Slashdot Mirror
'It Is a Challenging Time for the Internet: We Must Not Let It Be Undermined' (internetsociety.org)
Andrew Sullivan, CEO and President of Internet Society, a decades old nonprofit organization which works on internet-related standards, education, access, and policy, writes: It is a challenging time for the Internet Society, because it is a challenging time for the Internet. For most of the Internet Society's history, the expansion and development of the Internet could be regarded as an obvious good. There were always those who simply opposed technological development. There were always those who wanted their own interests protected from the Internet. But Internet users historically benefited so much, so obviously, that skepticism about the value of the Internet itself was rare.
Things have changed. Every technology can be used for negative ends. The Internet still, plainly, brings gains in efficiency, convenience, and communications. Yet in the recent past, some of the negative uses have become apparent, which leads some people to ask whether the Internet is just too dangerous. This environment has produced a golden opportunity for those who always preferred a sanitized, tightly-controlled utility to the generative, empowering Internet. These forces claim that only national governments, treaties, laws, regulations, and monopolies can protect us from the problems we face. They do not want the extraordinary collaboration of the Internet. They think there is some mere political choice to be made between the Internet we have known on the one hand, and a tidy, regulated network on the other. If these forces are successful, we will all lose.
The Internet connects people because of its basic design. Each network that joins the Internet does its own thing, but together they are all richer and more reliable. A network of networks cannot be centrally controlled because it has no centre. This is not some accidental design choice we could alter: without this essential feature, we do not have the Internet at all. For that very reason, we -- all humanity -- must not let this technology be undermined. We must face, realistically, the challenges that the Internet produces for us all; but we must face them collaboratively and together. The Internet is for everyone, because only everyone can make the global network of networks.
Things have changed. Every technology can be used for negative ends. The Internet still, plainly, brings gains in efficiency, convenience, and communications. Yet in the recent past, some of the negative uses have become apparent, which leads some people to ask whether the Internet is just too dangerous. This environment has produced a golden opportunity for those who always preferred a sanitized, tightly-controlled utility to the generative, empowering Internet. These forces claim that only national governments, treaties, laws, regulations, and monopolies can protect us from the problems we face. They do not want the extraordinary collaboration of the Internet. They think there is some mere political choice to be made between the Internet we have known on the one hand, and a tidy, regulated network on the other. If these forces are successful, we will all lose.
The Internet connects people because of its basic design. Each network that joins the Internet does its own thing, but together they are all richer and more reliable. A network of networks cannot be centrally controlled because it has no centre. This is not some accidental design choice we could alter: without this essential feature, we do not have the Internet at all. For that very reason, we -- all humanity -- must not let this technology be undermined. We must face, realistically, the challenges that the Internet produces for us all; but we must face them collaboratively and together. The Internet is for everyone, because only everyone can make the global network of networks.
The internet is the source of all knowledge, true and false. We'd once thought that by giving people access to both in the marketplace of ideas, with no gatekeepers, the "true" would drive out the false.
We're now realizing, however, that this may not be the case. The false can drive out the true, because it can be crafted to play to people's wants and needs and prejudices.
This is a problem. Does it have a solution?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The biggest threat is the anti-intelectualism movement.
There is a growing population who just doesn't trust the experts. Either because their finding conflict with their belief structure (such as Evolution vs Creationism), or will find that it demands changes to their lives (Global Warming), or from people realizing what they learned in 8th grade science isn't actually fully true.
Conspiracy theories are now trying to discredit almost all science. Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Hoax. Expert in fields are being ignored for bar room half drunk talking points...
The internet seems to be spreading this movement by repeating and making these points more complex filling with half hearted examples to fill their minds with doubt.
Now the intellectuals are not innocent either, they will often have opinion in fields that they are not experts in. Like this Jellomizer guy who keeps on posting on Slashdot in areas that he hasn't any experience in, but is relying on summaries of expert opinions and not being able to really defend such viewpoints.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wow, that was a great satire of the ridiculous views of modern progressives!
The destruction of the internet has commenced with the censorship of certain political views and other information deemed too dangerous to allow the unwashed masses to see. Some of these things are known as "hate speech" and then there are the supposed dangerous things like data files that can be used to build an "undetectable" plastic gun. None of these things should be censored either by the government or the private enterprises that are doing it. But it is being done, it will probably grow in commonality, and in 10 - 20 years there will likely be no real political discussion on the net, nor the sorts of things "dangerous" that you see now. There are detailed videos on Youtube for making TATP, triacetone triperoxide, the terrorist's favorite explosive. The stuff is so unstable that you don't want to look at it funny or it will blow up. We had a female EOD Army member that picked up a terrorist's device made of TATP, didn't know what it was, and accidentally dropped it. It blew off both her arms. Should the making of such a thing be banned? One would think maybe, but there are so many other ways to commit mayhem it seems futile. The very familiar gasoline can be made to blow up and it is universally available. Should something's ability to be dangerous allow it to be banned? Such banning will, as it always does, work to the advantage of the powerful and lead more easily to the sort of slavery and genocide that some groups commit mostly out of fear of the other. No one can control fear, it is there and we have to deal with it, and courage sometimes runs short, and then terrible things can happen. Should the oppressed have this information to fight back with? I think yes. So, I am against banning any information or opinion on the internet.
For most of human history, deception and secrecy have been foundations of power. Secrecy: If people don't know what's going on, they can't oppose you. Deception: lying is extraordinarily powerful if you can't speak back. These two concepts have been used by elites for millennia to keep and maintain their power over us, and they like it that way.
Now, the internet is threatening to upset the whole apple cart. People can view with their own eyes and make their own decisions. These decisions are frequently not in the interests of our ruling class, so they must not be allowed to be discussed. Since the tech giants were recently elevated to ruling class stature, they are expected to do their part along with the media, and keep the masses under control. We can't have a free and open internet, because that would mean that our ruling classes might have to change. Brexit and Trump were clear warnings of what will continue to happen in the future if we don't change the internet from a free and open platform into a curated, walled garden where only approved opinions may be discussed.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
...that is doing the undermining. Insert eyeroll emoji here:
You mean the fake news about Fake News. The deranged conspiracy theory that Putin knew years in advance that a failed game show host could be president, and set out to get him elected by spending a few thousand dollars on Twitter trolls in a $9 billion election.