4 ms·

I've had similar thoughts over the years and while there is a lot that's wrong with the internet, issues like banning, propaganda and so on, are neither symptom

I've had similar thoughts over the years and while there is a lot that's wrong with the internet, issues like banning, propaganda and so on, are neither symptoms nor a consequence of it. It has nothing to do with the internet and everything to do with plain and simple stupidity which has been spreading for as long as the world has existed and much faster than covid-19. The only difference between now and say 20 years ago, is that 20 years ago the internet wasn't a part of Average Joe's life and back then it wasn't fueled by his personal content. The TV-commercial spam has penetrated into people's social life via social media. And refusing to acknowledge this fact, people left their front doors wide open for spam, propaganda in exchange for like/upvote-based "currency". Which many are willing to exploit naturally, while others look the other way in order to take a piece of the pie. There have been some efforts to slow that process down but the means are evolving. The current frontier of spam and propaganda, as I see it, are Q&A types of communities which makes spam and propaganda cheaper and more accessible than ever. What I'm trying to say is that what you are describing is a symptom of an sickness in people, and not in the technology: Most people are refusing to change or even reconsider their views when facts are presented to them.

uniqueid 6y ago
I've also been thinking about this lately ( eg: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921 ), and there's no longer much doubt in my mind that we need something different than what the net and web currently are. My current favorite idea is that we create different protocols that coexist with what we use already. The internet, as it exists today, would live on as a "wild west" likely used primarily by young adults and a few weirdos. Most people, either out of maturity, or because they are younger children whose parents force them, would instead use the new "Safe Web." They would opt to so because the new web would be an order of magnitude safer, more accountable, and more legible. The "Safe Web" would also offer some control (not that much is possible) over reach of content. The "old internet" would actually play a vital role, though, because CSS and Javascript, which the new web wouldn't support, allow for innovations. So, in effect, the "old web" becomes a sandbox from which the "new web" can steal features. The internet, as it is today, offers unfettered free speech without accountability and without verifiability. The resultant dumpster fire can live on, but it doesn't work for rational adults (makes them angry or dis/misinforms them), and isn't appropriate for children and younger teens (since they're gullible). If we ever have a new internet, that's where I'd spend 99% of my time. The subjects that internet free speech activists fight for today just don't interest me. I'd rather read up on Math or History, than watch videos of people falling into a rock crusher, or debate which "races" are inferior to others, or listen to paranoid theories about how Jews invented cancer, etc.

uniqueid 6y ago

I've also been thinking about this lately ( eg: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23595921 ), and there's no longer much doubt in my mind that we need something different than what the net and web currently are. My current favorite idea is that we create different protocols that coexist with what we use already. The internet, as it exists today, would live on as a "wild west" likely used primarily by young adults and a few weirdos. Most people, either out of maturity, or because they are younger children whose parents force them, would instead use the new "Safe Web." They would opt to so because the new web would be an order of magnitude safer, more accountable, and more legible. The "Safe Web" would also offer some control (not that much is possible) over reach of content. The "old internet" would actually play a vital role, though, because CSS and Javascript, which the new web wouldn't support, allow for innovations. So, in effect, the "old web" becomes a sandbox from which the "new web" can steal features. The internet, as it is today, offers unfettered free speech without accountability and without verifiability. The resultant dumpster fire can live on, but it doesn't work for rational adults (makes them angry or dis/misinforms them), and isn't appropriate for children and younger teens (since they're gullible). If we ever have a new internet, that's where I'd spend 99% of my time. The subjects that internet free speech activists fight for today just don't interest me. I'd rather read up on Math or History, than watch videos of people falling into a rock crusher, or debate which "races" are inferior to others, or listen to paranoid theories about how Jews invented cancer, etc.