Issues for the Internet Society

DenOfEarth writes "The Economist has published a series of articles detailing some of the issues facing our current society and the technological leaps and bounds that are leading to the future internet society. They include: Protection of Privacy, Constant internet connectivity, Copyright 's Role in the Future, Technology-based Democratic Process, Government Authority, and Social and Political Ramifications. There's a good deal of information to waste one's time with here, but some good discussion is bound to come out of it."

Comments

Anyone else see the S-curve in Internet usership?

[ThePackager]

I also have a problem with the Great Lumping Together of Internet Users. People use it for widely different purposes. And how it affects society? I think it mostly wastes a lot of our time which we could be using to better purposes. Don't get me wrong, I find a lot of information really fast on it, but did anyone ever think that having a copy of the Yellow Pages would "Change Society?"

don't you think...

[Machine9]

... that the internet is self-regulating in a way?

Sure it's been going to hell in a handbasket for a while now, with the US govt and their corporate lackeys out to kill freedom of expression and all.

But when enough people get sick of it, won't they just build something else?

Who's up for internet 2.0?

Soliloquy

[EEgopher]

We cannot hope, in our endeavors with such legal decisions, which are in themselves very similar to unsolvable philosophical problems, that we would ever achieve an answer that really pleased or was even intrinsically correct (morally and/or practically) to everyone. What matters more is this: knowing how to change things afterward.
Look at prohibition. It didn't work in this country. Granted, it took crime, death, and scandal to prove, but prove it did, and here we are. This may seem like a gloomy way to perceive the future, but to try perceiving the future is quite futile past a certain expunging of efforts, anyhow.
With tricky issues, the ugly-halves cannot be permanently concealed; somebody will get burned, no matter what the final vote decrees. What is so much more important (and infinately more effective) is that we pay attention to the situation that is Right Now, and deal with it, affecting change (which is highly necessary and extremely possible) as soon as need be.
To worry about not-yet-defined internet rights, taxes, government policies is an overrated endeavor. Why? Because it keeps us focused on the future, which is full of unreal imagery.
You counter with this: "let's make the right decisions now, because to affect change in the government takes so much time, lobbyist dollars, and a scattering of bi-annual elections". This is where my decree fits in precicely: we CAN'T make the right decisions now; we don't know what the right decision will be.
Let's use our vote for the purpose for which it was invented: to cast our selection of what we individually want. Do that first, don't vote for a group or with a group. Vote for what you want, and it will all be sorted out afterwards; just like Prohibition, just like 55 m.p.h. speed limits, just like government's involvement with business, just like segregation, just like woman's suffrage, just like anything that has mattered so far in our history. None of those issues were ever decided "correctly" when they were first made law. It took dilligent change (albeit human suffering, which is unavoidable) after the fact.

Re:Voter apathy

[Telex4]

It won't at all. You're quite right. Access and laziness simply cannot be the reasons for low voter turnout, otherwise every country in the world would have the problem to the same degree as the USA. The problem is collossal, but one element of it can be drawn out with interesting comparisons to the Internet:

In the early days of the US, civil participation was an important aspect of political life, and everybody was meant to be actively following and participating in political life. The same occurs o nthe 'Net now, which promotes participation by several mechanisms, mostly social but also some technological The very idea of getting onto the 'Net and not getting involved in some project or discussion is absurd (and I'm talking about the 'Net, not AOL or some similarly media-blinkered version too many people use).

Politics in the US, and increasingly in European countries (i.e. the "old" democracies) involves less and less participation. Politicians actively *discourage* it - whenever citizens try to participate, they're damned. Participation is anethma to politics today. We exercise no real power over our governments because we only get the opportunity of one legitimate vote every two/four/five years (unless your government doesn't like you, like ethnic minorities in Florida). We exercise no real power over how they carry out their duties, nor over thier agenda, nor over how the agenda and results are published and perceived.

In a system where citizens have no power, and no part to play, it's no wonder they don't vote.

Just like all the other advances...

[I am the blob]

From the article:

The vast increases in productivity over the past decade mean that Jane has a lot of free time.

Yeah. As opposed to using the vast increases in productivity to allow our corporate masters to extract more productivity from us in the same (or more) amount of time.

Just like all the other technological advances have.

--blob