Turning the Internet Off • Hacker News Board

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#21

Post by MatthewPhillips » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 5:46 PM UTC

omh wrote: post #19

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern economies cannot function without the internet. Too much commerce happens through it. Shutting off the internet is suicide.

I'm not so sure of that. A quick search put the figure at just 3.4% of GDP [1]. Even if a lot of sales do happen online, many of them could shift back to phone calls relatively easily. Obviously there would be a significant impact, but I think the Internet is still a long way away from being something that simply can't be turned off. [1] http://www.mckinsey.com/features/sizing_the_internet_economy...

I was more referring to credit card transactions at just about any store. Even if the store's processing machine uses dial-up, there's a good chance that the vendor's backend is dependent on an Internet connection.

I admit that this is biased towards the West, and it's possible that in places Egypt cash might be more popular than it is in the West.

That's just one small piece of the puzzle though. You also have to think about sales that take place through email communication. You have to think about stocks being bought/sold online. Not that some of these things can't be replaced by more primitive means, but that is an undeniable huge hit to an economy that has to suddenly adjust to do things by analog means.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#22

Post by tomkarlo » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 5:49 PM UTC

Is there a "cranky old man tag"? The OP just seems to lack vision.

This post is along the lines of the old "everything that will be invented has been invented" saw. Social activity / interconnection of the twitter/facebook type is just in its early days. To say that we somehow fully understand everything that will arise from that, just 4-5 years in, is amazingly (if not link-baitingly) shortsighted.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#23

Post by locopati » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:01 PM UTC

dendory wrote: post #8

greenpaint wrote: post #7

Seems appropriate here to bring back Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker piece from October 2010, "Small Change: why the revolution will not be tweeted": http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_...

The revolution has been tweeted, as shown in Egypt. But that whole statement is wrong. It's not whether the revolution will be tweeted. It's will it be tweeted, facebooked, shown on YouTube, blogs, TV news, radio, newspapers, recorded for Wikipedia, etc.... Twitter is just one part of the new global information system.

Saying 'as shown in Egypt' handwaves over the real story - the preparation that went into being ready for the moment when it arose.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/16/revolution_...

http://maidhcocathail.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/the-junk-bond...

Social media was used but it was tool in the hands of already prepared people who were willing to risk their lives.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#24

Post by Vivtek » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:07 PM UTC

Talking, by itself, is not revolutionary. It's when you talk about revolution that things change.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#25

Post by Vivtek » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:09 PM UTC

peterb wrote: post #17

wccrawford wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that somehow makes it better for me to shut up about the truth? No. Being 1 more voice speaking the truth is always worthwhile.

The internet makes it harder to determine the truth. If not careful, then anyone can start spreading falsehoods against their best intentions. Nobody wants you to shut up about the truth, but your ability to judge what is "true" is greatly impaired by the cheap (and legal) proliferation of falsehoods.

I am impatient with this type of argument. Falsehoods proliferated just fine before the Internet; truth seems a more fragile flower. I think we've got a net positive.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#26

Post by Vivtek » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:10 PM UTC

psawaya wrote: post #16

I don't understand articles like this, they seem to be attacking some nonexistent strawman that says using Facebook and Twitter for dissent is enough for a revolution. Those tools aren't revolutionary, but the people are, and the Internet acts as a catalyst. Using the tools as they do is more revolutionary than just watching CNN, because the Internet is a read/write medium. And then the blog post ends with "So if you…

It's just as arguable to say that at least some of your time is going to have to be spent online.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#27

Post by hack_edu » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:21 PM UTC

psawaya wrote: post #16

I don't understand articles like this, they seem to be attacking some nonexistent strawman that says using Facebook and Twitter for dissent is enough for a revolution. Those tools aren't revolutionary, but the people are, and the Internet acts as a catalyst. Using the tools as they do is more revolutionary than just watching CNN, because the Internet is a read/write medium. And then the blog post ends with "So if you…

Very true.

Its quite unfortunate that Dave Winer's career has devolved into one where all he does anymore is blog like this.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#28

Post by davewiner » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:28 PM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #2

"But also don't delude yourself into thinking that tweeting and facebooking are revolutionary acts. They're about as revolutionary as watching CNN. " I totally disagree. Spreading knowledge is always better than simply receiving it. Actually doing something is better yet, but let's face it: Most of us can't do more than stand in traffic and get noticed. Getting other people to notice is the point, and spreading the m…

That it makes you better-informed than your parents is just saying the Internet is useful -- it is!

So is CNN, and it was pretty amazing in its day, which I remember. (The first gulf war.)

It's just neither is the place for revolutions.

If there's something after the Internet, that may possibly be subversive.

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#29

Post by GHFigs » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:38 PM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #2

"But also don't delude yourself into thinking that tweeting and facebooking are revolutionary acts. They're about as revolutionary as watching CNN. " I totally disagree. Spreading knowledge is always better than simply receiving it. Actually doing something is better yet, but let's face it: Most of us can't do more than stand in traffic and get noticed. Getting other people to notice is the point, and spreading the m…

I think that at issue is not the intentions involved, but the side effects. What many people are actually doing when they think they are "spreading knowledge" is just glorified gossip[1]. Not because people intend to, but because it's just as easy to do so as to spread more important information. The network won't stop you. The people won't stop you. If your intent is to do something more or other than gossip, you have to stop yourself. (As with any number of other things.)

That is, if you care to. I don't think anybody should feel obligated to care at all about any given issue. But it seems like a lot of people feel trapped between feeling bad about not caring and feeling bad about not doing anything, and squeeze out of that by feeling good about talking about it a lot on the internet. It's one thing to be informed, and to make informed decisions--to do some verb with that information--but if you consider echoing or spreading to be a valid verb for a given kind of information, then you will never have enough. At that point you're just a memetic router somewhere between Maine and Texas[2], busy being idle.

[1]:Or scuttlebut, chit-chat, small talk, bull sessions, chatting around the water cooler, bar, or bong. It's a vital part of human social interaction, but as Winer says, not a revolutionary act.

[2]:http://www.bartleby.com/73/1540.html

Re: Turning the Internet Off

#30

Post by brudgers » Tue, Aug 02, 2011, 6:39 PM UTC

davewiner wrote: post #28

wccrawford wrote: post #2

"But also don't delude yourself into thinking that tweeting and facebooking are revolutionary acts. They're about as revolutionary as watching CNN. " I totally disagree. Spreading knowledge is always better than simply receiving it. Actually doing something is better yet, but let's face it: Most of us can't do more than stand in traffic and get noticed. Getting other people to notice is the point, and spreading the m…

That it makes you better-informed than your parents is just saying the Internet is useful -- it is! So is CNN, and it was pretty amazing in its day, which I remember. (The first gulf war.) It's just neither is the place for revolutions. If there's something after the Internet, that may possibly be subversive.

The revolution which CNN televised was Tiananmen. Just about everything since has been pretty much a production, Desert Shield and Desert Storm spectacularly so (e.g. very little in depth coverage of carnage on the Highway of Death, and lots of guncamera footage of smart bombs over Baghdad).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_19...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_death