Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beware the Internet

Posted by Unknown on from the first-they-came-for-the-telegraph dept.

frost_knight writes "Washington Post opinion writer Robert J. Samuelson writes 'If I could, I would repeal the Internet. It is the technological marvel of the age, but it is not — as most people imagine — a symbol of progress. Just the opposite. We would be better off without it.' It is his belief that the dangers of the Internet outweigh its benefits." The reason? Cyberwarfare of course.

25 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Washington Post by Error27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In all fairness, Washington Post opinion pages are normally very stupid so this is not out of line with what's expected.

    1. Re:Washington Post by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It lets everyone see the truth instead of what governments try to filter from the rest the world.

    2. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, we would repeal the Internet because we want a return to the halcyon days of high profit margins for newspaper ads and classifieds.

      We used to have a monopoly on the distribution of information. People used to do our bidding. Now, we're irrelevant and it really hurts our feelings.

    3. Re:Washington Post by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Since when did some old guys ignorant opinion become news for nerds, especially when such opinions flow almost 24/7 in all major newspaper opinion sections... old guys or indoctrinated young-uns lamenting the loss of hierarchical information flow?

      Oh silly me, it is news for nerds since Washington Post stepped out of line. All part of the discredit the messenger(s) campaign. Carry on then...

    4. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Truth" being defined, of course, as:
      - opposite of whatever the government says
      - whatever I feel the government is trying to hide from me
      and
      - whatever that ranting guy was shouting about the government yesterday at the bar, which was truth because he was too drunk to lie. I know because I was just as drunk.

      Sigh.

    5. Re:Washington Post by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The internet today is what was the motorway system in the later half of the 20th century, the propagation of telephone net in the early half and the railroad in the 19th century.

      Or if we go back further - the invention of the printing press was a revolution where the hand-copying of books suddenly became obsolete.

      Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:Washington Post by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh FFS people! Just because it's a newspaper doesn't mean it's not a troll. Newspapers were trolling long, long, long, before the Internet was invented.

      The scary stuff isn't articles like this one, it's what they write when they're being serious.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:Washington Post by OolimPhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are four versions of any event: my version, your version, the truth and what really happened.

    8. Re:Washington Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Either you adapt or you will be another victim of the steamroller of progress"

      Or don't adapt (otherwise translated as "conform") and just get out of the way of the steamroller. I know many people who live just fine without the Internet at all. Last I checked my biology text book, the Internet was not one of the requirements for life.

    9. Re:Washington Post by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child pornography--which is not dangerous, but rather a symptom of a pre-existing form of child abuse which is considered dangerous and which cannot be called a symptom or byproduct of another physical, harmful action (it's a symptom of a psychological condition, which is internal to a person and harmful to no one else until an action is taken).

      Grooming and enticement of children--the real danger that precedes (and, often, doesn't precede) the above. Easier and safer in real life, since you tend to know a lot of children and you know they're not FBI agents and it's harder to monitor everyone arbitrarily in real life. Proliferated with the Internet to greater incidence anyway.

      Identity theft--which occurs in the real world easily enough, but is much easier to profit from and has a greater market with the Internet.

      Stupid people--getting stupider all the time, now twice as stupid with Internet, going out to vote based on their stupidity. Stupid enough to threaten their own privacy and post pictures of their friends everywhere and talk about shit openly about their friends, so they threaten everyone else's privacy.

      People selling you shit.

      The list goes on and yet the biggest threat of the internet is CYBERWARFARE?!

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  2. Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Me? I'd repeal the Baby Boomer generation. The Internet's only scary when you're still dealing with a scarcity-based mindset. Otherwise, you're trying to figure out how to make the real world more like the Internet (minus goatse, natch).

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Got that finger pointed the wrong way... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd repeal the Baby Boomer generation.

      Does anyone here aside from me see the profound stupidity in blaming a group of people because of when they lived. Who would have done better?

  3. Re:Uh, duh? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I also like this bit:

    I don’t know the odds of this technological Armageddon. I doubt anyone does. The fears may be wildly exaggerated

    Wildly exaggerated, you say? Who would do such a thing?!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. The guy has no clue by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I grant its astonishing capabilities: the instant access to vast amounts of information, the pleasures of YouTube and iTunes, the convenience of GPS and much more.

    Hello? GPS is not a feature of the internet.

    Also, I think he is totally wrong when he quotes cyberwar as a reason for removing the internet. Any organization that does not want the risks that come from connecting systems to the net can disconnect theirs. Simple, isn't it?

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  5. What is he talking about? by mythix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all he starts by telling us what the internet has brought us:
    - vast amounts of information
    - youtube
    - itunes
    - GPS

    Wait, what? GPS?

    second, the problem with the internet is not the internet. the internet is not obligatory, not everything people put on it is truth, it is not a reliable information source for personal data.
    I am not scared of it, nor should I or anybody else be.
    The problem with the internet, as with everything on this planet, is the nature of human kind.

