4 ms·

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

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.
- 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 wrong, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something.

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.
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 wrong, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something.