Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Bay Founder: We've Lost the Internet, It's All About Damage Control Now (thenextweb.com)

Mar Masson Maack reports via The Next Web: At its inception, the internet was a beautifully idealistic and equal place. But the world sucks and we've continuously made it more and more centralized, taking power away from users and handing it over to big companies. And the worst thing is that we can't fix it -- we can only make it slightly less awful. That was pretty much the core of Pirate Bay's co-founder, Peter Sunde's talk at tech festival Brain Bar Budapest. TNW sat down with the pessimistic activist and controversial figure to discuss how screwed we actually are when it comes to decentralizing the internet.

In Sunde's opinion, people focus too much on what might happen, instead of what is happening. He often gets questions about how a digitally bleak future could look like, but the truth is that we're living it: "Everything has gone wrong. That's the thing, it's not about what will happen in the future it's about what's going on right now. We've centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg, who's basically the biggest dictator in the world as he wasn't elected by anyone. Trump is basically in control over this data that Zuckerberg has, so I think we're already there. Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong and I don't think there's a way for us to stop it." One of the most important things to realize is that the problem isn't a technological one. "The internet was made to be decentralized," says Sunde, "but we keep centralizing everything on top of the internet."

108 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever something goes main stream, its only a matter of time until its cheap and ruined.

    1. Re: Yep by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it will take before FB suddenly tanks.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Yep by infolation · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even as a fan of the dystopian viewpoint, I don't see it's any more 'broken' that at the inception of the internet.

      The cost of entry used to be high, in terms of money, knowledge and creativity required. That cost has been removed. But using the internet in a free, decentralised, uncensored, anonymous, and 'anarchic' way is viable, it just has a high cost of entry.

      Long distance communication for the masses hasn't always been free, or un-monitored. News hasn't always been outside state control. But with enough education, knowledge, money, time, and possibly contacts, these things are viable.

      In the past. Now. And as far as I can see, in the future.

      With knowledge and money, I can buy an old Thinkpad. Libreboot it using a Beaglebone Black. Run Debian (Tails). From a cafe using cash-paid wifi on a random but plausible MAC address. Obtaining information from 'unstoppable' websites running over Tor. Running DAO-style businesses on the Etherium blockchain. 'Laundering' proceeds using Ring-signature Monero because otherwise 'big finance' says my coins are 'tainted'.

      Your average person probably wouldn't understand a single sentence in that last paragraph. But they probably wouldn't have understood the computer department staff at UCLA in 1969 or Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1991.

      For each problem, there is a solution. It just requires some intelligence and work. It might be out of reach of the masses. But that's how the internet (and the subject of networked computing devices in general) was at the start.

    3. Re:Yep by Subm · · Score: 1

      You're suggesting a false dichotomy. The internet has gotten more accessible and easier to use, but that change doesn't necessitate the loss of freedom.

      We could, in principle, have accessibility and ease-of-use and freedom.

    4. Re: Yep by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long it will take before FB suddenly tanks.

      Because of the sheep-like and narcissistic nature of people, probably never.

      It's like asking when people will stop using mirrors.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re: Yep by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yes, Mr. "I'm so much smarter than everyone else", I should use some platform no one else uses to post the occasional picture or interesting tidbit of information.

      That's dumb.

    6. Re: Yep by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Yes, Mr. "I'm so much smarter than everyone else",

      Thank you for recognizing my inherent superiority. I award you two (2) Internet Points for your groveling acceptance of my wisdom.

      -

      I should use some platform no one else uses to post the occasional picture or interesting tidbit of information.

      Or, like me, you could just decide you don't give a shit about showing off your trinkets and quit your pathetic me-too attempts at trying to make people think you have an interesting life.

      -

      That's dumb.

      ...says the guy defending his use of Facebook. Moooo! Post those pics! Show off your bling from K-Mart! Treat everyone to another picture of your *amazing* breakfast burrito! Beg for those "Likes", user!

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    7. Re:Yep by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      I've been using Tor quite a bit for the last month, in an attempt to piss off Comcast, preventing them from collecting browsing data from me.
      Tor has been more or less deprecated. You're solving captchas constantly because of Cloudflare, and everyone uses Cloudflare. Some sites deny you access of any kind, citing 'abuse', because you're on ANY Tor exit node. Some sites just plain won't work at all if you're on Tor (try ordering a pizza from Dominos; it redirects you endlessly back to their corporate site, you can't get to where you order a pizza, ever). Banking sites and utilities sites still work over Tor, but how long before they, too, start using Cloudflare, or just plain deny access because you're on a Tor exit node? I can't see paying for VPN as a viable alternative for privacy protection, because they'll all either end up treated like Tor, or they'll be the ones logging all your data instead of nosy ISPs, which defeats the entire purpose of it. Using anonymous proxy servers is a non-starter, because who knows who the hell is running those, and what sort of MitM attacks they might be perpetrating while you're using them?

      Then there's what other commentors in this discussion are saying about so-called 'social media', mainly Facebook: it's the Leviathan of the Internet, and just as evil, sucking up all the data that people willingly provide it, and 'controlling the narrative' as much as it can get away with, meanwhile the world increasingly sees nothing wrong with 'requiring' you to have a Facebook account to do anything, and as one pointed out: Try convincing Immigration that you *don't* have any social media accounts, and see where THAT gets you..

