[coroutines]

The US is the best government to oversee DNS in a way that isn't corrupt and awful. That said, the US has seized domains in the past without proper due process - so it's really that "for the most part" we expect our freedoms to be respected. I think the situation would be far worse if left to several countries who don't share our progressive values. The Internet is only as great as it is because it became a "thing" here first. It would be fucking awful having Iran or China manage DNS - even as partners.

[wahern]

Best country? That'd be a difficult argument to make, for the U.S. or any other particular country. Preferable than most others? Sure.

[mahranch]

I'll say what people have been dancing around, or unable to say; The U.S is the lesser of the evils. Is the U.S perfect? Hell no. But they're the "least bad" country to be handling the system. Any other country or entity would immediately be targeted and open to bribing, gaming, pressure, and corruption.

[wahern]

England? Canada? Switzerland? Brazil? S. Africa?

We can look at historical examples like mercantile law. Most countries, including the U.S., recognize mercantile law, a body of law that has been handed down from millennia ago and, like so-called international law, distinct from domestic bodies of law, even though many countries have explicitly or implicitly incorporated aspects of mercantile law.

If you look at the history of judicial decisions where courts ruled in favor of non-citizen claimants, or where they adopted rules less favorable to citizens, then the U.S. doesn't stand out as much as you think. It's certainly at the top, but other, smaller countries have legal and political cultures that have respected mercantile law at the expense of their homegrown legal principles, and against the immediate best interests of their citizens and industry, at least as well as the U.S. has.

The real question is how good is a country's political and legal system at respecting abstract legal boundaries, especially in the face of strong, competing interests. Being large and powerful can often be a detriment because domestic competing interests are more powerful, and threats of repercussions less worrisome. Some smaller countries often have a better track record at keeping perspective; they have to be more honest about what reasonable solutions look like if they want to maximize their own, long-term wealth.

Based on mercantile law we can exclude many countries with solid arguments supported by decades and even centuries of concrete evidence. But arguing that the U.S. is the best (or least worst)? Again, that would be hard.

[mahranch]

> England? Canada? Switzerland? Brazil? S. Africa?

You feel those countries are strong enough, politically and even militarily to resist corruptive influences? England might be, maybe Canada since the U.S is next door, but Switzerland, Brazil and S. Africa? No way. People forget; the U.S is incredibly powerful. It has the strongest military in the world. Nobody has attempted to "mess with the internet" because it meant messing with the U.S. Take it away from the U.S and it immediately becomes more vulnerable by default.

[Ressuder]

The US might be well positioned to withstand outside influence, but how do you expect the rest of the world to put their trust in a country where an insane, unstable fascist who has expressed his clear intention to violate international law is a realistic choice as leader?

[coroutines]

This is a very well-written response that is both thought provoking and elegantly projected.

[JohnStrange]

Pardon me to be so polemic, but what kind of progressive values do you have in mind? Political assassinations by drone strikes that kill hundreds of children and women as bystanders?

[freeone3000]

There's no relation between the two. The progressive values are things like freedom of expression and free journalism. These stand in contrast to nations like Turkey and China, and their internet policy.

[tombone12]

What, which rights we foreigners have that the USA actually respect in practice is not important for judging how relevant American values are to the rest of the world?

[awqrre]

Maybe no relation but there might be one... Do you know the reasons why they killed all those people with drones? It could be because of their speech... (but the reason why they did it is probably top-secret)

[muninn_]

Which is a situation much more complicated than a holier-than-thou one liner. You're also forgetting that innocent men are killed in the strikes too, which is just as tragic (or maybe more tragic since apparently nobody cares about them).

[JohnStrange]

There is nothing complicated about drone strikes. They are conducted without judicial oversight and without any process, let alone due process, and provably kill more non-combatant civilians than enemy combatants. They are well-documented and there are long lists of the victims with age, name and sometimes even pictures.

Therefore, naive as I am, I thought in my previous contribution: Why not judge a country's values on the basis of their actions rather than on the basis of internal propaganda or wishful thinking.