The Internet is Dying - Is It Worth Saving?

[JohnA]

6 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I dunno about that.  Actual "facts" are facts in the Information Age we live in. I also trust sources that actually have responsible Editors involved and have to abide with FCC Regulations. I admit there are problems with algorithms that are troublesome, but as I mentioned above they are trying to make changes on some platforms. As of now these are free market platforms although I do see areas where it may be prudent for government intervention. 

 

Trouble is, no one abides by those rules and the "government" is not allowed to intervene by the First Amendment; not that the Constitution has meant anything to the government in the last 21 years. 

[Sam S.]

“All great truths begin as blasphemies”

—George Bernard Shaw

[RealMarkDeneen]

Is that light at the end of the tunnel a freight train?

 

The Internet I've been describing is only the base of a technocratic pyramid. It's the distribution of information base. The next layer up - now in the early stages is the Internet of Things (IoT) which will integrate all machinery of life into a single data set. Phone, computer, electric meter, car, refer, TV, bank accounts, credit, earnings, etc. All utilitarian aspects of life united into a common data set.

 

The final frontier is the Internet of Behavior (IoB), which is where all individual behaviors are managed, not simply monitored. The easy to understand "demo" for that was the Facebook and other social media algos that drive so-called "feeds" to the user. If that's not understood, it's more clear to say, "users have been spoon fed special diets of information" to modify simple behaviors like "purchasing goods." After all, advertisers didn't give Facebook hundreds of billions of dollars for no reason.

 

Having been wildly successful at those crude, early algos, the IoB will have your "total daily experience" at it's fingertips and the algos will steer (bend) humanity from a single control point to a common end-point. That's the future as imagined today by the technocracy. Concepts like freedom, privacy, democracy, will be a distant memory.

[Zen Traveler]

3 hours ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

final frontier is the Internet of Behavior (IoB), which is where all individual behaviors are managed, not simply monitored. The easy to understand "demo" for that was the Facebook and other social media algos that drive so-called "feeds" to the user. If that's not understood, it's more clear to say, "users have been spoon fed special diets of information" to modify simple behaviors like "purchasing goods." After all, advertisers didn't give Facebook hundreds of billions of dollars for no reason.

I've never heard that term before and had to Google it. 😁 Interesting concept and I'll do more research...That said, I have questioned *everything* for several decades and am always debating folks on important topics and willing to change my mind so thanks for bringing this to my attention.

 

Fwiw, I don't purchase alot of things online and always cross-reference my sources for news and current events. That said, Travel videos on YouTube are AWESOME and definitely are having a positive influence on me. 

[Zen Traveler]

17 hours ago, JohnA said:

 

Trouble is, no one abides by those rules and the "government" is not allowed to intervene by the First Amendment...

I realize Mark is going deeper than the "News" we are getting in the Information Age we are living in because of the internet. I agree the government isn't involved with the internet, per se, but News organizations outside of it still have to consider their content both in and off this vehicle to spread information.

21 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I can dig it. That's why I always say pay attention to the actual players and official sources and not the pundits or internet opinion. I also think/stated those that have to abide by FCC Regulations and have fact-checking editors have more credibility. Otoh, if they are always in court for promoting falsehoods those need to be avoided.

The Courts and Congress is where the intersection of all of this communication is either presented, exposed or letigated, imo.

18 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

I consider the actual sources involved and/or where the info is coming from. Court documents, transcripts, and reports going through a known editorial process...Of course, there are speculative things that sometimes take time to come to fruition. Otoh, recognizing the difference between opinion, facts and entities with more historically reliable material goes a long way in my book. {Note: We also have access to real-time events thanks to the internet. }

My point is that in the last few weeks I've watched a trial involving an Internet media entity spreading lies about a particular event in which they are no longer allowed on Social Media because that WAS their modus operandi. There are also transcripts and televised hearings on a myriad of topics over the years which those that don't trust media sources can keep up with and form an opinion...

 

Honestly, I think a bigger problem with the internet (or specifically Social Media) is that too many people use sources to fabricate their own "Truth" and not use the assets described above to learn actual facts presented in respected/official venues outside the Internet. 🤔

 

That's my take over morning coffee.☕

[Zen Traveler]

On 9/26/2022 at 11:24 AM, RealMarkDeneen said:

Is the Internet worth saving just so people can shop in their PJ's at 3:00 a.m., and hear "news of the establishment pied-pipers?"