      I agree with Sunde; the Internet is horribly, fundamentally broken, because of what the corporate world and some governments have allowed to be done with it. It may in fact not be repairable and may need to be abandoned entirely. For at least a couple years now I've been slowly contemplating and devising an Exit Strategy from the Internet, as it becomes more and more a complete clusterfuck of a surveillance platform rather than a communication and data retrieval system. Tough, but leaving it behind could be done. The one problem you can't solve however is societal; you leave the Internet behind, you're going to be judged as a 'luddite' or 'anti-social', or in the case of people from my generation, 'too old to understand the Internet' or 'suffering from dementia' or somesuch nonsense, regardless of the fact that my work helps create the devices that everyone else is using to tether themselves to this worldwide surveillance platform. Meanwhile the vast majority of people are not only oblivious to what's going on, they're not capable of even comprehending it on a technical level if you try to explain it to them, their eyes glaze over, and at some point they just start talking to you like you're 'off your meds' and need to go see a shrink because you 'think everyone is out to get you'. What they don't realize is that the Internet *IS* out to get them -- and in fact already HAS them; they're stuck in the Matrix, and in many cases that's all they've ever known, so they don't even know the difference.

  2. internet chickens come home by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    to roost in the ARPANET founder nation.

  3. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Make a parallel open internet using the open backbone with end to end encryption. Done. Internet. Good idea stolen by NSA and recovered by open systems as UCLA envisioned.

    Listen.

    1. Re: Answer by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Back to basics of CW communication on the HF bands.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Answer by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Make a parallel open internet using the open backbone with end to end encryption. Done.

      Of course! Why hasn't someone done that!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re: Answer by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Back to basics of CW communication on the HF bands.

      Yep. It's high time to resurrect FidoNet over smoke signals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Answer by Mosquito+Bites · · Score: 1

      " ... focus too much on what might happen, instead of what is happening ... "

      Biggest problem is everyone focusing on what is happening but forget that we, the netizens, have the power to affect the future of the Net

      Without us, internet is just a shell with no participants

      If we can build world-wide network, from BBS-era's Fidonet, to the Net, all by ourselves, without FB or MS or Apple or NYT creating walled gardens, we can, and we must do it again!

    5. Re:Answer by lastman71 · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. The article said is not a technological problem, because at the end, almost everybody use a centralized service (facebook, google and so on).

      You have to convince people to not use commercial "free" services. Good luck with that!

    6. Re: Answer by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Encrypted Morse Code. Now there is an idea.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    7. Re:Answer by tigersha · · Score: 2

      > Without us, internet is just a shell with no participants

      And without the large companies running the place, the network and the large websites the Internet would be nothing or some chaotic dump

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    8. Re: Answer by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

      Or Hellschreiber.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    9. Re:Answer by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      without the large companies running the place, the network and the large websites the Internet would be nothing or some chaotic dump

      That's what it is now, and the only large entity upon which we really depend is google or similar to allow us to make some sense of it. It was actually possible to navigate the interwebs just with the Yahoo! directory back in the day, so I'd say it was actually less of a chaotic dump and made a lot more sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Answer by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The chaotic dump is still there, all you have to do is go around the back behind the shiny new buildings. There are more amateur and/or non-commercial websites now than there ever were.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re:Answer by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Really? Give me an example.

    12. Re: Answer by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Encryption is expressly prohibited on the Amatrur Radio bands.

  4. Then don't use Facebook by SIGBUS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, I've distrusted Facebook from the very start, and never will trust it. Given that Zuckerberg is on record as saying that anyone who trusts him is a fool, I'm going to work accordingly. I've got better things to do with my life then spend it tethered to bullshit.

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
    1. Re:Then don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The overwhelming majority of people use Facebook. They don't give a shit about the ideals of freedom and decentralization. And they outnumber us hugely.

      We can't "win" in an essentially democratic system wherein a tiny "we" is up against a massive horde of "them."

      We get the Internet that They deserve.

      That's all.

    2. Re:Then don't use Facebook by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      A past generations introduction to the internet was FB. A newer generation only knows the internet as social media sites.
      The rest of the internet is going the way of ftp, Veronica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Jughead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Archie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Then don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But that's the great thing about not being on Facebook. It saves you from a lot of false friends.

    4. Re: Then don't use Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More like, Facebook is the tip of the Zuckerberg, AMIRITE??

    5. Re:Then don't use Facebook by tquasar · · Score: 1

      I've never participated with Facebook or other sharing sites. My sister posts pics and stories then asks me if I saw this or that. I say no, call me or send an email. There are already enough sites that harvest all of my life, why add another?

    6. Re:Then don't use Facebook by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      They don't really even need your name and personal info. Web sites report your IP and the shit you look at to central advertising computers that assemble a dossier of the types of things you would statistically be interested in buying, then sell that off ad space at an increased rate to particular products being advertised.

      It's all automatic and doesn't need your name at all. A name or phone number lets them tie you together across multiple devices, and to a larger historic record of you-the-person, but just an IP is good enough for 90% of it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re: Then don't use Facebook by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's true. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people do not use Facebook. There are more than seven billion people on the planet.

      I, for one, don't use it. I don't believe I have ever made an account.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Then don't use Facebook by callahan2211 · · Score: 1

      Facebook free for two years.

      --
      "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
    9. Re: Then don't use Facebook by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      They claim to have 2 billion active users per month, so about 30% of people. But considering only around 40% of people have an internet connection, that's most of the possible people.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re: Then don't use Facebook by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's kind of what I figured, though the number I'd heard last was something like 1.2B people had registered accounts. I am not even sure that the vast majority of people even have 'net access on a regular basis. I admit, I'm being pedantic. However, OP should be more accurate/honest.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Then don't use Facebook by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Why do you think anyone "trusts" Facebook? Is anyone posting their secret Swiss bank account numbers there? Just what super-secret info is anyone trusting FB with?

    12. Re:Then don't use Facebook by murdocj · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to "win"? If you don't like FB, don't use it. You are still free.

