It claims that the corpos and govts that are trying to appropriate the Internet are making a mistake.
Not that they're evil, but that they're mistaken.
As I understand it, it implies that such behaviour doesn't benefit those companies.
That they can't just turn the internet into another TV network and suck money out of the people.
I mean, what's stopping these companies from doing just that?
Why can't they make profit by destroing the internet and turning it into a machine for spraying advertisements at eyeballs?
@Wolf480pl There are many lines in that war for mindshare. Two of the main battle lines is formed around adblockers and legal crypto. If we can hold those two...we can survive as a network long enough to develop alternative forms of governance that can challenge the dominance of those vertically integrated monopolies. Things like irridum & ipv6 hold the promise of universeal, ubiquitous connectivity for everyone.
@Wolf480pl global internet service via satellite. Slow as fuck and expensive...but you can get coverage basically anywhere you can see the sky. Which means that no matter how bad your local political environment is, if it ever gets worth it to just say fuck it and use irridium...you can. If they can manage to keep netneutrality on their end there's at least a little pressure of competition to our advantage.
Another thought: They say
>We are all connected equally. Distance doesn't matter. The obstacles fall away and for the first time the human need to connect can be realized without artificial barriers.
And it seems like a good thing, but doesn't it make us extremely vulnerable to manipulation, viral memes, including viral ideologies, etc?
@Wolf480pl The question becomes how much could they possibly make when there is less reason to be online in the first place (for the people that operate and produce networks for it) and aside from all the tech that does an end run around a walled garden... whose walled garden? Verizon, Disney, Facebook, and the US government are all going to have different, mutually exclusive, answers. None of them benefit the others and all of them make assumptions about the $ value of the future they want
Cryptonomicon spoilers/reference Show more
If you've read Cryptonomicon, it's cool how at the end, it's in every evil corpo's or govt's best interest for The Crypt to stay neutral, to keep being a bulletproof hosting. If we only could create a situation in which net neutrality and end-to-end principle is in best interest of the current internet superpowers...
Yeah, but if doing that brings them shitloads of money, and it's their best move from a game-theoretic point of view, IOW doing that is in their best interest, then it's not a mistake.
This means we can't just wait for them to die from the mistake, or create a company that doesn't make this mistake and win effortlessy.
We need to fight them.
We need to defend the Internet.
@Wolf480pl agreed - short term they have every interest in breaking it. Long term the internet is going to be like ubiquitous running water in that societies that do not have it decoupled from those vertically integrated monopolies will be rightly called 'shithole countries'
@bob @Wolf480pl I'd imagine that's probably "level 2" of the problem. There's varying groups of monopolies...the dumbest of which try to turn the net into a TV service, the next dumbest try to turn it into a smart TV service, the next dumbest try to turn it into a APIaaS with control over the commanding heights of the economy/capital...each level is a step away from the edges being intentionally crippled