Was everyone stupid back then? • Hacker News Board

Re: Was everyone stupid back then?

#131

Post by WelcomeShorty » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 2:06 PM UTC

rocket_surgeron wrote: post #110

endymi0n wrote: post #46

Looking back, I guess the main point of why the early internet was so special wasn‘t because of cool new communications technology, but because of the self selection. In order to use BBSes or the early Internet, by definition you had to be above average curious, smart, rich, young (late night dialup tarrifs) and/or based in academia, as well as having a volunteering/cooperating mindset. We just managed to keep the ot…

The early internet still exists. BBSes still exist. You can use them right now. The early forums still exist, in some form or another. IRC is still there. A dedicated few keep gopher sites up and running. Not everyone chose to leave them behind. This isn't even a "all tens of us!" joke, there are tens of thousands of us. $ telnet osuny.bell-labs.co 666 Trying 168.235.81.33... Connected to osuny.inri.net. $ telnet bbs…

So very true. It is _us_ who changed and choose for the easy web experience. The cool, hard / exclusive part is still around.

Re: Was everyone stupid back then?

#132

Post by jfengel » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 2:31 PM UTC

stemlord wrote: post #114

jfengel wrote: post #16

“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.” Douglas Adams thought he was joking.

I'm repeatedly surprised at how many people dont seem to get that most scifi is deliberately a reflection of issues that already exist in our current day society. Like that is what makes the jokes in hitchhikers guide funny, and why the matrix is one of the most poignant narratives in pop culture... black mirror is real life taken to poetic extremes, it's not a coincidence that zuck's metaverse gives off "black mirro…

That joke most certainly was a reflection of society, but I think it's different from the way that joke reads today (and out of context).

HHTG channeled the malaise and confusion of the 1970s, driven by nuclear war and economic downturns. (OK, a bit like now...) HHTG responded to that nihilism with pessimism on one side (Ford) and absurdism on the other (Zaphod). A lot of pleasures (sex, drugs, and rock and roll) were feeling hollow, and all Arthur (the prototypical Englishman) just wanted to hide and be comforted.

That joke certainly reflects a pessimism that is persistent in all societies, that every good thing must also have a downside. I took it out of context to highlight the communication aspect, something that I don't think was especially on Adams' mind -- though it would be only a few years before a communications revolution.

I think Adams' would take credit for pessimism being right -- usually a safe bet.

Re: Was everyone stupid back then?

#133

Post by SergeAx » Tue, Nov 08, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

kyleyeats wrote: post #50

YazIAm wrote: post #17

"You thought that an information transfer protocol would solve social problems?" I recognize that this is just a comic strip, but this is a pretty reductionist point. The idea that giving people access to more knowledge about the world and about other perspectives would be a big help in addressing social problems isn't crazy. A major problem, IMO, is that the feeds we use to navigate this sea of information became op…

Imagine saying this about writing, or the printing press. It's not just reductionist but cynical. Optimizing for outrage is a mass communication problem, not an internet problem, and unfolds roughly the same in every new medium from town criers on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

But the internet is so much more effective in that due to dramatically short feedback loop. Your ranking algo may select most outrageous posts/topics in a matter of minutes and even seconds with large enough DAU, compared to days for radio/TV and weeks for printing press. It is 2-4 orders of magnitude difference.

Re: Was everyone stupid back then?

#134

Post by tgv » Tue, Nov 08, 2022, 7:07 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #128

tgv wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would we (I'm of an older generation) have been less ignorant if I'd been carrying a pocket encyclopedia with me? Doesn't seem the appropriate word. > if a store is open Well, you don't need to tell if you plan ahead. That's how it used to be. Shops here opened from 9 to 6, except on Saturday (shorter), and never on a Sunday. There simply was no reason to look up opening hours. And if you needed something after 6, yo…

I'm sure there's information that you appreciate being at your fingertips that wasn't there before. I think we've taken for granted really how easy it is now to access information, and how annoying/difficult it used to be, and the consequences of that, many of which are clearly positive. It's just now we're at the stage where we are starting to be a bit more critical instead of jubilant about it.

There are some advantages, accompanied by large disadvantages, and I don't think it has made us smarter or less ignorant.

Re: Was everyone stupid back then?

#135

Post by pharke » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 9:52 AM UTC

smolder wrote: post #65

pharke wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem with this vision isn't that "people talking to each other won't prevent violence" it's that people posting text, images, and video is not the same as people talking to each other. Even a video call is not the same as talking to someone in person. It's hard to build empathy and connection with someone you can't make eye contact with.

I think that the medium of communication is not the main problem with this idea. I say that as someone who has had & still has strong relationships formed and maintained almost entirely through text. This has been going on for centuries, with pen pals and written correspondence in general. People vary and I think not everyone has the same need for physical proximity and nonverbal comms like eye contact. (In my case y…

I think the exception might prove the rule in this case. I still believe the majority of people require the presence of some body language in order to connect with others, if this weren't the case then we would have abandoned meeting in person altogether long ago with the invention of the telephone or even writing since we've been sending letters to each other for a long time as you mention. Since most people don't connect well empathetically with others through text or images alone, I think the best thing we can do is to bring more human presence to long distance communications. If you prefer to stick with text or voice alone then no one is going to stop you but lots of other people will flock to a system that provides a close facsimile of in person conversation.