    13. Re: Then don't use Facebook by doom · · Score: 1

      It's worth thinking about the accuracy of the claims. There've been examples of internet Great Sensations that were essentially companies lying about how much traffic they were getting (e.g. second life).

      More interesting I think is the idea that the intelligent few are stuck with a lowest-common denominator trash internet... is that really true? What are we to make of the 30% or so that have taken the trouble to install an ad-blocker? It would seem that quite a few people don't just swill up anything that's put in front of them.

    14. Re: Then don't use Facebook by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dunno but. as a kinda objective viewpoint, it's like the lowest 3% and the highest 3% are filtered to get extra amplification. I don't even know. I'm not kidding. I go to bed at night and I know why everyone is mad. I even took some extra time to figure out why you're yelling at each other.

      I get up, in the morning, and I don't even know. At one point in time, one side declared themselves better than the other side and that all other negative reports are true and all other positive reports are false - and then there's a group that tries to give it some exactness, and they try to remove biases. They might just as well color with crayons. They're not helping, not even a little.

      So, you've got insane A and insane B. You go ahead and assign whatever values you want to either. I'm pretty sure you're all insane.

      No, really... I'm pretty sure you're all insane. Some sane voices poke through the noise but it's not easy to spot them. I don't know what happened. I woke up one day, and the Earth was kinda crazy. It actually hasn't improved. It's pretty much still crazy.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Then don't use Facebook by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The overwhelming majority of people use Facebook.

      2 Billion active user apparently, meaning 5 billion humans who don't use it. That's not a majority.

    16. Re: Then don't use Facebook by doom · · Score: 1

      No, really... I'm pretty sure you're all insane

      Admittedly, a good bet.

    17. Re: Then don't use Facebook by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dislike Trump. I shouldn't have to say that, but I do. I don't just dislike him, I honestly feel the world would be better off without him. I'm a secular Buddhist, I hope you can understand what that means to me. I don't hate Trump. I hate very few people. I don't want him to die, but I'm not so stupid as to think that death is not the legitimate answer to some problems.

      Seriously, I dislike Trump a great deal - to the point where I'm willing to engage in introspection and evaluate my belief system. I dislike him that much.

      That said...

      I haven't done the math but I'm gonna guess that some 90% of anti-Trump headlines were false, in some way. I'd even say the first three paragraphs, of all the articles I've read, are false in 60% of the way. It may be higher.

      For example, they've got this current leak. Some chick leaked an NSA document that says that someone in Russia, not necessarily a government official, sent spear-phishing emails to just about 100 election officials. None were successful, by the way. They didn't attack (in this memo) voting machines. They didn't succeed. They just sent phishing emails, like you see every day at work. Depending on where you work, that's fewer than you see every day.

      That's it. That's all the leaked document revealed. There's no more to it. There's no smoking gun and there's no revealing the US government doing something bad.

      I dislike Trump, but there's no smoking gun here. Hell, there weren't any smoking guns revealed in Comey's testimony. I know, I listened to all of it - on NRP and live. I was disappointed, and contacted them to let them know, that they had a commentator who tried to spin things that weren't said. "Well, what he meant was..." Only, he'd come back a few minutes later and make the NPR lady sound like she was on drugs.

      Keep in mind, I really dislike Trump. I really don't want him as the president - but he is.

      Meh, fuck it... I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. I guess, examine the sources you look at and trust.

      At one point, there were a bunch of people angry that Comey didn't get fired. A few months later, they were right pissed that he did get fired. Also, he got fired for different reasons than everyone was projecting. It's tough to say this, 'cause I hate Trump. But, I'll say the same thing I said for Obama... Back off and let's see what he actually does before we get irate. I'm pretty sure he'll give you a reason to be pissed.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:Then don't use Facebook by CalcuttaWala · · Score: 1

      the number of morons on the planet vastly outnumber the number of non-morons ... that is the tragedy

      --
      Insight into much, Influence over nothing !
    19. Re:Then don't use Facebook by tigersha · · Score: 1

      You just dug up some real deep recesses of my mind there!

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    20. Re: Then don't use Facebook by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      They claim to have 2 billion active users per month, so about 30% of people. But considering only around 40% of people have an internet connection, that's most of the possible people.

      On the face of it, it seems true. But I wonder how many of those accounts are unused and how many are merely professional ones--since every bar and every band needs a facbook page just like they used to need a myspace page.

      I'm not sure what the actual count of actual facebook users is, but I know in my circle of meatspace friends, half the people I know have never, ever signed up for a facebook page and of the other half, half of them rarely go on.

      Ronald McDonald is not a real person. And if you're using facebook to promote your business, then you're actually violating the rules of Zuckerberg. Better safe than sorry.

    21. Re: Then don't use Facebook by doom · · Score: 1

      Now, the question you need to be asking yourself is what precisely is the operational difference between a far-right Trump supporter and a highly-principled defender from the left who is Deeply Concerned that the alphabet soup may be framing the right guy for once?

      Another way of putting the question would be: what is the purpose of high-minded principles that don't actually do anything to make the world a better place?

      But the purity of your ethical standards certainly is impressive, I can even see it shining through my insanity layer.

  5. he wasn't elected by anyone. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What nonsense. Until people turn away he has full consent.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

    I don't FB, lost my unused pswd 5-6 yrs ago so I Email my friends. Often its "I spend most of my time on FB and don't remember to check - why aren't you on line"? Ughhhh. It *IS* a problem

  7. C'mon by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I've taken a fair amount of copyrighted content down the TPB myself.
    There's no way in hell I'd have paid for most of it, so for the producers to cry that it's "lost revenue" is bullshit - if I'd even decided it was worth the trouble I'd have waited for Netflix or Hulu or Netflix DVD and watched it.