Or should it just die off like what is happening to broadcast TV?

Getting back to the original question-- don't see it just "dying off" and the scope above seems too limited. Online shopping definitely has its advantages and along with broadcast TV, Magazines and Newspapers have also migrated to the internet...Fwiw, I can't see it just dying off unless it's replaced by something else and I can't imagine what that is.

17 hours ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

The Internet I've been describing is only the base of a technocratic pyramid. It's the distribution of information base. The next layer up - now in the early stages is the Internet of Things (IoT) which will integrate all machinery of life into a single data set. Phone, computer, electric meter, car, refer, TV, bank accounts, credit, earnings, etc. All utilitarian aspects of life united into a common data set.

Oh yeah, this. 🤓 As of now I get Mark's and John's point about free market entities controlling/benefiting from this but I'm not sure how much we want government involved...I really don't know.

[RealMarkDeneen]

The Internet is the solvent to dissolve all national sovereignty. As the dimensions of Internet grow and metastasize, national sovereignty melts under the relentless pressure and is subsumed by synthetic organisms of immense power and without public accountability. That's the point. That's the goal and purpose of this unprecidented capital expenditure. 

 

The goal of civilization has forever and always been "absolute centralization of power." This is their latest attempt, after many failures like war, colonialism, fascism, capitalism, etc. 

 

EDIT: "Civilization" herein refers to the entire 10,000 - 15,000 year experiment in creating a system of world order. I'm not refer to particular localities of civilization like Roman, Egyption, Chinese. I mean the entire enterprise of bringing hierarchal order to mankind.

[Woofers and Tweeters]

6 minutes ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

The goal of civilization has forever and always been "absolute centralization of power." This is their latest attempt, after many failures like war, colonialism, fascism, capitalism, etc. 

Capitalism is not a real example for 'absolute centralization of power' but socialism sure is. 

 

Also, the civilization of the US was not formed to have centralization of power. 

[RealMarkDeneen]

In pre-Internet times, there was always push-back to anything that had a whiff of "global federation" to it. In those olden days of the 1950s through the 1980s the associated buzzwords were "one world government." There was an incredible amount of intellectual debate about ANY concept of federating national sovereignties. The UN and its various schemes was the persistent bogey-man. But also, the WTO, and pretty much any institution that carried the word "world" in their title.  They all failed because they all based on frank authoritarian principles that the publics could see clearly.

 

The Internet  took a totally different approach by offering up all the candy first. Many experts believe that "porn built the Internet." There's clearly some truth in that. But also games, gossip, and simplistic entertainment. In 1990s, who DIDN'T want to be on the Internet? Compare that wild world of fun and games to all the incarnation of "-isms" through the ages that tried to round people up into a controllable group.

 

Five Billion people are currently blissfully obeying a set of rules handed down to them from half a dozen crazed billioniares! And said billionaires have opnely described where they are headed into the future of modifying all their "subjects" behaviors in life.

 

I guess I'm being an alarmist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fish]

I doubt we have control of whether the net stays or not, eventually. For my part, I can go back to 1975,even 85 protocol and be Super Duper HAPPY ! Nothing modern would be an easy trade off considering the damage done by constant interaction of insanity promoted......But..not happening so eventually adults and people with functioning brains will retake the environment. That may be a while, and I always feel like (just thinking) this has all happened before at some long past era.....We went nuts, stopped it and it all started over, then takes a long time to re ruin everything again....

[RealMarkDeneen]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

Getting back to the original question-- don't see it just "dying off" and the scope above seems too limited. Online shopping definitely has its advantages and along with broadcast TV, Magazines and Newspapers have also migrated to the internet...Fwiw, I can't see it just dying off unless it's replaced by something else and I can't imagine what that is.

 

I don't think the humans of 1975 thought that "life was unliveable without the Internet." It doesn't need to be replaced by anything, does it? If we assume it has "negative net value" to humanity, or we assume it is a "monsterous tool of repression," we wouldn't be thinking about replacing it, would we? Does anyone speak of "replacing slavery"?

