Live data from Hacker News

The End of the Internet Dream

medium.com

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent future for humanity is not compatible with a profit-driven world. The solution is to end the profit driven world in a way that will lead to a better future, because like it or not, the profit driven world IS ending.

What makes you say that the profit driven world is ending?

The internet deals mostly in intellectual property, where socialism is actually working quite well. Github is essentially a communist marketplace: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#112
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is not people, nor was it ever about people. It is about money and capital, and capital is not governed by moral principles.

Oh the market is about people when it commoditizes them, and that just makes the consequences even less moral.

A comment phrasing it as "market is people", and then comment about commoditizing... it reminds me of Soylent Green, which also is people. ;).

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#113
I don't buy it.

First off, there's always a tendency to overplay the negative aspects of the present while dismissing the positive aspects and to treat the past with excess nostalgia.

Moreover, it's very difficult for most people to grasp the significance and degree of major changes in society, culture, and the economy on short time scales while immersed in it.

I've been using the internet for more than 20 years and while there are certainly many negative developments that have happened along the way there have also been many positive ones. I would not at all characterize the modern internet as heading toward less freedom, not at all. My impression is that far more people are far more aware of issues of injustice and oppression today than was previously the case. It used to be that only a tiny sliver of "radicals" were really clued into those issues, and many of them also adhered to one or another nonsensical conspiracy theory to boot, which weakened their cases when it came to appealing to the modern world. Today I see growing kernels of increasingly less marginalized and increasingly more powerful people who have been educating themselves, participating in the conversation, and speaking out.

No it's not perfect, and it's not happening absent a lot of the revelation of lots of repugnant behavior. And it's also happening seemingly very, very slowly. But my perception is that the trend is for the most part in the right direction and strong. Giving up is the only sure way to lose at this point.

The bulk of this article seems to be completely out of touch with the way people have been using the internet, especially younger people. It's not becoming more TV-like, it's becoming more interactive and participatory. It's not retaining existing power structures. That only appears to be the case when you look at bullshit measurements based on bogus statistics like paper valuations and user counts. The reality is that the real power is in the people. In the content creators, in the groups, in the social networks themselves. The value layered on top of that or spread in-between to facilitate it is fragile and small by comparison. It's the same as in Silicon Valley. Having a billion dollar valuation doesn't mean your company is powerful or secure any more than having a billion users does. And it doesn't.

I predict that within the next 5 or perhaps 10 years there will be another great shift and "implosion" of one of the current major "internet powers". Perhaps facebook, or youtube, perhaps even google or amazon. I don't think people understand the mobility of the modern technological market. You do not own users or customers, you retain them through superior service. It will probably shock people who vulnerable these mega-corps are to disruption, and once one of these big shifts happens once you are going to see a crapton of bloviation from the chattering classes about how absolutely unpredictable and ground-breaking the whole thing is, but it means nothing more than that they haven't been paying attention.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#114
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a heck of a lot more people justify things by claiming to have objective moral knowledge. Throughout history, the most atrocious acts imaginable have been justified this way. I am much less worried about invoking the satisfaction of people's needs.

The subtle distinction between "want" and "need" is at the root of this. What the user wants is at odds with what they need.

Who decides what they "need", if not the user in so much as what they "want"?

I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.

That's no freedom at all.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in doing so, you create a larger market for anti newer-shittier-spam ads, with the potential to erase ads for anyone who cares enough.

Which is strictly worse than not creating that market at all. It's just resources going to waste over the pointless zero-sum games, and that's exactly another reason where "satisfying user needs" doesn't cut it as a justification.

So, are you going to determine for us what people are allowed to put on their websites?

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtle distinction between "want" and "need" is at the root of this. What the user wants is at odds with what they need.

Who decides what they "need", if not the user in so much as what they "want"? I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them. That's no freedom at all.

You can't look at it in a binary way. Of course it's a bad idea to prescribe people their needs. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I am to have for dinner. But there are also needs that are obviously better left unmet. For instance I may feel a need to take possession of your property. It's not a kind of freedom you'd want to grant to me.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#117
post #19

As long as you can read ISIS's Dabiq on line [1], censorship isn't working. As long as you can read Stormfront's White Pride World Wide [2], censorship isn't working. Facebook is not the Internet, even if Zuckerberg would like it to be. [1] http://www.clarionproject.org/docs/islamic-state-isis-isil-d... [2] https://www.stormfront.org

Censorship isn't about total, fool-proof access limits. It's about trivial inconveniences[0]. "The human longing for freedom of information is a terrible and wonderful thing. It delineates a pivotal difference between mental emancipation and slavery. It has launched protests, rebellions, and revolutions. Thousands have devoted their lives to it, thousands of others have even died for it. And it can be stopped dead in…

It's not "censorship" if media outlets won't carry messages they disagree with. It's actually pretty fundamental to freedom of speech that they're not obliged to.

It's a lot easier to find radical and controversial material than at any other period in history, including in the parts of the world where people actually do have to search for "how to set up proxy" before viewing hitherto nonexistent detailed written criticisms of their government.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#118
Is unfortunate how she mixes racism and sexism in this essay, which makes the subject too broad, specially when bringing things like "only 30% of google is female", firstly because such companies are the ones making the "internet dream" die, so you are asking diversity by the "enemy", also when the "internet dream started" it was a lot less diverse than now, the steryotype of lonely male teenager messing with computers is silly but it IS based on real life mostly because men are more likely to be loners who seek refuegee in things like tech, D&D and such "hobbies". And nobody would care for diversity if this particula hobby (tech) weren't the one shaping the world.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they also complain about paying a dollar for an app. They get exactly what they are willing to pay for.

But also, there aren't many 30 dollars apps worth buying! It's a weird deadlock. Most app are either crap and free with ads, crap and "free" w/ in-app payments, crap and for $1 or crap and terribly overpriced. For some weird reason, there's little of good development going on.

The weird reason is that customers are totally fine with buying and using crap. Until that changes, there will be no incentive for doing good development.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#120
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Poverty" is a relative condition that couldn't exist without Capitalism. There is no objective state of poverty anyone has been lifted out of by Capitalism.

That's complete rubbish. Anthropologists and historians use measures in terms of nutrition, health, life expectancy, child mortality and leisure time that apply regardless of the economic system in operation and track changes over time in order to characterize changes in lifestyle. You can set benchmarks to characterize poverty regardless of whether the population in question live in an agrarian, capitalist, Marxist…

Your starred comment beautifully allowed you to knock down your own strawman. Nicely done. :D

It is worth looking at his comment with the "red" filters removed. The point is that every game has winners and losers. You actually can't have one without the other, by definition. One creates the other.

The real question is just how far do you want to tilt the board before all of the pieces fall off? Money is just a representation of material and effort. Do you really want to leave the decision about where all material and effort are spent up to those who figured out how to win this game? To some degree that's fair, but to what degree?

Remember: there are no self-made men. Anyone who thinks this is deluding themselves. We exist in an interconnected net, where everything is related. There is not one thing sitting within arms reach of you right now that you made completely by your own hand. You are standing, at all times, on the shoulders of others. Hopefully this is a true circle, where those at the top allow those on the bottom to stand on their shoulders.

Post reply on HN