What The Internet Isn't

looseBits writes "Doc Searls and David Weinberger, co-authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto, have put together a 10-part guide for how to stop mistaking the Internet for something it isn't. It contains some painfully obvious and often overlooked characteristics of the 'world of ends' we call the Internet."

Comments

Political, not descriptive

[JonSari]

This describes what they want the Internet to be, not what it is or what it will be. The characteristics of the Internet they describe will change based on who uses it, as it molds itself to suit the people to use it as a TOOL.

Re:Political, not descriptive

[AeroIllini]

You didn't pay much attention in your high school government class, did you? Or maybe you were too involved in the details of the government to see the bigger picture.

There is nothing more to the constitution than "I will give up some of my freedoms and in return you will give up some of yours." The whole document, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII, is simply working out how the citizens, state governments, and federal government will divy up the available freedoms. That's it. That's the whole document. The minutae, the paragraphs of information, are just working out *how* those rights get split up. Just like the minutae of IP (packet sizes, routing, port numbers, backbone wiring) is just working out *how* the packets get from A to B. The citizens say, "We will give up our right to make laws directly, and in return the two governments give up the right to hold office longer than we want them to." The state government says, "I will give up my right to have my own army, and in return, the federal government will give up its right to not defend me." And so on. Anything else that's involved (such as the laws themselves, or the governmental departments, or the government-sponsored programs) is just building upon that one foundation. Everything goes back to the constitution, and anything that doesn't agree with it gets rewritten or thrown out by the Supreme Court. Just like additional protocols, like email, news, HTTP, UDP, and LAN are built upon the IP foundation to create a working system.

Take a step back and look at it as a big picture. We agreed to form a bunch of states. We agreed to combine those states into a federation called The United States. We agreed on a single currency for all the states. We agreed on a method for choosing our leaders. What happens if members of the system don't agree to the above? In small cases, the members are taken out of the system (prison). In more extreme cases, the whole system collapses into civil war (for reference, see 1861-1865). What happens when a computer doesn't agree to the IP, and refuses a packet? That computer is taken out of the system. In more extreme cases, many computers refuse packets, and the system falls apart. The bit doesn't get from A to B, and the internet is down.

The whole point of the article is the big picture. It doesn't matter what we call the internet. It's just a big system, and the authors of the article are simply defining what that system is, since most of the commercial sector seems to have lost track.

Oh, and Internet2 is not a seperate internet. It's a consortium of people working out new systems for the internet. Read the FAQ.

Re:opinions versus facts...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an opinion. Considering more and more people are logging on, and I just read an article about older people turning to the Internet, consider the following... Just because to the author, the Internet, and using it is easy, does not mean it is not complicated for a new user

They don't mean the protocols or the software, or anything like what you're suggesting. They are simply saying that the internet is something that carries information from one point to another. That's pretty simple.

No people are stupid. Personally (this is my opinion) I believe the next generation is going to be hellishly smarter than the one I grew up (growing up) with (in). Where else can you learn so many things from without leaving your home. Encyclopedia? They're limited.

Well, if by "smart" you mean "tech savvy" I might agree with you. People are still as dumb as always when you get down to it. But, again, you're missing the point, because the internet has data available (much of it false or incomplete, I might add), that doesn't refute their claim that the internet is stupid. A library is stupid, yet it is full of information.

There is no true 'value' per se as one cannot grasp anything physical. But where else can you find mega bargains, mega information...

They mean, the internet is just a mechanism for transferring information. Trying to layer something else on top of it, like "pay per view" or "content protection", runs counter to the basic principle of transferring information.

Finding "mega bargains" is in fact a transfer of information, which is what the internet is all about. Charging you $1.50 for that information? No, that's not what the internet is about.

Here's a thought experiment for the MegaCorps: what if it is simply not possible to make profit on the internet?

Adding value can be a good thing...

[pdaoust007]

"Adding value to the Internet lowers its value

Sounds screwy, but it's true. If you optimize a network for one type of application, you de-optimize it for others. For example, if you let the network give priority to voice or video data on the grounds that they need to arrive faster, you are telling other applications that they will have to wait. And as soon as you do that, you have turned the Net from something simple for everybody into something complicated for just one purpose. It isn't the Internet anymore."

