Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The "Internet" isn't actually a thing. You can disrupt large portions of computer interconnectivity by targeting popular service providers and the larger traffic hubs. Because there is no central junction or single vendor or provider it isn't really something that can be completely shut off in one brush stroke. Note that television and voice calls and all money uses the same infrastructure. Selectively shutting off somethings and not others would be even harder.
Setting aside that making sense of things Trump suggests is pointless: one method would be a blanket order that telecom providers turn off access in a targeted area. I expect in America some portion of people would still figure out how to get connectivity, but cutting off 80% of internet access would still be very disruptive.
This is where I was leaning when thinking about it initially. It would almost have to be a non-technical solution. I'm guessing he's more of an "internet for me, but not for thee" kind of turn-off-the-internet guy so infrastructure and service would need to operate on some level
Devil in the details, as with all things he says...
If we redefined what "turn off" means, and make it more like "no access to internet" the end result of turning off the internet is achieved.
So far, forcing telcos into action might be the most applicable? They can pick and choose services to disable I assume