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.
As I understand it, that’s already the way it is in China, where the working class has to contend with the great firewall, while the capitalist class can enjoy an internet that allows their trade.
It would be pretty funny if the “uncensored” portal provided by the US state, using a logo of Paul Revere, catered exclusively to the elite class, though.
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.
As I understand it, that’s already the way it is in China, where the working class has to contend with the great firewall, while the capitalist class can enjoy an internet that allows their trade.
It would be pretty funny if the “uncensored” portal provided by the US state, using a logo of Paul Revere, catered exclusively to the elite class, though.
Not that much competence. Mostly power to keep applying it.