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.
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?
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...
@Wolf480pl Companies are risk adverse in general and developing new revenue models takes risk. Why do something that might make money in the future, when you can do the same old thing that has proven to make some money, even if its a diminishing return.
@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.
@jeffcliff yeah, ipv6 looks promising.
Also, what's irridum?
@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.
@jeffcliff fun fact: slow internet encourages decentralization.
This might actually be what we need.
@jeffcliff so basically "it's 2018 why haven't we colonized the space yet" ?
@Wolf480pl that and coopting the occupy meme for our purposes yeah basically.
@Wolf480pl (...'our purposes' being weighted by the conclusions of the bostrom paper )
@Wolf480pl We aren't more vulnerable than we used to be. We are merely just starting to realize how fragile we always were.
And so do those willing to oppress us.
@glaurungo yeah, we've always been vulnerable. What I meant is that now we're more exposed.
@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
@Wolf480pl they sure can turn it into another TV network. Just like the soviet union could turn the desert around the aral sea into farmland. Doesn't mean they should
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'
@jeffcliff I hope it's true, and I hope that when that day comes, there will still be some societies with internet decoupled from monopolies. But I'm not convinced, and I don't think we should rely on it.
@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
We are a cute and loving international community Ｏ(≧▽≦)Ｏ !