 

The world had genius long before the Internet. I don't buy the argument that in general people are getting smarter because of the Internet. I mean really, who the heck would they be referring to? I can see though that it is not particularly easy for people to sense the impending (looming) danger to privacy, freedom, sovereignty, and democracy when the main offering is still all the candy. The gambling, porn, entertainment, games, and all that will slowly dissolve after the IoT links everything in your life to one authority. When you get issued an automatic traffic ticket by mail because your car reported its 75MPH speed in a 50MPH zone directly to the authorities you might start to see the danger. Or, when your ban account is automatically debited by the utility companies before you can even buy groceries, you might sense danger. I dunno?

[Zen Traveler]

16 minutes ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

don't think the humans of 1975 thought that "life was unliveable without the Internet." It doesn't need to be replaced by anything, does it? If we assume it has "negative net value" to humanity, or we assume it is a "monsterous tool of repression," we wouldn't be thinking about replacing it, would we? Does anyone speak of "replacing slavery"?

Fwiw, I think equating slavery with the internet is totally off base and with the demise of traditional media of the 1970s where are you suggesting people get their News and information? Like I said, I thi k that ship has already sailed. The real question is how are we going to put limits on it?

[RealMarkDeneen]

14 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Fwiw, I think equating slavery with the internet is totally off base

 

Slavery makes an excellent comparison because for those who believed in it, it was an entirely useful and acceptable benefit compared to its downsides. But for those who did not believe in it, the downsides outweighed the benefits and there was enough of them to overturn the institution and walk away from it. It was replaced with systems of paid labor.

 

Slavery serves as an example of an "economic innovation" that while accepted at first, became unacceptable over time and exposure to the harms. There are most definitely "harms" being accumulated on the Internet ledger. If they grow, I can see no reason people shouldn't seek to end them. The end of one innovation spawns new ones. I'm certain that there will be a long line of innovators ready to offer "new ways to distrubute information" if there's money to be made doing it.

 

I think we're in the early phases of this innovation where the majority is still deriving more benefit than harm. But is there any question which way that vector is pointing?

[Zen Traveler]

17 minutes ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

Slavery makes an excellent comparison because for those who believed in it, it was an entirely useful and acceptable benefit compared to its downsides.

Okay. For you it's analogous, but for me not so much. The difference is I see slaves as Human Beings, while the internet is more of a conduit for information. With the latter I think there can be more common sense fixes when they become a problem. Fwiw, I used Facebook and how they handled falsehoods as an example. Those that didn't care started their own Social Media companies and they aren't doing too well. Dunno, but I'm an optimist. 

[Zen Traveler]

30 minutes ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

I think we're in the early phases of this innovation where the majority is still deriving more benefit than harm. But is there any question which way that vector is pointing?

I think, yeah. Folks are debating the consequences and ramifications in public and on a governmental level. Like you said, most are benefiting and I suggest when the tide turns so will public opinion--Just like slavery, but the machine can be fixed whereas slaves were given their freedom to end it. 

[RealMarkDeneen]

8 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Okay. For you it's analogous, but for me not so much. The difference is I see slaves as Human Beings, while the internet is more of a conduit for information.

 

Slavery, the Internet, all the -isms you can name, the law, religions, NGOs, and governments are all in the same category of "organizational innovations." They are all systems attempting to control human behavior at scale. That's the entire exercise of "civilization" - - How do we gain control over humanity and Nature? They won the Nature part, and what is left is the human part. 

 

 

[Tom05]

We’ve just got to save the Internet, without it ,how on earth would  we be able to communicate our fringe beliefs and  conspiracy theories ?🤓

[RealMarkDeneen]

12 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

We’ve just got to save the Internet, without it ,how on earth would  we be able to communicate our fringe beliefs and  conspiracy theories ?🤓

 

Precisely. Like these folks at the Rand Corporation yammering about the "Internet of Bodies" - - WTH?

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3226.html

[billybob]

Information Highway is information overload. Used for good and bad.

Just 90+ of background noise to complicate your life, if you let it.

[NADman]

I can save a lot of things but I don't think you or I can or can't save the internet.