37 ms·

I think people saw this in 1995 and thought “what an idiot” and I think people are doing the same thing now. But in my opinion that’s a mistake. What we shoul

I think people saw this in 1995 and thought “what an idiot” and I think people are doing the same thing now. But in my opinion that’s a mistake. What we should be seeing is that his points were valid in 1995 and are still valid today (except for the Cyber-business one which really was pretty dumb). The internet is still an unedited mess where answers are hard to find (if they aren’t on Wikipedia), people still don’t pay attention to government based internet initiatives (outside of SF) and classrooms have computers but generally don’t use them for anything but games. That’s a sad commentary on our technological advancement. If people had paid attention in 1995 we might have a Semantic Web by now, we might have forced porn sites and proxies into their own domain so kids could use the internet in the classrooms, we might have forced colleges to include “interactive digital design” into their curriculum for teachers and we might have an internet based government as opposed to a government that mindlessly throws datasets up that no one pays attention to. So in my opinion the last thing we should be doing is writing this piece off as silly

kunley 16y ago
Scanning thru the comments here looks like there are two of us who think most of OP's points were and are valid. I guess most of HN readers (including me!) are living in a comfort zone of carefully selected sites and services, but it doesn't change the fact that most of internet content is a pile of bullshit. And of course, nothing can be a substitute of a human contact, and no, social networking is not a human contact.
- dirtyaura 16y ago
  most of internet content is a pile of bullshit So are the most of published books, despite the editorial work put into them. And as the internet democratized publishing, it's just natural that there is more crap out there. I see that as a very positive sign of true freedom of expression. social networking is not a human contact This is rather silly point of view. Why isn't anybody discussing how talking in the phone "is not a human contact" ? People discuss, joke, argue, meet their future spouses, cuddle with their current spouses, all this and more in the internet. Of course that's not a substitute for kisses on a romantic dinner or for a good fist-fight at the bar, but that doesn't make communication over the internet any way less valuable.
  - kunley 16y ago
    Human contact isn't black & white, and there are tons of small important non-verbal things not only in fist fight or romantic dinner. Actually even a smalltalk carries lots of information of deep psychological value which is mostly beyond words. All this is cut off when you use internet or do a phone talk. It doesn't mean you can't use these media to do business, joke, set things up, but dear gods, please be honest to yourself and observe how many things are cut off and lost. If you do it you will be able to admit that actually internet communication IS less valuable in many ways, despite the fact how much you wouldn't want to think like this right now.
    - kristiandupont 16y ago
      This argument only applies if you replace in-person communication with internet communication. Most of my communication on social networks is with people that I would otherwise not communicate with because they are too far away.I see only gain there.
      - kunley 16y ago
        Yeah that's a gain; besides, that's what we do right now. But! Please look around and check how many people prefer this kind of communication with distant people when in the same time they could communicate in a more valuable way with people around them. That's what I'm trying to condemn here. Social networking can give a more lasting value if someone is consciously treating it as a kind of trampoline to reach those people IRL finally. Which is huh 0.0042% of social networking usage?
warfangle 16y ago
Until internet access is a basic right of citizenship, and all citizens know how to use it, it will never become the basis for major government interaction. Luckily at least one country understands this...
- astine 16y ago
  North Korea!
pierrefar 16y ago
We laugh now only because we witnessed first-hand the very fast innovation that happened in 15-odd years. And who's to say that the semantic data from the beginning approach is the right one? Because we didn't have that, we got PageRank and Google: non-semantic data became a constraint leading to invention.
illumin8 16y ago
I thought I would reply to your comment rather than just downvoting you. How would forcing porn sites and proxies into their own domain make it any easier (or safer, for that matter) for kids to use the Internet in classrooms? If this is even technically possible, which I assure you, it is not, why should such things have to be legislated at all? Internet censorship and regulation does nothing to hurt and inevitably harms the free flow of information. The piece is silly. Advocating that a highly censored Internet would have contributed to a Semantic web is silly as well.
powrtoch 16y ago
I agree that the piece is educational in some important ways. There are several criticisms he makes that are still valid, and we really should be taking this as a sign that we need to address these problems. But the part where I think "what an idiot" does reasonably come in is that he seems convinced that since the internet's problems were not already solved (and no solution was immediately obvious) that they never would be. The easy example would be his dismissal of ebusiness. But more interestingly, he observes "Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data". It is just as true today that underneath it all, the internet is a mess of disjointed and almost entirely useless data. But that's no reason to think it's hopeless. It's just a problem, and one that we have made huge advancements in dealing with. E.g. PageRank. It's now trivial to find the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. My point being: he addresses a lot of serious problems with the internet. Many of them remain serious problems today. But it's clear that in a big-picture kind of way, he really did miss the point. And that point is that problems get solved, often in clever and unforseen ways. We shouldn't write the piece off as silly, but we should take it as a lesson in shortsightedness and drawing the wrong conclusions.
jimbokun 16y ago
"If people had paid attention in 1995 we might have a Semantic Web by now" Instead, some people who were paying attention made Google, instead, which I think is a better solution anyway.
CamperBob 16y ago
If people had paid attention in 1995 we might have a Semantic Web by now, we might have forced porn sites and proxies into their own domain so kids could use the internet in the classrooms, Or we might have tried teaching kids that information is not something to be frightened of, but that would be absurd, I suppose.

