'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.

Comments

The false drives out the true

[Geoffrey.landis]

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?

Re:The false drives out the true

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Ask Glenn Greenwald:

CNN, Credibly Accused of Lying to its Audience About a Key Claim in its Blockbuster Cohen Story, Refuses to Comment

CNN’s blockbuster July 26 story – that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son’s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians – includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible reporting now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.

The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen – which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a “bombshell” – has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to “confirm” CNN’s story. That’s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his “confirmation” was false. As a result, both the Washington Post and the NY Post outed Davis as their anonymous source and then effectively retracted their stories “confirming” parts of CNN’s report.

Only one of two things can be true here, and either is extremely significant: (1) CNN deliberately lied to its audience about Davis refusing to comment on the story when, in fact, Davis was one of the anonymous sources on which the CNN report depended, and CNN claimed Davis refused to comment in order to hide Davis’ identity as one of their anonymous sources; or (2) Davis is lying now to BuzzFeed when he confessed to having been one of CNN’s sources for the story.

...
Reporting v. “Media Criticism”

Media outlets have invented a deceitful term to discredit and trivialize any reporting on their own wrongful conduct. Such reporting, they say, is nothing more than “media criticism,” in contrast to the “real reporting” they do. A New Yorker profile published yesterday that was designed to malign my own work on this story over the last two years – which has involved ample reporting on the conduct of media outlets in circulating false information – invoked this term of insult to dismiss such reporting as worthless.

This term is self-serving nonsense from media outlets, seeking to render their own behavior off-limits from journalistic scrutiny. Media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC are highly powerful corporate actors. Their behavior can generate immense consequences for society. When they engage in journalistically deceitful or unethical practices, or when they report consequential claims that end up being false as a result of their recklessness or bias, that produces highly harmful outcomes.

CNN - home of deliberately fake news.

How many of you who deride "Faux News" are going to even try holding CNN to any standard?

Guess what?

Until you do - until you're also willing to hammer CNN for actually running demonstrably fake news with questionable at-best sourcing - you are part of the problem.

Re:The false drives out the true

[BlueStrat]

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.

That's not an internet problem, it's a societal problem. Society is dysfunctional due to the rise of identity/group politics and "intersectionality"-driven/generated hatred that the Left has pushed for decades in order to divide the people and empower themselves. What is seen on the internet is merely a symptom of a sick society suffering the inevitable outcomes of Leftist ideology and political agendas, it's not a cause.

This is a problem. Does it have a solution?

Yes, the solution is simple...but far from easy. Get people to realize that almost everyone agrees on basic principles of liberty and civil rights, the differences are simply about how best to address issues we all agree need to be addressed, and that hating someone because they want to solve the same problems you do but in a different way does not make regular folks on the Right Nazis or those on the Left communist dictators. There's no peaceful end-game if people can't look past group-identity-driven hate.

Strat

Re:The false drives out the true

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of you who deride "Faux News" are going to even try holding CNN to any standard?

What about those of us who think CNN and Fox News are both badly flawed and in need of higher scrutiny and standards? Or were you honestly somehow hoping the strawmen would respond?

Re:The false drives out the true

[DNS-and-BIND]

Biological determinism? Tut, tut, that is a big no-no on the Left. You'll not get far with that kind of thinking. Down that path lies the third rail of discussions about IQ - Douglas Murray tried that and got electrocuted.

Destruction Has Commenced

[rally2xs]

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.

Re:Growing anti-intelectualism

[ooloorie]

There is a growing population who just doesn't trust the experts.

I trust experts. What I don't trust is politicians to select experts for me and then force me to act according to their preferences.

The biggest threat is the anti-intelectualism movement.

You're confusing expertise with intellectualism. An engineer, a doctors, and a plumber all are experts at something that actually matters. Chomsky, Habermas, and Sartre are intellectuals, but they have no expertise on anything that matters, like running the economy, treating cancer, or fixing a leak. Intellectuals make money by spreading ideas, not by actually solving problems.

It's exposing the powerful for who they are

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:Growing anti-intelectualism

[DNS-and-BIND]

You mean conspiracies like 350 newspapers publishing the same editorial topic on the same day, without it being disclosed beforehand? That kind of conspiracy?

Look, the entire concept of "conspiracy theories are DUM" was created by the CIA in the 70s. No, that's not a conspiracy theory, and yes that really happened.

Minus points for mentioning the Nobel prizes, which once were noble but today are the objects of ridicule.