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

The Public Interest Internet

berjon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#21

Post by digging »

Hasu wrote: post #16
roenxi wrote: post #4

> So, say you want to create a new web standard... This and the following image have a misguided understanding of the market. We know how this situation plays out because we ran exactly that experiment in the 2000s with Firefox and IE6. Those market share numbers are contingent on Google doing the best possible job as curators insofar as the userbase can tell. If there are browser features that users want (like tabs)…

> With crypto we are surely getting to spitting distance of advertisers paying users directly to look at ads instead of paying Google to organise the web such that users look at ads. Who would take that deal? Getting paid $.02 in some cryptocurrency to look at an ad? So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised? Why would I ever agree to that? It's a bad deal for me. Why would the ad agen…

> So that I can then maybe spend more money on the product being advertised?

You can spend it on anything you like, actually.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#22

Post by digging »

Gormo wrote: post #12
recifs wrote: post #2

Allow me to open with a wildly speculative question: What if the internet were public interest technology? I mean "internet" the way most people understand it, which is to say our whole digital sphere, and by "public interest" I don't mean tinkering at the margins to reduce harm from some bad actors or painting some glossy ethics principles atop a pile of exploitative rent-seeking — I mean through and through, warts…

The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of. Most people have an unfortunate tendency to project their own values and preferences onto the world at large, and fail to recognize when they cross the boundary out of their own spaces and into other p…

> The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of.

Yes, that's called compromise. It's basically one of the foundations of society and civilization. It's not a blocker for public-interest projects.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#23

Post by Zambyte »

roenxi wrote: post #4

> So, say you want to create a new web standard... This and the following image have a misguided understanding of the market. We know how this situation plays out because we ran exactly that experiment in the 2000s with Firefox and IE6. Those market share numbers are contingent on Google doing the best possible job as curators insofar as the userbase can tell. If there are browser features that users want (like tabs)…

> Their browser engine is hard to compete with because it is very good, their web standards are hard to compete with because they are largely appropriate.

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "good" and "appropriate"? Good for whom? Appropriate why?

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#24

Post by its_ethan »

imagineerschool wrote: post #3
recifs wrote: post #2

Allow me to open with a wildly speculative question: What if the internet were public interest technology? I mean "internet" the way most people understand it, which is to say our whole digital sphere, and by "public interest" I don't mean tinkering at the margins to reduce harm from some bad actors or painting some glossy ethics principles atop a pile of exploitative rent-seeking — I mean through and through, warts…

We'd start with a group of people centered around agreement on "credible, pragmatic definition of the common good" I'm in.

And history has no examples of times when a group of people centered around agreement on their version of common good going poorly, right? Right??

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#25

Post by cheeseomlit »

digging wrote: post #22
Gormo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of. Most people have an unfortunate tendency to project their own values and preferences onto the world at large, and fail to recognize when they cross the boundary out of their own spaces and into other p…

> The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of. Yes, that's called compromise. It's basically one of the foundations of society and civilization. It's not a blocker for public-interest projects.

'Compromise' paints an idealistic picture, its often just a euphemism for 'the more powerful/entrenched party gets what they want by default, but they'll let the other side vocally express their frustration to maintain the veneer of an actual conversation.' What you're describing sounds like a top-down restructuring of the internet at large, which is a golden opportunity for any interested party to restructure it in their favor. Whoever has the means will do so, and it will not be motivated by public interest since the public are not the ones with the means. When I hear "an internet that works in support of a credible, pragmatic definition of the common good", to me that translates to "we're going to turn the surveillance up to 11 and ban encryption to combat CSAM", because that's how such projects pan out in reality

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#26

Post by Terr_ »

Zambyte wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #4

> So, say you want to create a new web standard... This and the following image have a misguided understanding of the market. We know how this situation plays out because we ran exactly that experiment in the 2000s with Firefox and IE6. Those market share numbers are contingent on Google doing the best possible job as curators insofar as the userbase can tell. If there are browser features that users want (like tabs)…

> Their browser engine is hard to compete with because it is very good, their web standards are hard to compete with because they are largely appropriate. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "good" and "appropriate"? Good for whom? Appropriate why?

Not OP, but the subtext I got was that Google--as a browser vendor--doesn't usually push features/standards so obviously broken/harmful that the rest of the ecosystem rebels.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#27

Post by digging »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #25
digging wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of. Yes, that's called compromise. It's basically one of the foundations of society and civilization. It's not a blocker for public-interest projects.

'Compromise' paints an idealistic picture, its often just a euphemism for 'the more powerful/entrenched party gets what they want by default, but they'll let the other side vocally express their frustration to maintain the veneer of an actual conversation.' What you're describing sounds like a top-down restructuring of the internet at large, which is a golden opportunity for any interested party to restructure it in…

Honestly, I can't even finish reading through this comment. This is the opposite of idealism - is there a word for it? You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way. Well, guess what, we already have an implementation of the internet that imperfectly respects "the public good", and it sucks. Let's imagine something better.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#28

Post by digging »

its_ethan wrote: post #24
imagineerschool wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd start with a group of people centered around agreement on "credible, pragmatic definition of the common good" I'm in.

And history has no examples of times when a group of people centered around agreement on their version of common good going poorly, right? Right??

Better then to just not work toward the common good?

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#29

Post by hobs »

Gormo wrote: post #10
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there are browser features that users want (like tabs) or webs standards that enable Cool Stuff (like modern JS) then users will go out of their way to install browser that support them." Pretty sure that tabs were introduced by a software developer without any prior request from any user. Same goes for "Cool Stuff". Few users even know what JS means, except that if they do not use it or disable it, they will con…

> Pretty sure that tabs were introduced by a software developer without any prior request from any user. I'm sure many, many features were introduced by software developers without any prior request from users. Users then selected what software to use based on which of those features they like the best. This is how most product design works -- features are developed prior to being marketed, and users subsequently val…

The monopoly of Chrome over the marketplace suggests you are wrong, with enough money to move around you can implement AMP for instance, nobody wanted it but everyone wanted the money, so they played along.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#30

Post by cheeseomlit »

digging wrote: post #27
cheeseomlit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Compromise' paints an idealistic picture, its often just a euphemism for 'the more powerful/entrenched party gets what they want by default, but they'll let the other side vocally express their frustration to maintain the veneer of an actual conversation.' What you're describing sounds like a top-down restructuring of the internet at large, which is a golden opportunity for any interested party to restructure it in…

Honestly, I can't even finish reading through this comment. This is the opposite of idealism - is there a word for it? You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way. Well, guess what, we already have an implementation of the internet that imperfectly respects "the public good", and it sucks. Let's imagine something better.

>You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way.

That's not what I'm saying, in fact 'perfect utopian' projects are exactly what I'm expressing skepticism towards. The problems we have with the internet are mostly just symptoms of deeper societal issues, and they arent infrastructure problems that can be easily fixed like a road or bridge with some massive spending bill. If the US actually enforced anti-trust laws and broke up the tech cartels it would solve a whole lot of problems with the internet, but I doubt that idea would get much traction with whoever ends up on the 'new internet committee'. And I dont see it as a lack of idealism, its just plain pragmatism

Post reply on HN