World of Ends

epeus writes "At World of Ends, Doc Searls and David Weinberger explain the End-to-End nature of the internet in terms so clear even your manager could understand them. 'The Internet isn't complicated. The Internet isn't a thing. It's an agreement. The Internet is stupid. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.' and so forth."

Comments

Theorem

[telstar]

8. "No one owns it.

Everyone can use it.

Anyone can improve it."


4. "Adding value to the Internet lowers its value."

So the Internet is destined to fail?

Re:Theorem

[Minna Kirai]

So the Internet is destined to fail?

Yes, Doc & Dave have set themselves up to be misinterpreted with those particular headings.

It makes sense if you read the text, and see that "improve it" in item 8 doesn't mean modifing the internet in any way- only modifying protocols that use it.

"Adding value" to the internet, on the other hand, would mean changing the internet itself, which would break old applications, and make it harder to add new apps.

Re:Theorem

[gmuslera]

Think in i.e. Riverworld of P.J.Farmer, you have a river that connects all places in the world, the river is owned by nobody, everyone can use it, and everybody can build whatever they think around and over it, but if you change the river itself (contaminating water, redirecting or trying to stop it, adding to it some drink concentrate to make the water taste better, whatever), all the world loses, they can't use the same river in all the possible ways that they could before (and, if I remember well the book series, you will face a war very soon :)

Basically, this is right

[Sgs-Cruz]

Despite this article's annoying use of absolutes (I know, I know, they're effective, but I hate it when people write an article as if its the last thing that will ever be written on that subject), they're mostly right. Think about it. We can do more on the Net now than 5 years ago, despite the best efforts of the RIAA, MPAA, US Govt, and pretty much every corporate interest out there. I have a feeling this will continue into the future, too.

Wow! Someone making sense

[haplo21112]

Someone talking about the internet and actually making sense doing it....we can't have that!

Someone who realizes that it is what it is and can't be bent to everyone and their brothers whims...

My thought has always been that the Internet is Chaos and it works best that way....

The internet isn't stupid...

[CoolVibe]

The Internet is stupid

Well, I tend to disagree. It tends to make people stupid though, and it's hellishly smart at that as well. Just look at this place :-)

Seems a bit utopian?

[cindy]

"That's also why the Internet feels to so many of us like a natural resource."

...which explains why so many would like to strip mine it without regard for the future or for the rights or best interests of others.

The answer to Chicken Little economists

[urbazewski]

Great article --- I tried to make some of the same arguments (and didn't do as good of a job) several years ago in response to proposals being put forward academic economists to "improve" the allocation of bandwidth with complicated pricing schemes and "smart markets". The efficiency fetish common amongst economists blinded them to the real strengths of the protocol --- stupidity, flexibility and reliability. (Alas, the NSF didn't bite on the funding, and I moved on to other unrelated projects.)

We had a great working title for the project though:

The Internet: Triumph of the Commons.

adding value in the sense of not adding value

[feepcreature]

The collision between Anyone can improve it and Adding value to the Internet lowers its value goes away once you realise that Doc&Dave are using "Adding Value" in the sense of "not adding value at all, but changing things so that some stuff works better but the rest is worse".

It's Humpty Dumpty logic:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master--that's all."

--
Paul
Humpty Dumpty was wrong

Happened in industrial revolution too

[argoff]

A lot of people thought that the whole purpose of the industrial revolution was to use inventions like the cotton-gin to expand their plantations for unlimited controll and profits. While most people saw the invention as a great tool to end slavery, for others it was impossible to think of wealth in any other terms other than the size of a plantation, a farm, or estates. These people pushed slavery controlls to the point of civil war and were responsible for the deaths of millions.

I think today we have the same problem with "intellectual properties". It is impossible for people to think of wealth in any other terms than the number and amount of industires and people they can extract royalties from. It is impossible for them to understand that properties are not just about government edicts, or personal incentive, but natural forces - like everyone not being able to use the same thing at the same time. Well, with information - they can. And that is the real value of the internet.

Re:Are they technological-age hippies?

[mekkab]

easy, tiger...

He's not dissing Zen, he's using it as an adjective; specifically, he's saying "Zen style" as in, "Not zen, but a cheap knock-off."

Its like the word "Trustafarian"- the people who classify aren't trying to be Rastas.

Now, to swing this whole thing back towards the topic at hand:
Infact, your complaint of the parent post, is the parent post's complaint of the article! Sweeping generalizations are indeed not technical, the imply some underlying dogma. Hence, the term Zen-style (or Zen-steeze, if you get down like that). The tip off is the "evne a manager could understand it!"- technical went out the window.