3 ms·

The privatized internet has failed us

94 points by hyperluz 4y ago

jml7c5 4y ago
This article was already sumitted here yesterday, where it garnered a lot of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773233
- hyperluz 4y ago
  Searched for it before posting, but did't find it. Next time, will search with an external search engine. Edit: yesterday's OP used a highly modified title
  - jml7c5 4y ago
    It's a bit of an odd one to search for because both the title and site are different. I wouldn't have found the original either. (And, in fact, didn't! It was only because I knew the previous submission was to Jacobin that I could locate it.)
    - jonas21 4y ago
      The site in today's submission seems to have copied the original article wholesale and slapped their own byline on it, along with a bunch of ads. The only credit to the original author is at the very bottom, and that's probably accidental (it was mixed in with the article content in the original).
      - dang 4y ago
        Thanks for pointing that out. We've banned the site.
  - pvg 4y ago
    That site looks like a content farm which might be the root problem.
  - lmm 4y ago
    They may well have used the original title and got edited by a mod.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
      Original title was: Privatising the Internet Was A Mistake It got edited. I listened to an interview with the book's author. The title of the book is "Internet for the People". It argues privatisation, i.e., opening the internet up to commercial use in 1995 and terminating the government's leases for the internet's backbone, lead to the foreclosure of other possible uses of the internet. Hardly a conclusion that required much thought. It never uses the word "mistake". In fact, the author states that privatisation was the government's plan all along. The author defines "the internet" as a language, i.e., protocols, as it happens, TCP/IP. IMO, that is not a bad analytical framework. TCP/IP was by and large academic work, funded by government, i.e., taxes, i.e., the people. Whereas something like "QUIC" today is a corporate project initiated and led by an advertising company, funded by advertisers, not the people. (Funnily enough, these intermediary companies seeking to profit from the internet have seemingly become dependent on so-called "user-generated content", and actively try to recruit non-corporate "creators" who are willing to upload content for free.) The author recounts that the reason TCP/IP "won" over alternative protocols was that it was the only solution to work in time to meet a Pentagon deadline. As such, we have had a an internet that comprises a noncommercial language. As commercial use of this internet has exploded, and the internet has become monopolised by intermediaries, what will become of the noncommercial language. But focusing on the "privatisation" of protocols is not where the author takes the discussion. He does discuss two examples of community internet service ("community networks") 1. The EPB in Chatanooga, TN 2. Cooperatives serving Nelson, Logan and Kidder counties in North Dakota The author acknowledges that the backbone will always remain private and so at best some parts of the internet could be public and some parts would remain private. He makes the same case for centralisation/decentralisation: some things could be decentralised but others would remain centralised. There are many interesting stories in the book, many with which readers will already be familiar. There is one that I always enjoy reading and that is "Page and Brin hated online advertising... Moreover, advertising wasn't central to the business model: revenue was mostly expected to come from Google licensing its search technology to other sites."
- dang 4y ago
  Comments moved thither. Thanks!

94 points by hyperluz 4y ago

This article was already sumitted here yesterday, where it garnered a lot of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31773233

hyperluz 4y ago
Searched for it before posting, but did't find it. Next time, will search with an external search engine. Edit: yesterday's OP used a highly modified title
- jml7c5 4y ago
  It's a bit of an odd one to search for because both the title and site are different. I wouldn't have found the original either. (And, in fact, didn't! It was only because I knew the previous submission was to Jacobin that I could locate it.)
  - jonas21 4y ago
    The site in today's submission seems to have copied the original article wholesale and slapped their own byline on it, along with a bunch of ads. The only credit to the original author is at the very bottom, and that's probably accidental (it was mixed in with the article content in the original).
    - dang 4y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. We've banned the site.
- pvg 4y ago
  That site looks like a content farm which might be the root problem.
- lmm 4y ago
  They may well have used the original title and got edited by a mod.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
    Original title was: Privatising the Internet Was A Mistake It got edited. I listened to an interview with the book's author. The title of the book is "Internet for the People". It argues privatisation, i.e., opening the internet up to commercial use in 1995 and terminating the government's leases for the internet's backbone, lead to the foreclosure of other possible uses of the internet. Hardly a conclusion that required much thought. It never uses the word "mistake". In fact, the author states that privatisation was the government's plan all along. The author defines "the internet" as a language, i.e., protocols, as it happens, TCP/IP. IMO, that is not a bad analytical framework. TCP/IP was by and large academic work, funded by government, i.e., taxes, i.e., the people. Whereas something like "QUIC" today is a corporate project initiated and led by an advertising company, funded by advertisers, not the people. (Funnily enough, these intermediary companies seeking to profit from the internet have seemingly become dependent on so-called "user-generated content", and actively try to recruit non-corporate "creators" who are willing to upload content for free.) The author recounts that the reason TCP/IP "won" over alternative protocols was that it was the only solution to work in time to meet a Pentagon deadline. As such, we have had a an internet that comprises a noncommercial language. As commercial use of this internet has exploded, and the internet has become monopolised by intermediaries, what will become of the noncommercial language. But focusing on the "privatisation" of protocols is not where the author takes the discussion. He does discuss two examples of community internet service ("community networks") 1. The EPB in Chatanooga, TN 2. Cooperatives serving Nelson, Logan and Kidder counties in North Dakota The author acknowledges that the backbone will always remain private and so at best some parts of the internet could be public and some parts would remain private. He makes the same case for centralisation/decentralisation: some things could be decentralised but others would remain centralised. There are many interesting stories in the book, many with which readers will already be familiar. There is one that I always enjoy reading and that is "Page and Brin hated online advertising... Moreover, advertising wasn't central to the business model: revenue was mostly expected to come from Google licensing its search technology to other sites."
dang 4y ago
Comments moved thither. Thanks!