Google vs European Union over Internet Control

Google. Friend or foe? Seems like Google is a bigger friend to us by defending against the notion of letting European Union have control of the internet away from the United States.

Google, the giant internet search company, is to lead industry opposition to new proposals from the European Commission to regulate online content.
.
.
James Purnell, the minister for creative industries, has backed Google's stance. He said: "There is no benefit to the consumer that justifies this move. This increased scope could mean significant regulation of the internet and stifle the growth of new media services. That would raise prices for consumers and deprive them of potential new services."

But other countries are in the process of setting up their own "mini-internet" as a source of control.

Now, other countries are looking to compete with America’s ever-growing Internet dominance. For example, China, the Arab League and a Dutch company have all started to build their own mini-internets that are not necessarily available to those on the real or should I say “first” Internet.

The control of the internet seems to stem from the kind of contents allowed on the internet rather than the fear of losing control over the internet.

Recently there was controversy of the addition of a .xxx domain name as the US government twisted the arm of Icann to squash this new domain name. Other countries cited this example of how the US controls the Internet and have subsequently pressed for Icann to be under the UN’s control. As the Internet becomes a bigger part of every country’s daily lives and economy the fear of having US control over such an important network is growing.

In response, the US is saying that countries like China, Libya, Syria and Cuba who complain about US-based Internet control don’t have democracies and as such taking control of the Internet for them means they will use their power for censorship.

This is exactly the kind of a global economy that Europe wants. As well as International law being "de facto" all across the globe. Even to the U.S. Court regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Isn't this what Bill Clinton wanted back when he was president? And you thought tricky Dick wasn't about Clinton when he attended the China Internet Summit last year when he should have stood up for the flow of free information?