    Further, I think the draconian copyright laws, and copyright ad eternium is ridiculous and frankly unconstitutional.

    But for TPB to cry "we've lost the internet" is very much like Blackbeard crying "I've lost my freedom of the seas!" - true as far as it goes, but let's understand that your PRIME activity was copying crap that was for sale and essentially giving it away for free without authorization. You're not the "good guys" here.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:C'mon by Jaden42 · · Score: 2

      I'm going to take a lot of heat for this unpopular opinion, probably, but since I visit this site less and less anyhow for various reasons I'll take the karma hit.

      Do you also steal candy you don't like and eat it to only tell shop owners they didn't lose any revenue because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway since you figured it would suck and wouldn't have bought it anyhow? Is it ok to steal non-physical products because you can't feel them?

      I am really sick and tired of this "it's not lost revenue because I didn't want it anyway" mentality. You downloaded content that was produced by someone and they expected to be paid for it. But you didn't want to pay for it. What you mean to say is "I didn't think it was worth giving my money to the producers/actors/musicians but I took the content anyway". It doesn't matter whether you think it was worth it or not; but they surely did.

      I am no saint. I've used TPB and other trackers. But I'm not a fool who tries to convince the whole world that I wasn't stealing. I'm just adult enough to admit it.

    2. Re:C'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The candy analogy is broken, because the shop owner loses sellable candy whereas the content producer loses nothing.

    3. Re:C'mon by jodido · · Score: 1

      He didn't say "worthless," he said "not willing to pay for or wait for it on Netflix." Not at all the same thing.

    4. Re:C'mon by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There's no way in hell I'd have paid for most of it, so for the producers to cry that it's "lost revenue" is bullshit

      Except this is the wrong way to look at it. "I would never pay for it, so I should get to see it for free!"

      How copyrights work is your very desire to see it is what the authors leverage to earn money. Earning money induces them to produce works, which is what benefits The People in the long run.

      You shouldn't get to drink a Coke, either (or drink one for 12 cents) just because you don't feel it's worth it to pay the retail price.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:C'mon by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      But he does lose. That you feel it is worth it enough to view indicates you are actually willing to pay something for it. "I would pay nothing" for something you clamor to acquire is a false claim.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:C'mon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That you feel it is worth it enough to view indicates you are actually willing to pay something for it.

      [citation needed]

      "I would pay nothing" for something you clamor to acquire is a false claim.

      No, clamor describes your comment: a loud and confused noise, especially that of people shouting vehemently. Perhaps you wanted clamber? Keep trying, son.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:C'mon by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      If it has value then you should pay for it in one way or an other.

      It's information. It's bits. It's out there. I am not hurting anyone by transferring the bits to my hard drive. If they don't want free riders then they shouldn't release the content into the world. Just show it in cinemas and carefully watch for hidden video cameras at all viewing locations.

      Once your release it as data you immediately lose control of that data and you are going to get a lot of free riders. No point whining about the reality of it. Accept it or go do something else.

      Hopefully people with money who like your work will pay you if you give them a way to do that. Enough people usually do, but for marginal content creators maybe not. That's just a downside of our modern world. Nothing is perfect.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    8. Re:C'mon by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      That you feel it is worth it enough to view indicates you are actually willing to pay something

      There are so, so many things people will accept for free that they won't pay for. Like most of the internet. That's why paywalls don't usually work, if we can't get it for free anymore we'll use our time on something else similar but a bit worse (there's sure no shortage of legal free entertainment out there).

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    9. Re:C'mon by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't get to drink a Coke, either (or drink one for 12 cents) just because you don't feel it's worth it to pay the retail price.

      Thanks for letting us know how you feel. Next time someone hands me a Coke I will tell them "No thank you, Impy the Impiuos[sic] Imp doesn't think I should have one. While it is true I didn't seek his approval he nonetheless has made it clear that one should pay the retail price for each soft drink consumed. Therefore, I must decline your kind offer."

    10. Re:C'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am not hurting anyone by transferring the bits to my hard drive.

      Sure you are. You've just found a way to rationalize doing what you want to do by claiming no one is getting hurt.

      Somewhere people are being hurt. Your transferral of bits to your hard drive may not hurt any one individual all that much, but you're hurting each of thousands of people a little bit. In the aggregate a lot of people are being hurt a lot and most of them are not wealthy.

      Don't pretend your actions aren't hurting anyone. The hurt is just hard to see, and it's probably not anyone you know.

    11. Re:C'mon by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      you feel it is worth it enough to view indicates you are actually willing to pay something for it

      [citation needed]

      Unless you're using an unusual definition of the word "worth", then I'd say Impy's argument is a logical one: it doesn't require a citation.

      I am using the only valid definition of the word "worth" under capitalism, whatever the market will bear. So no, Impy's argument is shit. It ignores reality completely.

      Digital content is obviously something you value (it's worth something to you) or you wouldn't be so aggressive (breaking the law and all that) about trying to obtain it.

      You don't know what the word "aggressive" means. Try a dictionary before leaving any more comments. It might help.

      But, I suspect there's no logic here except that people see something they want, and they (so far) seem to be able to get away with taking it without paying, so they take it. That's the "logic".

      The logic is that people wouldn't necessarily pay for it. I've consumed plenty of media that I wouldn't have if I had to pay. I'd just do something else. If this is confusing to you, you must have the world's most compulsive personality.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Re: This guy is an educated idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You don't have to use Facebook for them to have your data. Oh and just because a web page isn't indexed by Google doesn't mean they can't see what you do.

