7 ms·

In 1979, a chain email about science fiction spawned the modern internet?

101 points by danso 8y ago

contentpls 8y ago
https://outline.com/xk5MMp https://outline.com/xk5MMp
ghusbands 8y ago
Link without (illegal) GDPR noise: https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/internet-social-media-sf-lovers-arpanet.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com...
- _ZeD_ 8y ago
  illegal?
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    The wall needs a clear and visible opt out, as readily-accessible as the accept button. Instead, Slate redirects you to their privacy page. Their privacy page itself redirects you to https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners ... which is behind the GDPR wall. And once you get behind the wall, it's a list of dozens of links, with individual opt-out from each service, on separate pages, separate domains. In other words, you are forced to give consent before you are graciously told how to withdraw it from each individual advertising partners. You don't have a way to not give Slate themselves consent. Yeah, it's illegal.
    - skrebbel 8y ago
      , in some parts of the world.
      - scrollaway 8y ago
        Please do reply to every single post mentioning the word "illegal" with "in some parts of the world". After all, nearly anything goes in international waters.
        skrebbel 8y ago
        Fair enough, you're right.
        aaron695 8y ago
        No they aren't. EU is 500 million people. The rest of the world is 7.2 billion almost all not living in international waters. Your point was fair, this complex law that applies to the (rich) few, affects many. It's clear what you meant.
    - ElBarto 8y ago
      It's not illegal. If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        See mattlondon's comment: > Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given. > "This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service" > Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what2 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
        ElBarto 8y ago
        That's always misunderstood. A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment. The GDPR does not change that at all. What you quoted refers to specific contract terms as exemplified in the link provided. Edit: I wish people understood GDPR instead of acting childishly by downvoting...
        akvadrako 8y ago
        You are wrong, as has been explained to you above. I laid out the argument in more detail a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 Basically, you need consent to use tracking and consent isn't legal unless it's optional and independent. So it can't be tied to access.
        ElBarto 8y ago
        No, I'm not wrong. The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access. What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.
    - crysin 8y ago
      It's only illegal if the EU enforces it, really, and it seems that the EU has no motivation to act on these obvious violators. It's been 4 months, and this violation is one of the most obvious and easily fine-able violations and yet nothings changed. Companies aren't scared, no one is doing anything differently, so until the EU actually proves they're interested in enforcing the text of the GDPR companies are going to continue acting like they're not in danger.
- lokisimo 8y ago
  GDPR continues to cause trouble everywhere. It leaves me wondering when they’ll roll back...
- AlcaldeElx 8y ago
  GDPR continues to cause trouble everywhere. Wondering when they’ll rollback this useless law.
- fake-name 8y ago
  Or just use a plugin that blocks jerberscript, and you can read it fine. So does uMatrix (apparently the GDPR shit is an external JS resource!).
  - vezycash 8y ago
    Mobile phone users might not be able to use browser extensions.
    - jraph 8y ago
      Time to switch to Firefox Mobile :-) Great extensions: - uBlock Origin - I don't care about cookies - Dark Background and Light Text (especially good with OLED screens but slows things down a bit and there is an annoying white flash on page load, probably because of the way Web Extensions work)
      - aerique 8y ago
        Yeah, I've been browsing with Firefox and adblockers for years on Android.
  - jraph 8y ago
    In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the letter would not suffice. To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content. I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff. Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't want to. Leave me alone. You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that from several people these last weeks.
    - 8y ago
skookumchuck 8y ago
The article reads like it's the only network that existed. BBS software also got its start in 1979. CompuServe also got started in 1979.
- panic 8y ago
  Not to mention PLATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)), which by the mid 70's had multiplayer games, emoticons, chatrooms, and more.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    And PRESTEL
  - taborj 8y ago
    Just to add - the book "The Friendly Orange Glow" is an excellent, readable history of PLATO. Absolutely fascinating, and one the other of this article probably hasn't see, or else they wouldn't be putting so much stock in this one email chain.
peter303 8y ago
This article is not correct. I was using email in 1974 and experienced similar issues.
F00Fbug 8y ago
If you're going to talk about the historical significance of social computing, I would imagine that Usenet would figure in the story somewhere. To jump from email threads (that the authors incorrectly call forums) to modern social networks leaves out quite a bit of the story! Usenet was a remarkable tool for communication and community-building, as was Compuserve (already mentioned by skookumchuck). Usenet was deployed in 1980, only a year after the SF-LOVERS email chain started.
fooblat 8y ago
Pretty much every sentence in this article that uses the world "first" is wrong. Community Memory[0] is arguably the first social network and it was launched in 1973. For more information and depth on the origins of tcp/ip and email, I suggest the book Where Wizards Stay Up Late[1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory 1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Stay_Up_Late https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta...
- erikb 8y ago
  Not to say you are wrong, but why do you claim that your one source is more right than the one source that is the article? Just saying that there's a book that says otherwise shouldn't be proof. E.g., I bet I can even find a book that says Trump is our savior, Jesus 2.0. *edit: I knew this would get downvoted. Why discuss logically when you can downvote, right?
  - stephenhuey 8y ago
    I have that book, too. I’d trust it more too. Not saying untruths couldn’t make it into the published works of yesteryear but there was a higher hurdle to publishing physical books than publishing this online article.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - j45 8y ago
    Community Memory in 1973 appears to pre-date the article's 1979.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    For one thing, Fooblat's wiki link alone cites a couple of dozen sources. It's not just about one book. For another, this isn't really a matter of opinion. If I say "the widget was invented in 1979," and you've got a widget that was manufactured in 1973, then I'm obviously mistaken, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something. My personal credibility doesn't enter into it.
howard941 8y ago
Failure to mention NJIT's EIES or The Source for that matter renders this article's origin claims kinda questionable. Push reset, try again.
megaman8 8y ago
>> After an unsuccessful attempt to sell ARPANET to a commercial buyer (AT&T could have literally owned the internet, but said No thanks), the government split the system in two Can you imagine what it would be like if AT&T bought the internet?
gcb0 8y ago
wow. that last paragraph was a little heavy handed on forcing a completely new topic and new facts wasn't it?