The way I see this, prioritizing packets also ensures that a minority of users can't abuse the network ressources the everybody else want to use.

Right in my home network I had to prioritze RTP packets (VoIP) so that other people in the house couldn't screw up my phone conversations when saturating my uplink or downlink. The same can be true on a national backbone, especially in failure conditions where you will get links that saturate.

We can't stop the Internet from evolving either, it has probably turned out to be very different than what it's creators had envisioned...

Where is the Internet?

[DonGar]

I worked for the computing center when I was in college. When the school was first being connected to the internet, and many people were having their desktops networked for the first time, one of the really common questions from non-technical types was "Where is the Internet?"

A careful summary of world wide networking (this was before web browsers) would be met with a blank stare and "Yes, but where is it?"

We finally decided to tell them it was at a secret location in a closet in Idaho. This seemed to make people feel better.

I never really understood why the most confusing thing was.... "Where is it?"

These people had already learned how to use their email programs and 3270 emulator (virtual mainframe terminal) with no problem.

Thinking back on this.... it makes more sense that AOL had so much success. If AOL was installed you could tell the user that the internet in that little friendly icon right there on the desktop.

Re:Where is the Internet?

[Saeger]

"Where is the Internet?"

Instead of being a condescending ass, why don't you just use the simple telephone system analogy? Once you've done that almost everyone will understand that the net isn't a thing in a central location, but a global network that computers plug into like their telephones plug into the telephone system. If an idiot follows up by asking, "but... where is the phone system?", THEN you can tell them it's in Idaho. :)

--

Content is not free.

[dnahelix]

Perhaps companies that think they can force us to listen to their messages -- their banners, their interruptive graphic crawls over the pages we're trying to read -- will realize that our ability to flit from site to site is built into the Web's architecture. They might as well just put up banners that say "Hi! We don't understand the Internet. Oh, and, by the way, we hate you."

I'm no fan of popups or banner-ads, but if that pays for content
that I otherwise would not be seeing, then so be it. I think
commercials have made for a rather successful business model
for television, which is as pervasive as ever, even after more
than 50 years.

I also think the slew of dot-bombs from the past few years
proves that you can't give away something for free forever.
I would much rather put up with ads than have to open an
account with every website that provides quality content.
(subjective, I know)

I use the internet very very frequently to find information that
I need. Outside of my monthly charge for internet access, this
information is all free. It's free to me for one reason alone:
Internet Advertising.

The only thing people seem to be giving away for free on the
internet is their opinions, which I'm up to my neck in!

Re:Ironic?

[pla]

I find it ironic that the "Choose a style" menu at the top-right doesn't work in Safari, but works fine in Mac IE, despite the fact that: "We don't have to worry that its basic functions are only going to work with Microsoft's, Apple's or AOL's "platform""

Go to a command prompt.

Type "ping 66.35.250.151" (slashdot, as of an nslookup just a few seconds ago). Do you get a response?

Congratulations, the internet works for you, regardless of platform.


The internet does not give a damn if your favorite web-browser style works or not. It doesn't care if you use a broken MS Samba implementation. It doesn't care if AIM works with MSIM. It doesn't care if you can't make a passive connection to an FTP site through your firewall (although that does actually get a lot closer to the nature of the internet than the previous examples).

It doesn't care if you live in China and research Falun Gong, whatever the hell that means (they certainly make a big fuss about it, though). It doesn't care if you look at kiddie porn. It doesn't care if you troll slashdot (no, I don't mean this as a troll, just giving an example).

The Internet routes packets from point A to point B. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:for sale...

[starm_]

I think your teacher wasn't aiming on being literal when she said that. English contains ton's of utterances that don't mean exactly what they mean litterally. Like when you ask: "Can you pass me the salt?" you are not actually asking if the person is able to pass you the salt, you are expressing your will the the person will pass it to you. This is a field called pragmatics. You get angry way too easely