  9. put the crack pipe down by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Trump is basically in control over this data that Zuckerberg has, so I think we're already there." is this guy serious.. does anyone remember what FB did during the election? They banned so many right leaning political people and they skewed the feed results so you couldn't see real news. Facebook is horrific and everyone should quit them.. but.. come on man put the crack pipe down.. no social media company is working with trump in any way..

  10. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My data is not centralized, it is on my computer and nowhere else.

    Bullshit. Unless you count "your data" as pictures of your cat, which nobody cares about. But data about your activities is tracked and traded. Have you ever bought something online? Have a Paypal account? Sent email to a company with email hosted by gmail (even if their domain was not gmail.com)? Ever visited a site with javascript enabled? Owned a smartphone? A thousand other things like those?

    Then your data is harvested and traded as a commodity. It is not made obvious to you, but it happens.

    But hey, out of sight, out of mind.

  11. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Funny

    You think too small. Fuck em' they control the internet, well, we'll fuckin' control them and then take that fuckin' control away. Look at the chaos we have already wrought with the powers that be nuthin' and we have only just started. The control is an illusion dependent upon us, our control will be fuckin' real. Democracy, the majority must rule, the workers are the majority, the workers must rule. Don't like what they are doing, not a problem, replace them and do it again and again and again and keep doing it, keep the good, toss the bad. Don't like a corporation ostracise it, wreck it's marketing and public relations, bankrupt the fucker by all 'bendy' means possible, I promise it's fun ;D.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  12. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    Anyone who says : "We've centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg," is a clueless fool.

    And another thing a clueless fool might say is,

    "At its inception, the internet was a beautifully idealistic and equal place."

    You could sort of say it was kind of like that during a brief period in the mid 90's when the general public first started getting on it. But before that there was nothing "equal" about it.

  13. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My data is not centralized, it is on my computer and nowhere else.

    This statement is a contradiction. If all your data is in one place then it's centralized, be it facebook or your own computer.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  14. Ya I've never understood this Facebook paranoia by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    It is not like it is mandatory, and I don't see it going that way either. I know a lot of people who use Facebook all the time, who are glued to it. I know a lot of people who use it occasionally but don't give much of a fuck. I know a lot of people that don't use it at all (I'm one of those). This spans all ages too. There is this false idea that every single younger person is glued to Facebook so in the future it'll be the only way to communicate. Nope. Plenty of our students don't give a fuck about FB, whereas others love it. Same shit with older people.

    So far I've seen no indication that not using Facebook makes you an outcast, unable to get jobs, unable to travel, or anything like that. As such if you don't trust it, don't feel what you give up is worth it, or just plain don't care, then don't use it.

    1. Re:Ya I've never understood this Facebook paranoia by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      So far I've seen no indication that not using Facebook makes you an outcast, unable to get jobs, unable to travel, or anything like that.

      I've been wondering about that. With the Boarder Brown Shirts (not TSA, though many toss that name out with this) inspecting incoming - including American citizens - "social media" both on their electronic devices and also searches by the agents in the back room while you are waiting, will they believe you if you tell them you don't use "social media"? Or will they make the assumption that you are trying to evade them and so give you the Extra Special Treatment?

      I've considered setting up Facebook and other accounts like phone contacts on a "burner phone", possibly a Chrome Book with games and non-important stuff like a few documents and an essay on the patriotic American, just for travel in and out of the United States, while keeping my actual stuff on a thumb drive like one of these: https://www.newegg.com/Product...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Ya I've never understood this Facebook paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      >not mandatory
      But we're getting there.
      I had to start a huge fight to be allowed to not be on Facebook for a required university course.
      I can't contribute to a number of sites (e.g. addic7ed.com ) because they make it a requirement.
      When US immigration asks for people's "social" accounts, do you think they will take "none" for an answer?

    3. Re:Ya I've never understood this Facebook paranoia by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      US immigration *does* ask for social accounts now. I just made an ESTA. And (for now) they take "none" as an answer.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

  15. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    My data is not centralized, it is on my computer and NSA servers.

    FTFY

  16. It’s not an easy fix by Picodon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I tend to agree but it’s not easy to change. Technically, the internet (as I understand it) is just a bunch of interconnected networks, all sending and receiving data. By that standard, we should all be running our own little networks, complete with all the services that we need: DNS, AAA, mail, VoIP, VPN, web, etc., and also the applications that we want: media serving, short message (Tweet-style) publishing, etc. At that point, sites like YouTube or Twitter would only be used either as aggregators (specialised search engines and directories, finding stuff on our servers and linking to it) and as CDNs (for increased performance, if desired by us). The problem (as I see it) is that, instead, the internet has really become more like a giant local network: a bunch of pure clients (consumers) connected to servers (a.k.a. the cloud), with the peculiarity that those servers on the network are run by administrators that are unrelated to each other and to the clients, and who only have their own interest at heart.

    To regain some freedom, people would need to be able to serve data freely and effectively. And, right now, most of them cannot, for various reasons:

    • Their upload speed is abysmal.
    • Their ISP abusively prohibits them from running a server. Any kind of server.
    • Their ISP abusively denies them the most basic right of obtaining a static IP range. (And, along with hardware vendors, ISPs have historically contributed to making it near impossible by delaying support for IPv6. And even with IPv6, they have no interest in changing their practice and nobody says anything about it.)
    • Their connectivity is not neutrally provided by a pure ”dumb pipe” utility that only competes (or is regulated) to provide the best transport possible for the lowest price, with some guarantee of service (as opposed to only a rather bogus “best effort” promise).
    • They’re stymied by insecure standards (for example, mail) that allow malicious operators (for example, spammers) to operate and proliferate, which in turn may cause major operators to block traffic received from servers typically operated by individuals.
    • They’re stymied by a dearth of standards that would address new needs (such as those covered by popular social media publishers) to be implemented in a distributed manner (network of independent servers, like the web, with third-party search providers bringing it all together), as opposed to a central service controlling and mining everyone.
    • They’re not knowledgeable enough to setup and maintain a reliable and secure server. Not because they’re dumb (you can drive, but can you build an automobile?), but because the software is too hard to properly/securely use.
    • They’re not willing to foot the hardware and electric bill, and low-cost low-energy servers are not widely marketed to the average consumer.
    • High reliability and high availability are currently too difficult and costly to achieve in a consumer setup.

