclusion that this portal is going to be the vessel for doing that. Seems too 1984esque even for Trump, and like it would require actual competence.
I’m not sure I follow your logic. If countries are getting more authoritarian and nationalistic, and China is already blocking Tor, why would they feel compelled to not block something that even more blatantly a nationalistic American project?
Because it’s all trade and balance, so it’s probable that such a window into the world (which will have its own censorship) might be allowed. Probably throttled. Probably allowed and throttled depending on some kind of social rating and individual permissions.
Unlike Tor, it’s not escaping censorship, it’s one portal (it’s in the name) somehow allowing access to a few select “free speech” (quotes mandatory no matter how you feel about actual free speech) directions.
USSR had tourist permissions and allowed directions, and friendly socialist countries for which it was easier to get such a permission, and unfriendly capitalist countries for which it was pretty rare and involved state security following you, and so on.
This might be similar.
If you don’t see how something can be divided into levels of access for different citizens, then that’s just lack of imagination. They will think of a way.
I’m aware of authoritarian regimes that block internet based on the class of people that are accessing it, thanks. China already does this.
But I don’t see how you’re drawing the conclusion that this portal is going to be the vessel for doing that. Seems too 1984esque even for Trump, and like it would require actual competence.