101 points by danso 8y ago

https://outline.com/xk5MMp https://outline.com/xk5MMp

Link without (illegal) GDPR noise: https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/internet-social-media-sf-lovers-arpanet.html https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com...

_ZeD_ 8y ago
illegal?
- scrollaway 8y ago
  The wall needs a clear and visible opt out, as readily-accessible as the accept button. Instead, Slate redirects you to their privacy page. Their privacy page itself redirects you to https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners ... which is behind the GDPR wall. And once you get behind the wall, it's a list of dozens of links, with individual opt-out from each service, on separate pages, separate domains. In other words, you are forced to give consent before you are graciously told how to withdraw it from each individual advertising partners. You don't have a way to not give Slate themselves consent. Yeah, it's illegal.
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    , in some parts of the world.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      Please do reply to every single post mentioning the word "illegal" with "in some parts of the world". After all, nearly anything goes in international waters.
      - skrebbel 8y ago
        Fair enough, you're right.
        aaron695 8y ago
        No they aren't. EU is 500 million people. The rest of the world is 7.2 billion almost all not living in international waters. Your point was fair, this complex law that applies to the (rich) few, affects many. It's clear what you meant.
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    It's not illegal. If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      See mattlondon's comment: > Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given. > "This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service" > Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/consent/what-is-valid-consent/#what2 https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...
      - ElBarto 8y ago
        That's always misunderstood. A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment. The GDPR does not change that at all. What you quoted refers to specific contract terms as exemplified in the link provided. Edit: I wish people understood GDPR instead of acting childishly by downvoting...
        akvadrako 8y ago
        You are wrong, as has been explained to you above. I laid out the argument in more detail a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789 Basically, you need consent to use tracking and consent isn't legal unless it's optional and independent. So it can't be tied to access.
        ElBarto 8y ago
        No, I'm not wrong. The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access. What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.
  - crysin 8y ago
    It's only illegal if the EU enforces it, really, and it seems that the EU has no motivation to act on these obvious violators. It's been 4 months, and this violation is one of the most obvious and easily fine-able violations and yet nothings changed. Companies aren't scared, no one is doing anything differently, so until the EU actually proves they're interested in enforcing the text of the GDPR companies are going to continue acting like they're not in danger.
lokisimo 8y ago
GDPR continues to cause trouble everywhere. It leaves me wondering when they’ll roll back...
AlcaldeElx 8y ago
GDPR continues to cause trouble everywhere. Wondering when they’ll rollback this useless law.
fake-name 8y ago
Or just use a plugin that blocks jerberscript, and you can read it fine. So does uMatrix (apparently the GDPR shit is an external JS resource!).
- vezycash 8y ago
  Mobile phone users might not be able to use browser extensions.
  - jraph 8y ago
    Time to switch to Firefox Mobile :-) Great extensions: - uBlock Origin - I don't care about cookies - Dark Background and Light Text (especially good with OLED screens but slows things down a bit and there is an annoying white flash on page load, probably because of the way Web Extensions work)
    - aerique 8y ago
      Yeah, I've been browsing with Firefox and adblockers for years on Android.
- jraph 8y ago
  In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the letter would not suffice. To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content. I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff. Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't want to. Leave me alone. You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that from several people these last weeks.
  - 8y ago

