> I'll clarify what I mean by existential threat, then: an existential threat to some Thing is a state of being or a potential action or event leading to a state of being that can be identified as an important part of a probable causal chain leading from the state of Thing existing to Thing not existing.

Well, yeah, but what does it mean for abstract things to exist in the first place?

> where the Thing at risk is the bright future of mankind.

But that is a very different thing from a country, isn't it? Couldn't countries continue to exist as totally dystopic entities?

> Given that, I hope you'll see that everything I gave was a threat.

Oh, sure those are threats, to something. But so is net bias, isn't it? But that doesn't automatically make it a threat to the country, does it?

> Threats aren't certainties. Threats aren't themselves states that are isomorphic with or inevitably lead to non-existence.

But a threat also isn't just anything that could possibly contribute to the demise of something in some minor manner under extremely unusual circumstances, in particular an existential one, right?

> A war might be lost, and the nation as it was is conquered and absorbed into the winning nation. With this not-uncommon possibility, war is obviously an existential threat.

Which is why I specifically asked about the case of a colonial war.

> Or you might define that a country becoming a client-state still counts as continuity of existence (I don't) and that is not uncommon too.

Why don't you? As I understood you, you wouldn't consider (the possibility of) a complete change of how the country is governed to be an existential threat, to the point that you apparently wouldn't consider the change to a dictatorship or monarchy an existential threat. What is it then that makes this an existential threat, when it seems that as far as the power structure is concerned, there wouldn't really be much of a difference whether you have a corrupt dictator or a governor from another country running your country?!

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_sovereign_state... has a nice list of things that no longer exist, and some of these things we might both agree count as countries that no longer exist -- definitions are important -- as opposed to sovereign government changes within a stable geographical boundary, or country unions that fell apart with the individual members remaining.

But do countries have to be sovereign? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country, sovereignty is not a defining characteristic of a country.

> The internet -- definitions are important -- may cease to exist, but I don't think net-bias by ISPs would be a big reason why, and the scenarios I can picture the internet actually ceasing to exist seem to be able to happen just as probably with or without ISPs not upholding (or being forced to uphold) neutrality.

Well, yes, exactly, definitions are important, that is kindof my point, and as far as net bias being an existential threat to the internet is concerned, I think you are probably simply missing the point by using a definition of "the internet" that's not useful in the context. Just as it is not useful to assume that someone speaking of "existential threats to a country" means exclusively roads and buildings, it's not useful to assume that someone speaking of "existential threats to the internet" means exclusively cables and routers.

When people speak of "existential threats to a country", they usually mean some sort of power structure and societal structures and culture in addition to the geographic boundaries and what infrastructure can be found within it. The fact that you are now steering towards sovereignty as a relevant distinguisher between whether a country continues to exists or not suggests that you do as well, even though that is not part of the general definition of a country.

Similarly, for the internet, when people talk about net bias being an existential threat to the internet, noone means by that that the internet protocol will be dead without net neutrality. What everyone means is that it is going to change massively how the internet is going to be used, that many of the good effects that result from the power structure of a neutral internet will stop, to the point that it culturally wouldn't be recognizable to someone who only knew the neutral internet, notwithstanding the fact that IP packets will still be IP packets.