    I don’t see this changing anytime soon, for several reasons:

    • The infrastructure is seriously lacking.
    • There is no incentive for commercial operators to invent and deploy standards, technology or services that effectively enable consumers to no longer depend on those operators for anything more than low-value service.
    • Corporate operators are scared of consumers serving pirated data.
    • Governments are not active in fostering open standards, and are mostly doing the bidding of major commercial operators.
    1. Re:It’s not an easy fix by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You can set up a server with a static IP address reasonably cheaply on Amazon Web Services, as long as it isn't too popular. If it becomes popular, it will cost more, just like anywhere else, but you can start out with a solid setup without spending much money.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Obvious by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The internet was made to be decentralized," says Sunde, "but we keep centralizing everything on top of the internet."

    It's an inevitable consequence of asymmetrical Internet connections. The vast majority of Internet connections currently in use today have microscopic upstream bandwidth compared to downstream. The Internet would be a great deal more democratic if hosting a server at home didn't mean that your sister would be too impatient to wait for the family photos to load.

    If high speed Internet provided by cable companies didn't have its origins in one giant kludge, things might have been different. Unfortunately they were in a far better position to take advantage of packet switched networking. The phone companies were stuck with a circuit switching legacy that really crippled their ability to deploy decent Internet. And here we are. The companies that viewed their customers as silent consumers own the majority of the Internet, and to this day they really hate that their customers are allowed to upload anything at all. The companies that viewed their customers as equal parts producers and consumers lost the market.

    Fiber to the home, deployed by someone who isn't the incumbents, would solve the problem. And... yeah, that's over. Everywhere. So he's right, we've lost the Internet. Get ready to pay $65/month for your Basic Internet Bundle of Five Websites! For only $30/month extra, you can add ten more! All of them are owned by one of the existing media conglomerates! You will take this deal and you will like it! You have no choice!

    1. Re:Obvious by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That would work for networks like Hotline or KDX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
      The use of a Tracker to find a server and then search that server for files.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. The next steps by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    A ban on links. Any link to any site or domain is as much of an issue as the content. That will stop all deep links in comments or blogs.
    No comments about communists parties or their past leaders.
    Blasphemy laws and no cartoons or animations about a faith.
    No crypto or teaching crypto.
    Search results will depend on a political parties connection to a search engines upper management.
    Other political parties will find their content or news gets moved back in any results. A new memory hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    SWJ to clean the internet of politics, authors, content, history they don't like or are paid to remove.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by engineerErrant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The internet was built by DARPA and universities, and the web by large research labs - paragons of decentralization? I think not. This fantasy of decentralization got added on later by college kids listening to Napster and thinking it would all turn into some golden, trans-national mass of utopian rainbows. I was one of those college kids in the 90s, and gave that kind of thinking a funny look even back then. Much like nuclear power and Tang, the internet is just a weapon of war that we have somewhat re-purposed into cat videos and porn (both of which are better than Tang).

    There was never a "we" that "had" the internet (unless one believes in said utopian rainbows), so "we" cannot "lose" it. it's just a medium for ideas, like books or democracy, although a darned good one, and frankly one that has caused more democratization of more ideas than anything since the printing press. Just because some power-hungry curmudgeons have figured out how to fat-finger their way into a few tweets that help win political office, it doesn't mean the internet wasn't a step forward for ideas overall. It's working, it's healthy, so forget this drama-dude.

    1. Re:Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it's just a medium for ideas, like books or democracy, although a darned good one, and frankly one that has caused more democratization of more ideas than anything since the printing press.

      Thanks to the will of the mob, rumors, misinformation, and sensationalized bullshit can spread faster, further and wider than ever. I'm sure the most brilliant minds believed giving the power of instantly networked information to everyone would lead to a new age of enlightenment, but you can't fight human nature. People prefer having their superstitions and incorrect beliefs reinforced, rather than challenged.

      Today, we live in an age where pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is placed on equal footing with real, established science. Where rumors and hearsay gain as much notoriety as researched fact. People can choose to believe that vaccines cause autism, GMO food contains toxins, and aspartame causes cancer - because that's what their friends on social media are sharing.

      This Pirate Bay guy is correct that something has gone horribly wrong with the internet thanks to social media, but he may be pointing his finger at the wrong monster.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    2. Re:Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      Both your comment and the parent provide a comprehensive, realistic and objective summary as opposed to the click-bait, really-meaning-nothing ideas underlying this article. Unfortunately, I don't have any mod points left.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    3. Re:Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

    4. Re:Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The internet was built by DARPA and universities, and the web by large research labs

      The arpanet was built by DARPA, but the internet was built by universities. The web was also built by universities (who created the software) plus by users (who also created the software, and who actually built the web.) Some of us were giving away content on the web before there were any commercial concerns of note.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If the most brilliant minds thought that it would lead to mass enlightenment, were they really all that brilliant? For the most part, it has kinda turned out like a bunch of old curmudgeons suggested it would, way back in the very early 90s, when they were still just discussing opening it up for commercialization.

