4 ms·
> The Internet was supposed to be a totally open set of protocols that anyone could interact with, and for a long time it was, That is still true today. Anyo
by beders 5y ago
> The Internet was supposed to be a totally open set of protocols that anyone could interact with, and for a long time it was,
That is still true today.
Anyone can still open a connection to a socket or make a server-socket available on that particular layer and can expect routing to work.
Yet.
While it is tempting to equate "the Internet" with the world-wide-web - a term used less and less,
they are two very different things.
The biggest danger to the internet is about control of the underlying networks. That countries can cut themselves off from the internet or monitor all packets being routed in large regions is problematic. Efforts into "decentralization" should start there.
- imiric 5y ago> The biggest danger to the internet is about control of the underlying networks. That countries can cut themselves off from the internet or monitor all packets being routed in large regions is problematic. That is a concern, yes, but I don't see it as the biggest one we have today. The internet is already split up into service silos. Large corporations that service millions of users and control the flow and access to information has the same net effect as countries doing the same, and is much more prevalent today. Do I care that China or Russia have their own internal networks and services that I can't access? Not really. The language is a bigger barrier in that sense if I cared about that. I do care about public discourse happening on large private platforms where users have little to no control over the data they share or consume. This is what ultimately decentralization is meant to solve: users being in control of their data.