re: An Open Internet: A Tale Of Two Approaches
So Obama took the old "blockade" approach (shades of Berlin or Cuba) which will probably end the same way, ineffective. The Aspen Institute took a more liberal approach - let's call it the flowers and organic approach of the 60's combined with a good dose of I'm ok, you're ok or win-win vision of utopia. A look at the EU 12 year's later should answer the question about attainability of such an enlarged concensus (although I can think of no better way to employ so many minds). If it is applied to Syria or Iran, why not China, do they not control internal media (not to mention how the US capital punishment is viewed)? Always back to that fluid concept called national interest.
With nothing really new then, my vote is for the old fashioned approach, a mix of humint and communications control (interception, site obscuration, SIGINT, etc.) to block what would be labelled the oppressor and favor the oppressed. However, going back briefly on the first sentence of the article, we should remember that a major industrial european nation until recently had as the Prime Minister (by that influence of the state press) an individual that owned or controlled a vast majority of the free press resources. Do we believe they had "free flow of information?"