kunley 16y ago

Scanning thru the comments here looks like there are two of us who think most of OP's points were and are valid. I guess most of HN readers (including me!) are living in a comfort zone of carefully selected sites and services, but it doesn't change the fact that most of internet content is a pile of bullshit. And of course, nothing can be a substitute of a human contact, and no, social networking is not a human contact.

dirtyaura 16y ago
most of internet content is a pile of bullshit So are the most of published books, despite the editorial work put into them. And as the internet democratized publishing, it's just natural that there is more crap out there. I see that as a very positive sign of true freedom of expression. social networking is not a human contact This is rather silly point of view. Why isn't anybody discussing how talking in the phone "is not a human contact" ? People discuss, joke, argue, meet their future spouses, cuddle with their current spouses, all this and more in the internet. Of course that's not a substitute for kisses on a romantic dinner or for a good fist-fight at the bar, but that doesn't make communication over the internet any way less valuable.
- kunley 16y ago
  Human contact isn't black & white, and there are tons of small important non-verbal things not only in fist fight or romantic dinner. Actually even a smalltalk carries lots of information of deep psychological value which is mostly beyond words. All this is cut off when you use internet or do a phone talk. It doesn't mean you can't use these media to do business, joke, set things up, but dear gods, please be honest to yourself and observe how many things are cut off and lost. If you do it you will be able to admit that actually internet communication IS less valuable in many ways, despite the fact how much you wouldn't want to think like this right now.
  - kristiandupont 16y ago
    This argument only applies if you replace in-person communication with internet communication. Most of my communication on social networks is with people that I would otherwise not communicate with because they are too far away.I see only gain there.
    - kunley 16y ago
      Yeah that's a gain; besides, that's what we do right now. But! Please look around and check how many people prefer this kind of communication with distant people when in the same time they could communicate in a more valuable way with people around them. That's what I'm trying to condemn here. Social networking can give a more lasting value if someone is consciously treating it as a kind of trampoline to reach those people IRL finally. Which is huh 0.0042% of social networking usage?

warfangle 16y ago

Until internet access is a basic right of citizenship, and all citizens know how to use it, it will never become the basis for major government interaction. Luckily at least one country understands this...

astine 16y ago
North Korea!

pierrefar 16y ago

We laugh now only because we witnessed first-hand the very fast innovation that happened in 15-odd years. And who's to say that the semantic data from the beginning approach is the right one? Because we didn't have that, we got PageRank and Google: non-semantic data became a constraint leading to invention.

illumin8 16y ago

I thought I would reply to your comment rather than just downvoting you. How would forcing porn sites and proxies into their own domain make it any easier (or safer, for that matter) for kids to use the Internet in classrooms? If this is even technically possible, which I assure you, it is not, why should such things have to be legislated at all? Internet censorship and regulation does nothing to hurt and inevitably harms the free flow of information. The piece is silly. Advocating that a highly censored Internet would have contributed to a Semantic web is silly as well.

powrtoch 16y ago

I agree that the piece is educational in some important ways. There are several criticisms he makes that are still valid, and we really should be taking this as a sign that we need to address these problems. But the part where I think "what an idiot" does reasonably come in is that he seems convinced that since the internet's problems were not already solved (and no solution was immediately obvious) that they never would be. The easy example would be his dismissal of ebusiness. But more interestingly, he observes "Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data". It is just as true today that underneath it all, the internet is a mess of disjointed and almost entirely useless data. But that's no reason to think it's hopeless. It's just a problem, and one that we have made huge advancements in dealing with. E.g. PageRank. It's now trivial to find the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. My point being: he addresses a lot of serious problems with the internet. Many of them remain serious problems today. But it's clear that in a big-picture kind of way, he really did miss the point. And that point is that problems get solved, often in clever and unforseen ways. We shouldn't write the piece off as silly, but we should take it as a lesson in shortsightedness and drawing the wrong conclusions.

jimbokun 16y ago

"If people had paid attention in 1995 we might have a Semantic Web by now" Instead, some people who were paying attention made Google, instead, which I think is a better solution anyway.

CamperBob 16y ago

If people had paid attention in 1995 we might have a Semantic Web by now, we might have forced porn sites and proxies into their own domain so kids could use the internet in the classrooms, Or we might have tried teaching kids that information is not something to be frightened of, but that would be absurd, I suppose.