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

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#31

Post by hobs »

Gormo wrote: post #15
bigfudge wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chromes replacement of Firefox had more to do with aggressive marketing and deliberate poor performance of their web properties like gmail on non-Google browsers. Not sure how much consumer self direction was involved.

> Not sure how much consumer self direction was involved. It was entirely consumer self-direction, as neither browser was preinstalled by default on any platform, and all usage of either was initiated by a deliberate end-user choice. "Aggressive marketing" indeed only has its effect through "consumer self-direction" as its whole purpose is to persuade end users to make a purposeful decision.

There were huge campaigns where google was paying per install, many of these installs were surreptitious. When you create standards that only play well in your garden then the only people making decisions are you and the devs writing them, the users either play along or cant use CORPORATE_WEB_APP - hence why IE is STILL around today.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#32

Post by Zambyte »

Terr_ wrote: post #26
Zambyte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not usually, but here is one fairly recent and high profile counter example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#33

Post by its_ethan »

digging wrote: post #28
its_ethan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Better to let ideas compete and build consensus than to surrender decision making abilities that effect everyone over to some arbitrary group of people that we are just told to trust (but don't worry they have good intentions).

We don't currently have a select group of people who share a vision of "common good" making decisions for us, and yet things keep improving. So I'd advocate we stick with what we know is working, rather than the above surrendering of autonomy in exchange for the promise of some utopia..

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#34

Post by laurex »

As someone working in this space, I think standards and standard governance are important, but just as important are the economics. Right now, tech is largely dominated by platforms designed to extract resources in various ways, and to redistribute those resources to investors. To create a public interest internet, we will have to find a dwindling sense of collective and individual responsibility to our collective interests, and that includes recognising the very real and pressing economic implications of technofeudalism. That then means putting resources into digital public infrastructure, through pressure on our collectively held assets, such as pension funds and government procurement.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#35

Post by JimDabell »

Terr_ wrote: post #26
Zambyte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They’ve done this repeatedly – WebUSB, Web Bluetooth, WebMIDI, and AMP, off the top of my head. Time and time again, Google have pushed a spec that both Mozilla and Apple reject on privacy or security grounds.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#36

Post by digging »

its_ethan wrote: post #33
digging wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better then to just not work toward the common good?

Better to let ideas compete and build consensus than to surrender decision making abilities that effect everyone over to some arbitrary group of people that we are just told to trust (but don't worry they have good intentions). We don't currently have a select group of people who share a vision of "common good" making decisions for us, and yet things keep improving. So I'd advocate we stick with what we know is worki…

Ok, I suppose we were arguing different points, but I disagree with your arguments.

> yet things keep improving

I mean, that's just obviously not true.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#37

Post by atoav »

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…

I mean to be honest something like the early social media platforms like myspace or even reddit up to a degree were public interest platforms.

And back then nobody really thought all that mich about financing, so these spaces weren't about extracting user data or shaping their opinions. The algorithms were simplistic as hell and the timelines still deserved that name.

The state runs libraries not just to give people access to books, but also because they are social community spaces. Why not provide something like that, just online. Something that doesn't need to make money, but provide a service that people can trust in a different way that a corporation.

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#38

Post by mistermann »

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…

> 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

What if the interested party is clever and defines "in my favor" to be equal to "the common good"? ;)

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#39

Post by its_ethan »

digging wrote: post #36
its_ethan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better to let ideas compete and build consensus than to surrender decision making abilities that effect everyone over to some arbitrary group of people that we are just told to trust (but don't worry they have good intentions). We don't currently have a select group of people who share a vision of "common good" making decisions for us, and yet things keep improving. So I'd advocate we stick with what we know is worki…

Ok, I suppose we were arguing different points, but I disagree with your arguments. > yet things keep improving I mean, that's just obviously not true.

I have no doubt you could find some metrics to show a recent decline in, but (on the whole) is the average human not better off in the year 2024 than they were in 1954? 1924? 1824?

I do have a feeling we're not talking about the same thing here, so could you clarify how it's "obviously not true" that things have been/are improving?

Re: The Public Interest Internet

#40

Post by marcosdumay »

Terr_ wrote: post #26
Zambyte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree it looks like what the OP is saying. And I do agree with the siblings, in that it's completely wrong.

You could have said the same about IE during most of the time it lead, with the exact same rationale.

Post reply on HN