skookumchuck 8y ago

The article reads like it's the only network that existed. BBS software also got its start in 1979. CompuServe also got started in 1979.

panic 8y ago
Not to mention PLATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)), which by the mid 70's had multiplayer games, emoticons, chatrooms, and more.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  And PRESTEL
- taborj 8y ago
  Just to add - the book "The Friendly Orange Glow" is an excellent, readable history of PLATO. Absolutely fascinating, and one the other of this article probably hasn't see, or else they wouldn't be putting so much stock in this one email chain.

peter303 8y ago

This article is not correct. I was using email in 1974 and experienced similar issues.

F00Fbug 8y ago

If you're going to talk about the historical significance of social computing, I would imagine that Usenet would figure in the story somewhere. To jump from email threads (that the authors incorrectly call forums) to modern social networks leaves out quite a bit of the story! Usenet was a remarkable tool for communication and community-building, as was Compuserve (already mentioned by skookumchuck). Usenet was deployed in 1980, only a year after the SF-LOVERS email chain started.

fooblat 8y ago

Pretty much every sentence in this article that uses the world "first" is wrong. Community Memory[0] is arguably the first social network and it was launched in 1973. For more information and depth on the origins of tcp/ip and email, I suggest the book Where Wizards Stay Up Late[1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory 1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Stay_Up_Late https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta...

erikb 8y ago
Not to say you are wrong, but why do you claim that your one source is more right than the one source that is the article? Just saying that there's a book that says otherwise shouldn't be proof. E.g., I bet I can even find a book that says Trump is our savior, Jesus 2.0. *edit: I knew this would get downvoted. Why discuss logically when you can downvote, right?
- stephenhuey 8y ago
  I have that book, too. I’d trust it more too. Not saying untruths couldn’t make it into the published works of yesteryear but there was a higher hurdle to publishing physical books than publishing this online article.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- j45 8y ago
  Community Memory in 1973 appears to pre-date the article's 1979.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  For one thing, Fooblat's wiki link alone cites a couple of dozen sources. It's not just about one book. For another, this isn't really a matter of opinion. If I say "the widget was invented in 1979," and you've got a widget that was manufactured in 1973, then I'm obviously mistaken, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something. My personal credibility doesn't enter into it.

howard941 8y ago

Failure to mention NJIT's EIES or The Source for that matter renders this article's origin claims kinda questionable. Push reset, try again.

megaman8 8y ago

>> After an unsuccessful attempt to sell ARPANET to a commercial buyer (AT&T could have literally owned the internet, but said No thanks), the government split the system in two Can you imagine what it would be like if AT&T bought the internet?

gcb0 8y ago

wow. that last paragraph was a little heavy handed on forcing a completely new topic and new facts wasn't it?