      I say kind of, because it is the end results that seem to match the pessimistic views mentioned on usenet. Even the tracking/spying were anticipated and predicted. We didn't predict specifically Facebook, and we expected more overt monitoring by governments. We did predict rampant disinformation and willful ignorance. We did predict aggregation of user data and mining that data. We did not predict it would be as large an industry as it is.

      We did predict things like user behaviors, though not the specifics. IIRC, one of the things we thought would happen was belief in conspiracy theories would increase. I believe we also predicted more widespread belief in aliens and in things like aliens controlling the planet. We also predicted that things like 'bad science' would propagate more quickly. We didn't predict the bit about autism, specifically.

      Of course, we also made a lot of predictions that were wrong. Some did predict a utopia. Some went completely in the other direction, and predicted it would cause the beginning of the end for human civilization. Yeah, we had crazy people online back then, just like we have today.

      The truth is somewhere in the middle, it seems. Much good has come from this here Internet. I'm sure even some good has come from Facebook. It's not a utopia and it is not the path to certain doom.

      As you can guess, I am pretty old. I'm not actually sure where I was going with this post. I guess the point was the question. If they predicted a utopia, were they really that brilliant? It also makes me wonder if it will get better or worse. Maybe they were right and it is still maturing into that utopia? Meh... What do I know?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Ridiculous, hysterical nonsense. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Today, we live in an age where pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is placed on equal footing with real, established science. Where rumors and hearsay gain as much notoriety as researched fact.

      Do you think this is something unusual about today and the internet? People have been buying unscientific mumbo-jumbo for a lot longer than I've been around, and rumors and hearsay have been excellent ways to influence things for a long, long time.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  20. The Internet. dark history by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

    The Internet was founded by DARPA. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
    The internet was a military project!
    It was not built to foster good things.
    It actually started in Hawaii. Making a military radio network between the islands. Look up aloha protocol if you don't believe me.
    It has lots of flaws.
    Take off your rose colored glasses and smell the fertilizer

    1. Re:The Internet. dark history by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Internet was founded by DARPA. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

      Yes, and that was the arpanet. And then we built it into the internet, with blackjack and hookers, and it happened in the universities and not at DARPA. DARPA laid the groundwork but did not do the legwork. Modern medicine also began as a military project, you gonna go back to prayer?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. The problem is upload speed and ISP policy by adam.voss · · Score: 1

    Decentralized solutions are difficult when the majority of participants cannot easily be hosts. The asymmetric download/upload rates seen in many popular Internet deployments has meant serving content is often not effective. Additionally, every ISP I have had has forbid running servers on home plans.

    The above has really makes it so there is no real market for decentralized solutions. Even as someone who wouldn't need a turnkey solution, I find the unfortunate reality is that it is the more centralized solution of renting capacity in some data center wins out over needing a business plan for the home.

    1. Re:The problem is upload speed and ISP policy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The asymmetric download/upload rates seen in many popular Internet deployments has meant serving content is often not effective

      You can get symmetric speeds if you like, you just have to pay for it.

  22. We are the internet by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Fortunately its not the hardware that creates the value... its the minds behind the IP. The wallets. :)

    --
    [($)]
  23. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's not 'insightful', that's autistic. The word "centralized" implies a single location for the data of all people, under the control of a single,powerful entity. His own data, on his own computer, is separate from the data of all the other people, and is therefore not centralized.

    Anyway, what did mr. Sunde do himself to keep the internet decentralized? Did he, perhaps, build a protocol to have decentralized distribution of .torrent files (which would have been easy enough)? Nope, he set up a single, centralized webserver where he could gain ad revenue. From stealing other people's work, no less.

  24. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by hazardPPP · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't FB, lost my unused pswd 5-6 yrs ago so I Email my friends. Often its "I spend most of my time on FB and don't remember to check - why aren't you on line"? Ughhhh. It *IS* a problem

    This. The only reason I joined FB was because I started missing out on the parties and meets ups. Why didn't anyone call or e-mail me? Oh, there was a Facebook event. WTF is a Facebook event? I left a couple of years later when I gladly traded less party invites for more sanity and privacy.

    Also, consider bars and clubs. They used to have websites. Now they have Facebook pages. If they still have websites, it's a single page with a logo, address, and a link to their Facebook page. If my girlfriend didn't have Facebook, I would be at a loss as to where to go out on the weekend, since all information is on Facebook.

    I absolutely *HATE* the way the internet has gone backwards. Sometimes I feel we've essentially abandoned the Web. The Web is supposed to be this open thing where everyone has an address and it points to your website that anyone with an internet connection can easily reach. Yet we've closed it all off into walled gardens. First it was the social media platforms, and then mobile made things worse with the invention of apps. Social media on a PC is still accessed via the browser, so it leaves the Web open to you...on a phone, you rarely have the need to open the browser. Paradoxically, it feels a little bit like the pre-internet days when using these services. Facebook and Twitter are the modern AOL and CompuServe.

  25. Paranoia... by amalcolm · · Score: 1

    ...MUCH! This guy needs to get a grip and delete his Facebook account

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  26. Internet is just a transport by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Peter, the Internet is just a transport. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it. If you don't like anything in the US, don't use anything in the US. (Of course, in that case, why do you use Twitter and why did you help redistribute so many films created in the US and promoting US culture and ideas?)

    If you want to isolate yourself completely from icky people like me, you can even run a mesh overlay network on top of the Internet. Neither Trump, nor Facebook, nor people like me can then communicate with you or get at your data. Come to think of it, I strongly encourage you to do that.

