4 ms·

IMO the prior you was correct. We don't even think about all of the good these tools have done because we take it so for granted. The fact that these tools were

by darawk 8y ago

IMO the prior you was correct. We don't even think about all of the good these tools have done because we take it so for granted. The fact that these tools were built, without reference or consideration for politics is one of the greatest things ever to happen in human history. The fact that the internet is open, free, and (somewhat) decentralized would never have happened had politics been allowed to worm its way into the design process, and that would have been a tragedy of unspeakable proportions.

sincerely 8y ago
Isn't the internet only (somewhat) open/free/decentralized because of the politics of the people that built it?
- darawk 8y ago
  Sorry, i'm not sure if i'm understanding correctly. I have two equiprobable interpretations of your question: 1. The internet is not completely decentralized due to the politics of its engineers. 2. The internet being designed to be open and free was, as much as any other architecture, reflective of the politics of its framers. I suppose they are essentially the same question, though. You're right, the architecture of the internet does reflect the politics of its engineers, to a degree. But I think it mostly represents an attempt at the most flexible, simple architecture to provide infrastructure for other applications without being opinionated about those applications. Which, on the one hand, is sort of a political choice, though I feel it's only political in the sense that it avoids any and all political considerations. Its politics are neutrality and agnosticism.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Not directly. You can call "open internet" politics, sure. But this is different than the existing politics of taxes, gun rights, abortion rights, property rights, race relations, immigration, transportation, homosexuality, tariffs, or federalization. You might claim it reflected free speech, i.e. the inability of government to restrict the content of written or spoken messages. But I think that would be a weak argument at best, especially for the pre-https web.
wpietri 8y ago
That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. I think it's also incorrect in a few ways. One, the beginnings of the Internet were in government and academia. The former is definitionally political, and any academic will tell you how political the latter is. The notion that technology is somehow beyond politics is a very political idea, as is the centering of individual freedom as primary. Your refusal to acknowledge those politics is also a political position. I personally agree with a lot of the politics embedded in the design of the Internet. But we shouldn't pretend like the politics doesn't exist.
- darawk 8y ago
  > That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. It's self-evident and you aren't providing evidence, you're arguing definitions. The internet is politically neutral. It is designed to carry data, without respect for its contents, point of origin, or destination. All participants in the network are treated equally, all forms of communication are treated equally. Now, you can say "neutrality is a political statement". And if you want to define it that way, then sure, it's political. But I think that's a fairly silly, meaningless definition.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    If it's evident to you but not evident to me, then it's self-evidently not self-evident. The internet is not politically neutral. Carrying data without respect for contents, origin, or destination is a very political ideal. It's also an ideal that the internet has never met. Origin and destination have to have money to pay to connect, for example. And ISPs from the earliest days had acceptable use policies, so it was never "anything goes"; determining what was acceptable was very much a political process. I note that the Bitcoin community, who are even stronger on the "without respect for contents, origin, or destination" philosophy, are even more obviously political. In pretty much any Bitcoin discussion here you can find people who espouse extreme anarchocapitalist values. Many are quite clear that any state interference in their business is anathema. Again, highly political. What you're espousing is the sort of faux neutrality that the article is about.

by darawk 8y ago

sincerely 8y ago

Isn't the internet only (somewhat) open/free/decentralized because of the politics of the people that built it?

darawk 8y ago
Sorry, i'm not sure if i'm understanding correctly. I have two equiprobable interpretations of your question: 1. The internet is not completely decentralized due to the politics of its engineers. 2. The internet being designed to be open and free was, as much as any other architecture, reflective of the politics of its framers. I suppose they are essentially the same question, though. You're right, the architecture of the internet does reflect the politics of its engineers, to a degree. But I think it mostly represents an attempt at the most flexible, simple architecture to provide infrastructure for other applications without being opinionated about those applications. Which, on the one hand, is sort of a political choice, though I feel it's only political in the sense that it avoids any and all political considerations. Its politics are neutrality and agnosticism.
paulddraper 8y ago
Not directly. You can call "open internet" politics, sure. But this is different than the existing politics of taxes, gun rights, abortion rights, property rights, race relations, immigration, transportation, homosexuality, tariffs, or federalization. You might claim it reflected free speech, i.e. the inability of government to restrict the content of written or spoken messages. But I think that would be a weak argument at best, especially for the pre-https web.

wpietri 8y ago

That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. I think it's also incorrect in a few ways. One, the beginnings of the Internet were in government and academia. The former is definitionally political, and any academic will tell you how political the latter is. The notion that technology is somehow beyond politics is a very political idea, as is the centering of individual freedom as primary. Your refusal to acknowledge those politics is also a political position. I personally agree with a lot of the politics embedded in the design of the Internet. But we shouldn't pretend like the politics doesn't exist.

darawk 8y ago
> That's a bold and sweeping assertion for which you offer no proof whatsoever. It's self-evident and you aren't providing evidence, you're arguing definitions. The internet is politically neutral. It is designed to carry data, without respect for its contents, point of origin, or destination. All participants in the network are treated equally, all forms of communication are treated equally. Now, you can say "neutrality is a political statement". And if you want to define it that way, then sure, it's political. But I think that's a fairly silly, meaningless definition.
- wpietri 8y ago
  If it's evident to you but not evident to me, then it's self-evidently not self-evident. The internet is not politically neutral. Carrying data without respect for contents, origin, or destination is a very political ideal. It's also an ideal that the internet has never met. Origin and destination have to have money to pay to connect, for example. And ISPs from the earliest days had acceptable use policies, so it was never "anything goes"; determining what was acceptable was very much a political process. I note that the Bitcoin community, who are even stronger on the "without respect for contents, origin, or destination" philosophy, are even more obviously political. In pretty much any Bitcoin discussion here you can find people who espouse extreme anarchocapitalist values. Many are quite clear that any state interference in their business is anathema. Again, highly political. What you're espousing is the sort of faux neutrality that the article is about.