  6. I feel stupider for having read that... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is the good Mr. Samuelson aware that 'the internet' is not actually a binary thing(except in certain architectural senses)? It's not like somebody in the control room flips a switch and *boom* TCP-rays fan out, brutally penetrating previously secure systems. You. Have. To. Connect. Things. To. The. Internet. To. Make. Them. Vulnerable. Are there plenty of things connected, that really ought not to be, because people are insufferably cheap and lazy? Sure, hard to argue with that. Does it somehow follow that we would be 'better off without the internet?". Only if you live in a curious universe where you have to shut down the entire internet just to get a few dumb fuckers to airgap their retro SCADA system.

    (One might also argue that, if the people who are actually victims of internet attacks, the various companies and banks and things he cites, aren't willing to give up the convenience and low cost of the internet in favor of greater security, it is possible that the alarmist bullshit of people who want a wider remit to expand their paranoid security state online is alarmist bullshit... There is an argument to be made that people who haven't yet been attacked are illogically discounting the costs of future attacks in favor of present savings; but people who are being attacked today are weighing the costs and the benefits of being networked today, and generally staying networked. Go figure...)

  7. Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What? We readily take an 18 year old's opinion on pensions and healthcare, why not the other way around?

  8. The "good old days".. by Dynamoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's time-travel back to the 1980s and try to research a topic. You might need to allot a whole day for this.

    Where would you start to look? Well, probably the library. If you really know nothing about a topic you might want to start with one the Encyclopaedia Britannica, something that hardly anybody would be able to afford to own at home. Then, if you want more specific information you might find out the Dewey classification for the topic area and check out the books on the shelves, or rummage through index cards. Perhaps (if you are lucky) the library has a computerised index. Want to look up something more topical? We used to have the Times Index, a printed index of what had been published in the Times (of London). Then it was a trip to the microfilm collection to look up back issues. Perhaps if you weren't making much progress you would have to ask around to see if someone had some pointers, maybe a contact of a contact. You *could* use the Internet and post a question to Usenet, perhaps someone would give you an answer in a few days. Maybe after a hard day's work you might be able to tease the nugget of information you wanted out of the library. Perhaps not.

    Today? Well, you either Google it or look it up on Wikipedia. You'll have your answer in minutes and you can then get on and apply that knowledge. Now, tell me how that is NOT progress?

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:The "good old days".. by grouchomarxist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The other day I had a flashback of writing a report in elementary school. The teacher would make everyone do a report on the same subject and the industrious students would then go to the library and check out all the books on the subject, leaving the slacker students with nothing.

      Well, you can't check out the internet.

  9. I'm glad the internet lifted the veil by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the author longs for the bygone era when journalists were the primary source of how the majority of people shaped our personal views of the world. I for one, am glad that the veil has been lifted.

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  10. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The net was awesome until the barrier to entry got too low... (aol)

    That got every fucktard in the world online. And then came the marketing scum...

    And here we are.

  11. This is so stupid it's beyond belief by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you want to suppress the internet because of cyber-warfare? How about suppressing cars because there are car accidents? Or suppressing humanity because humans get diseases?

    When something new comes to light, new problems appear with it. Intelligent people try to solve the problems. Idiots try to suppress the new thing.

    Incidentally, this guy's opinion is published far and wide thanks to the internet. Oh the irony...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  12. Re:Beware the roads! by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Thag say fire bad.

    Fire hurt Thag.

    Thag see fire make sharp stick harder. Even after fire gone, fire still hurt with sharp stick.

    Thag like rock. Have rock for long time, everyone good. Rock good for Thag father, and Thag father father, and father father father.

    Keep rock, all stay good.

    Have fire, all get bad.

    Fire bad.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  13. Re:er what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine if his opinion was reversed. Of course, now you've invested emotionally in your ad hominem so you will claim that you'd think he is just as irrelevant no matter what his opinion were but if you had originally seen him hail the Internet as the greatest invention of mankind, you'd think him absolutely correct and relevant despite his age and occupation.

    This is the fallacy of ad hominem.

  14. I disagree by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if you want to argue that, then you want to actually argue against the printing press. I cannot remember the book or author, Vonnegut I think, had a good bit about how prior to the printing press knowledge was something like the martial arts: You had to work on it,sweat, spend your time and effort, often a lifetime to attain it. Your mastery died with you. For each person, learning something required an apprenticeship, basically.

    The printing press changed all that. Now ideas could be made permanent, and disseminated. Now people didn't have to discover everything themselves or learn from what masters they could, they could get information and then build on it. They could stand on the shoulders of giants, as Newton said. So when a genius like Newton came along and advanced the knowledge of mathematics, physics and optics by probably 100 years or more, it wasn't something just limited to him and perhaps those that studied with him, the world could learn.

    If you think that there needs to be a lot of effort for information, well then the printing press is your enemy, because that is what it became easy. Not as easy as it is now, but pre and post printing press was a bigger difference than pre and post Internet.

    It is also necessary if you want to keep advancing things. There's really only so much time one person has to learn, only so much information they can soak up so fast. So if things are going to continue to get more complex and require more information, then we are going to need easy access to that information.