  27. Master Cow, my New Age Bull said this by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Humans are all too easily addicted to the Shiny Thing, all too easily placated, and all too easily rendered docile, like a chickens neck is stroked before being broken. Humans are too content to be made cattle, and look where allowing themselves to be cattle farmed led Cowkind. #Moo

    --
    John_Chalisque
  28. Re: This guy is an educated idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right. We are just seeing the inevitable consequence of the Eternal September.

  29. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

    Rewind to 2002 and people sounded like this:

    The only reason I got online was because I started missing out on the parties and meets ups. Why didn't anyone call me? Oh, there was email. WTF is email? I shut down my connection years later when I gladly traded less party invites for more sanity and privacy.

    Also, consider bars and clubs. They used to be in the newspaper. Now they have websites. If they're still in the newspaper, it's a single line with a link to their website. If my girlfriend wasn't on the Internet, we would be at a loss as to where to go out on the weekend. She tells me I'm an old man for phoning her or leaving a voicemail.

    The time of popular open standards was short. ~2002-2006 RIP.

    Before that, not everyone was online. After that, Facebook swallowed them.

  30. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Zumbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a big difference: Choice.

    Free email service were provided by many companies, and ISPs also often had email service as part of the subscription. On top of that you could create your own or buy access to an email service if you wanted. And best of all? Everything worked together, because the communication protocols were public and free.

    Facebook is one company. You have to use Facebook to interface with all the goings on, because almost everyone else is using their closed (but free) platform.

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  31. Distributed join by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    Creating social networks requires joining data. Distributed storage sounds great. Solve the distributed join problem and it might work.

  32. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My point is that it was very short time when open standards were popular.

    I'm horrified at what people accept as "normal" now. I recently tried to have a club use a mailing list. I told them Google Groups would mean that having a Google account would be a requirement to join the group... "so?, they're free!"

    They looked at me like I didn't understand what Google groups was.

    It seems we're going back to a time when only geeks are on the Internet. Everyone else is in various marketing silos.

  33. WeChat by dwater · · Score: 1

    You think it's bad here (in "the west")...in China (not just PRC), it is really scary how much dominance WeChat enjoys. It is used for almost everything there.

    --
    Max.
  34. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Also, consider bars and clubs. They used to have websites. Now they have Facebook pages. If they still have websites, it's a single page with a logo, address, and a link to their Facebook page. If my girlfriend didn't have Facebook, I would be at a loss as to where to go out on the weekend, since all information is on Facebook."

    i just wanted to address this. soon you will figure out that these bars and clubs aren't worth the money that you spend at them and that there are much better things to do in other places. the real secret to enjoying a social event is the people there not the location. to come full circle to facebook, I deleted my account last year for good after not using it for a couple years and since i stopped using facebook i have figured out a few truths about life.

    Real friendships require effort, those "friends" on facebook are really only voyeurs who want to distract them selves from their lives by watching other people. in essence, facebook is reality tv.You will find out really quickly who your real friends are, they are the ones willing to put in the effort to be a part of your life.

    by deleting facebook i have been saving money by not going to these events, clubs, bars or places. When i do end up going out, it is with a friend who already knows about the place and event and there is more of a sense of adventure and overall the evening becomes more enjoyable.

    You will also end up finding out more places that dont have an on-line presence, be it out in nature or a small exclusive place that doesn't get any hype through the curating algorithms.

    basically what im tryng to say is that you will be happier when you leave facebook, it just takes time to get over the dependence on it and become self reliant.

  35. Re: Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reading comprehension is not your forte

  36. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by murdocj · · Score: 1

    So the problem is that lots of people use a service that you don't use? That sounds like that's YOUR problem. Not theirs.

  37. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by murdocj · · Score: 1

    So the problem is that your friends are using a system that you don't like? YOU should be the dictator of the Internet, telling people what they can and can't use?

  38. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by starblazer · · Score: 1

    so easy to use, no wonder why it's #1. That's what Facebook is. AOL 18.0

  39. The Next Web, eh? by doom · · Score: 1

    That site, thenextweb.com evidently requires a facebook login in order to comment.

  40. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by doom · · Score: 1

    See that thing up there, going over your head? I wonder what it could be?

  41. One more time around the block by doom · · Score: 1

    Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) wrote:

    But he does lose

    No, the seller might be losing something, but maybe they aren't really: it's not that easy to say. E.g. I've bought DVDs to give as gifts because I saw the material for free first. (For that matter, I buy disks sometimes to support the businesses selling them, or just because I like having disks kicking around, but skip all that for now.)

    Book publishers don't go around complaining about how those damn public libraries are putting them out of business, and cassette taping was not really the death of the music industry, and if sales are down for music it might be because Internet, or it might be because people don't give a shit about music right now (a theory that would explain a lot about the music out there).

    By the way, sales of vinyl LPs and books-on-paper are evidently doing pretty well just now. The world sure is complicated.

  42. Remember MySpace? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    There's nothing actually keeping FB from becoming that 'platform no one else uses,' because everybody else has moved on, leaving FB a mass of abandoned accounts. It wouldn't even be the first social media platform to die that way.

  43. Re:Then don't use Facebook - the problem is by Gussington · · Score: 1

    Facebook is one company. You have to use Facebook to interface with all the goings on, because almost everyone else is using their closed (but free) platform.

    I deleted my FB account a few years ago and haven't missed it. My teenage kids don't use it either, it's all Snapchat these days. So I'm sure there's a large chunk of people that still use it, but like top 40 radio who cares. That audience is completely irrelevant to most people I want to interact with.

  44. Re:This guy is an educated idiot. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    Actually that would be an improvement. My data is decentralized. Which means everyone and his dog probably has a copy of it. :(

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.