I don't understand why everything must "grow and adapt ...".
Can't something just stop evolving? Its not like its failing or something, we don't need everything to do everything just be good - very good - at what you do.
Save .org
101–110 of 355 posts
Re: Save .org
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the sentiment was regarding the democratization of knowledge and access, which is shifting more toward an oligarchy. True, more of humanity is coming online. However, they can only participate if they can be monetized and controlled by those with all the wealth and power.
The internet was and remains the most democratic knowledge dissemination engine in several thousand years of recorded history. It is substantially more democratic than it was in the 90s and 2000s because there are more people accessing it now. It isn't shifting towards an oligopoly unless you count things like Wikipedia as a monopoly. Which it isn't, Wikipedia is probably about as close to an ideal democracy as any h…
[deleted]
Re: Save .org
#103I've been thinking a lot about the sheer downsides of DNS overall. We need something different. Something decentralized, encrypted, something not reliant on a protocol that hasn't kept pace with security and privacy and we need something verifiable that provides accountability. As others have said TLDs have become a racket. Only the priveleged and nation states have the authority to use the system as a funnel of ridi…
The problem is that DNS powers the internet as we know it, getting everything ever to switch over is at least another 30 years after you make a protocol (that would also need to have literally no downsides).
Not sure I agree. If FF & Chrome both supported it...it'd be in effect in Just look how quickly DoH is being rolled out, or Google's QUIC.
Realistically if Google, Mozilla, Cloudflare, Apple, Microsoft, and a few others agree that this move is bad, and wanted to stand up a new .org TLD...they could, and I don't believe it'd be illegal (IANAL).
Re: Save .org
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the sentiment was regarding the democratization of knowledge and access, which is shifting more toward an oligarchy. True, more of humanity is coming online. However, they can only participate if they can be monetized and controlled by those with all the wealth and power.
The internet was and remains the most democratic knowledge dissemination engine in several thousand years of recorded history. It is substantially more democratic than it was in the 90s and 2000s because there are more people accessing it now. It isn't shifting towards an oligopoly unless you count things like Wikipedia as a monopoly. Which it isn't, Wikipedia is probably about as close to an ideal democracy as any h…
Wikipedia is a great example of a web site that has resisted the trend! It is a pretty ideal democracy for those of us whose ISP or nation-state[0] doesn't prohibit us from viewing it.
There was a project similar to Wikipedia, but for semantic data. It lasted for a little while before being swallowed up by Google and shut down[1]. Granted there are some alternatives, but after investing some time working with freebase data, I should be allowed to hold a grudge.
Google played a key role in muzzling more widespread usage of RSS[2], along with Twitter and Facebook discontinuing support for it. Similarly, jabber[3], XMPP[4].
These days it's risky to even host your own mail server, since most people you correspond with are likely to use one particular email service that may arbitrarily block messages from lesser-known mail services[5].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/freebase-discuss/WEn...
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/3013890/reader-may-have-died-to-...
[3] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2006/use-twitter-by-instant... (couldn't easily find press of the discontinuation of this service)
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769
[5] https://www.tablix.org/~avian/blog/archives/2019/04/google_i...
Re: Save .org
#105I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…
How about we just use different domains? .org is gone, use .com or .net or any of the other hundred of domains.
> How about we just use different domains?
> .org is gone, use .com or .net or any of the other hundred of domains.
What about all the broken MX records?
Re: Save .org
#106I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…
You mean the death of the nerds-only Internet (a different kind of walled garden). There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet".
There's certainly many problems with something this gargantuan, but I get very skeptical when people nostalgize and eulogize "the good old days" of anything.
I'll add, I say this with empathy to your feelings. I regularly feel a very strong nostalgia for those late nights of discovery on the Internet. But I do recognize that Internet involved a fraction of a fraction of the people using it today who are discovering and creating and sharing all kinds of stuff with greater ease than ever before.
Re: Save .org
#107[deleted]
Re: Save .org
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you decentralize, you don't end up with something equivalent to "the internet" anymore -- you end up with several islands of things that (to varying degrees) resemble "the internet", and run on the same layer 4 fabric, but are largely isolated from one another. I think we actually experience a mild version of this today, where entities publish their all their Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat/Whatsapp/Linkedin e…
> You should have no doubt that, for example, Facebook would make a "the internet" which was 100% Facebook-operated sites. AOL already tried that back when they were still sending floppies through the mail. They were the largest ISP on earth and couldn't keep people in their little walled off corner of the internet. I don't think anyone else is going to be more successful.
They might not have been able to keep people there forever, sure. But their walled garden was “the internet” to a major chunk of people in the US for quite a long time.
Remember when TV commercials would tell you a company’s AOL keyword?
Re: Save .org
#109Where should I mail a bomb?
Re: Save .org
#110I've always been a bit confused by the relationships among government agencies, ICANN, IANA, the registry-operating entities, etc., and this site doesn't seem to explain why the CEO of the Internet Society is the right person to appeal to. Can anyone point to an explanation that summarizes the overall flow of authorities and obligations involved here?