Well, I'm obliged to repeat then, I don't come here for bar-room type of talk nor for pseudo-psychiatric polemics.
Kindly do not stray from the subject matter by proposing to turn this into a discussion about personal life experiences, which in a serious social and political debate have little value other than an anecdotal one at best.
By virtue of posting your idea(s) you are asking for support for them, but then if you refuse to explain your personal reasons as to why you develop those idea(s), you have no standing to ask for support for your ideas. Like it or not, people
WILL expect some personal reasons, even if that expectation is silent. That is human nature. And if no explanation is forthcoming, you will be put on disregard.
The reasons for my suggestions regarding Iran's internet architecture are obvious, and I as well as other users before me mentioned them already in this very thread. They go way beyond any personal experiences.
Yes, essentially, you said that you do not like the Western style of totalitarianism, of which, the Internet is a component, therefore, countries should impose absolute controls over their countries' access to the Internet. Then you cited a 12 yrs old book that you have not read, let alone in your library, as a vague justification on why people should support your ideas. This is how hucksters got their start. And in the political realm, the consequences are %99 bloody, but not
YOUR blood, of course. People like you
ALWAYS make exceptions for themselves when it comes to laws they want for the people.
Ideas needs the human agency to survive and thrive. Ideas not implemented -- dies. What it also mean is that once a life have been imbued by said idea, it is natural to resist change. Resistance to the level of death have been recorded. That is why it should be obvious that people places personal experiences over thought experiments, such as 'democracy' or 'communism' or even 'Christianity'. Why should you convert from one to an alternative. It is called 'evangelism' without the religious connotation, of course. Somehow, one must convince potential converts that one's life experience correlates with theirs and to a sufficient degree that the potential converts begin to shift their positions.
Refusal to provide life experiences create doubts and here is the kicker. The worst doubt is not on the idea but on the evangelist's conviction as whether said idea have been applied. If the human agency is the best visible evidence of adoption, then 'walk the talk', is the question. At one point, the US failed to 'walk the talk' when it comes to
APPLIED democratic principles -- voting rights for women. Drill down to the individual and it is no different. It is hard for Bill Gates to persuade people to live an austere monk-like life when he continues to build on his mansion.
Knowledge and the Internet are no longer considered luxuries. Notice I did not say 'Knowledge thru the Internet' but
'AND'. Show us a society where knowledge is valued but the book is rejected. It is now unassailable that knowledge and its methods of transmission are of equal importance. In fact, we would rather have an excess of methods of transmission. We want a pile of blank papers standing by the printing machine. And here you are evangelizing that the Iranian people give up both to a government runs by religious fanatics while you live in a society where no such restrictions exists.
Correlate that...