I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.
Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook get to decide whether or not you get pertinent information about national security issues in your country.
Disclosure and transparency are the currency of the Internet, and they are at odds with authoritarianism.
We’ve got to learn to govern in Internet time.
Experience has shown us that attempts to control the Internet will invariably fail. We should be instructed by the failed efforts of China to regulate political content, the efforts of America to regulate Internet gambling, or the efforts of Australia to regulate certain speech. By its very nature, the Internet will always resist such controls.
We've got to make sure tech companies - all of them - aren't taking steps that will place content beyond the reach of the courts.
I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government.
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and other economic and social platforms are not trying to build businesses, they are trying to build countries. Countries with laws, law enforcement, borders, and economic policy.
We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it.
We want to have markets that are self-policing through competition. The Internet community doesn't want the government coming in and regulating it.
It's much easier to force intermediary communications and Internet companies such as Google to police themselves and their users than the alternatives: sending cops after everybody who attempts a risque or politically sensitive search, getting parents and teachers to do their jobs, or chasing down the origin of every offending link.
Reddit is not a public utility or a public square; it's a privately owned space on the Internet.
Harnessing e-governance moves the access to governance from long queues at offices to any internet point. In Gujarat, our UN awarded widely acclaimed SWAGAT e-governance system ensures that long-term grievances are resolved through use of online applications and video-conferencing across all district and block offices.
I think a platform such as YouTube has to respect local laws and customs.
I dream of a Digital India where Government proactively engages with the people through Social Media.
We don't always endorse what businesses sell through Stripe, but we do think it's critical that we and our peers don't act as gatekeepers for what is and isn't acceptable content.
Americans really expect to interact with our government digitally.
Internet referendums will not, in the beginning, have any legally binding effect, but they will be politically binding.
Twitter wanted to become a more egalitarian justice system, but instead it became a draconian one.
The argument about the need to regulate the digital space has to be weighed against freedom of expression in our society, whether we are interacting in a virtual world or in the real world where we have the growth of so-called 'safe spaces.'
The language of digital communication is a language we don't understand in a way. People say the internet is like the Wild West in that it's lawless and we haven't worked out how to make it structured or moral.
I don't come down on any simple place as a deletionist or a completionist.
We're muddying the waters when we are having a discussion about what's going on on YouTube and Twitter and whether that's a matter of free speech. These are private platforms and they're allowed to decide what should and should not be on its platforms. It's not an issue of free speech.
We have an electronic democracy.
Consent of the Networked will become the seminal book firmly establishing the responsibility of those who control the architecture and the politics of the network to the citizens who inhabit our new digital world. Consent of the Networked should be required reading for all of those involved in building our networked future as well as those who live in it.
