2 ms·
That's true of snail mail, or telegrams, or even phone calls. But I'd argue the internet is so fast, and so high bandwidth, and so always-available, that it is
by jstanley 8y ago
That's true of snail mail, or telegrams, or even phone calls. But I'd argue the internet is so fast, and so high bandwidth, and so always-available, that it is a qualitatively different thing from merely a transfer of data between physical locations.
It is a place where things happen that aren't just transfers of information between physical places. For example, Hacker News is a place within the wider place that is the web.
You can argue that it is something other than a "place" (maybe "community"? or "society"?) but then you can just substitute "community" or "society" where I wrote "place" in my previous comment and everything still holds.
- C4stor 8y agoI think the important point is that it's bound by laws, and nations will (and must) enforce their laws. Right now, it means revendicating parts of that place that is internet as waving their flags, and holding accountable individuals and companies powering those parts. You can argue that there are no nationalities on the internet, bust most nations beg to differ.
- manigandham 8y agoI don't see what the velocity of the transfer has to do with the rules. Seems rather arbitrary. Hacker News isn't a place because you're just requesting data from their servers with a well-known DNS name. In fact everyone who "visits" is technically getting a private copy sent to them, and it's all data being transferred between borders. You can clearly see it reflected in internet routing where transit is defined by political and business connections, and things like the Great Firewall of China. Calling it a community fits better sure, but that just describes a group of individuals and doesn't create any political sovereignty. People still live in physical locations which are bound by laws, there's no way around that.