Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of the Internet Dream

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#121

Post by ckozlowski »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #97
forrestthewoods wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not compatible? The profit driven world has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other system by leaps and bounds.

It did. We can't forget that all that wealth we have around is mostly thanks to market economy. It's a powerful driving force. But just because it's powerful, doesn't mean it goes in the direction we want. It did, mostly, for the better part of the last two centuries. But more and more, we now find ourselves at odds with where the market wants to go. This is the issue we have to deal with - our present economical eng…

I think that's far from decided.

It's not like the market economy is some distinctive, separate force from humanity; it's made up of people. And perhaps frustratingly, it's made up of all of those who participate, and not by diktat.

I think what maddens some is that masses of people sometimes make decisions we don't necessarily agree with, and often with information we don't think they have. We want change /now/, and that's just not possible with massive systems of people.

So we may look at issues of inequality today and issues of budgets and austerity and whatnot, and assume that we're all heading for the end. But as you insinuate in your earlier comment, man has steadily increased their economic output for centuries. The quality and longevity of life, over time, has increased inexorably. We can't confuse the turbulence of a decade with a scope over centuries.

But all of this I feel is somewhat moot. Because for as many calls as there had been for greater control over market forces, be it mercantilism of the 18th and 19th centuries, or socialism and communism in the 20th, we find that we're still, wherever freely possible, conducting business by barter and exchange, gathering wealth, and acting in our own interests. We do this because it's natural, because it requires no direction from elsewhere, or guidelines to follow that someone else sets. Place a person in whatever place and she or he will try to make themselves a profit.

We can only be frustrated to a point with the way things are, because to go further is to refute who we are. Freedom is desired naturally, be it in rule or economics. Best to help things remain open and fair, and not try and set a direction. People will find the best one for themselves.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#122

Post by pjc50 »

SpaghettiCat wrote: post #65
TeMPOraL wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to demonize for-profit work (at least not in this comment). My point is, there's money to be made off breaking the Internet, and there's little money to be made off fixing it. > You know where those evil profits ultimately come from? People paying to have their needs satisfied. Satisfying someone's needs doesn't justify anything. Not all needs are meant to be satisfied - especially if they conflict wit…

> Satisfying someone's needs doesn't justify anything. Not all needs are meant to be satisfied - especially if they conflict with the needs of others, whether directly or by generating externalities. What cases are you talking about? If a consumer pays for something, they want it. What is the evil of supplying a consumer with what they want? If they don't want it they don't have to buy it. If they don't like it they…

Software and hardware are sufficiently complex that the user has only the vaguest idea of what they actually bought. They cannot possibly make a fully informed decision and have to go on partial information.

I don't think it's sensible to say that customers "wanted" VW cars with "defeat devices". In that case, it's not even clear how much of the vendor company knew what was in the product.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#123

Post by tzs »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52
necessity wrote: post #44

Again with this "there aren't as many women in computing/politics/NASCAR/mining industry as there should be" bullshit. I'll just paste previous comments because it's always the same irrational shit people like to vomit to get an audience. Why are there so few male manicures? Why so few male babysitters? Why so few female NASCAR drivers? Why so few female in the army? Why so few male in the wedding dress business? We…

I decided to ignore that angle in order to not start a gender shitstorm this time and detract from a lot of interesting points made in that talk, but I believe the author basically answers herself but doesn't even notice it: "Many of the most successful security experts never went to college, or even finished high school. A statistically disproportionate number of you are on the autism spectrum." She says there are m…

Boys are approximately four times as likely as girls to be autistic. That would tend to make a group that is disproportionately male automatically be disproportionately autistic compared to the general population.

I wonder if that was taken into account when determining that security experts are disproportionately autistic?

Assuming that this is based on a proper base population for comparison, and so autistics are disproportionate among security experts when compared to their prevalence in a group drawn from the general population with the same gender statistics as security experts, then a possibility to consider is that whatever it is about males that makes them more likely to be autistic might also be something that makes males more likely to be interested in hacking.

That would fit with Asperger's view that autism was at the extreme end of a spectrum of behaviors normally associated with "maleness".

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#124

Post by TeMPOraL »

ryandrake wrote: post #119
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Customers are buying what's available. It's a feedback loop, but one that's sadly hard to break on the buyer side.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#125

Post by pjc50 »

scurvy wrote: post #39
sosuke wrote: post #3

Are there any solutions? Is it possible to create a new network? How do you champion free speech and then try to control the ugly side? I'd love to read more I guess.

Let me ask, why try to control the ugly side? Let it run just as free as the good stuff, and allow people to select what they want.

You don't get to opt out of people falsely calling SWAT teams to your house.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#126

Post by ckozlowski »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #116
ckozlowski wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it is rather binary, but I think your example in this case demonstrates a different principle.

Having my "needs" defined separately from my "wants" denies me my freedom. But that's different from you say, deciding to confiscate my things without due process.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#127

Post by randomname2 »

Are any politicians explicitly defending the kind of Internet/technology-related civil liberties mentioned in the article?

The ones that are often written about are Wyden (D), Rand Paul (R), Amash (R), Massie (R), any others?

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#128

Post by chippy »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

The Internet Dream is sadly not compatibile with profit-driven world. We had some good times back when it all begun, because then nobody besides techies cared. Now that the Internet is a money making machine, there are tons of incentives to make it worse and little to make it better. In order to keep the corruption away, or maybe even limit it, all of us and our coworkers would have to start risking their livelihoods…

> The Internet Dream is sadly not compatibile with profit-driven world.

I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by Silicon Valley startups.

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#129

Post by finance-geek »

chippy wrote: post #128
TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

The Internet Dream is sadly not compatibile with profit-driven world. We had some good times back when it all begun, because then nobody besides techies cared. Now that the Internet is a money making machine, there are tons of incentives to make it worse and little to make it better. In order to keep the corruption away, or maybe even limit it, all of us and our coworkers would have to start risking their livelihoods…

> The Internet Dream is sadly not compatibile with profit-driven world. I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by Silicon Valley startups.

The same argument was made (correctly IMHO) before as well. "The best minds of my generation destroyed by Wall Street and Hedge Funds."

Perhaps i'm naive but on average, the product shipped by the west coast is a whole lot more useful than the product shipped by Wall St, no? Certainly on relative terms, I would think on absolute terms as well?

Re: The End of the Internet Dream

#130

Post by chippy »

austerity wrote: post #41
TeMPOraL wrote: post #8

The Internet Dream is sadly not compatibile with profit-driven world. We had some good times back when it all begun, because then nobody besides techies cared. Now that the Internet is a money making machine, there are tons of incentives to make it worse and little to make it better. In order to keep the corruption away, or maybe even limit it, all of us and our coworkers would have to start risking their livelihoods…

You know where those evil profits ultimately come from? People paying to have their needs satisfied. I make a decent living providing people with solutions to some of the problems described in this article (censorship and fragmentation) and I'm not ashamed to say I am driven purely by profit.

>needs

If I tell you that you have a need to purchase an eleven foot swimming pool for you back yard, and if you dont have a back yard you now have a need for a back yard, how long will it take for you to believe you have a need for it? How many of your peers would it take to have the same, and for them to tell you that this need has to be satisfied.

What does that mediation upon "needs" mean?

We know about Maslows triangle of actual needs, comfort, security food. But what about all these other "needs" - people do pay to have these somewhat manufactured needs satisfied. This is how a profit driven world works.

It needs happy docile obedient workers, that are "not ashamed to be driven by profit" so do their ills with a clear conscience.

"I'm just working here"

Post reply on HN