4 ms·

I think you're just inferring something that isn't there at all in the OP. Here's what it says: > The book takes us through a series of key moments in the deve

I think you're just inferring something that isn't there at all in the OP. Here's what it says: > The book takes us through a series of key moments in the development of the internet: 1969, when the publicly owned Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the first public computer network that became a forerunner to the internet, went live for the first time; 1976, when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) linked two networks for the first time in pursuit of its goal to “bring the mainframe to the battlefield”; The only mention of a military application is related to the event of DARPA linking two networks for the first time. This is in fact what happened. That event has nothing to do with the creation of ARPANET, which is clearly mentioned here as a distinct, earlier event. There's no other mention in the article of a military motivation for the creation of the Internet, or other computer technology.

kristopolous 4y ago
I've heard the author interviewed twice on leftist podcasts and they also drop the "mainframe on the battlefield" thing in the introduction, on both ... You can read work from actual scholars on this supposed connection, like say Rob Larson, Bit Tyrants: The Political Economy of Silicon Valley, Haymarket Books, 2020 It's 316 pages talking about silicon valley's cozy relationship with the defense department. Unlike the tech journalist Ben Tarnoff, Rob Larson is a professional historian and so you will note the phantom connection is absent from his work. And it's not like Haymarket Books is politically divergent from Verso, Larson's just a more careful writer. I feel compelled to point inaccurate things out because if people actually take heed and do their diligence on it, using reality should help them better analyze the world around them. We should all strive to have as little nonsense as possible when we're trying to be serious.

kristopolous 4y ago

I've heard the author interviewed twice on leftist podcasts and they also drop the "mainframe on the battlefield" thing in the introduction, on both ... You can read work from actual scholars on this supposed connection, like say Rob Larson, Bit Tyrants: The Political Economy of Silicon Valley, Haymarket Books, 2020 It's 316 pages talking about silicon valley's cozy relationship with the defense department. Unlike the tech journalist Ben Tarnoff, Rob Larson is a professional historian and so you will note the phantom connection is absent from his work. And it's not like Haymarket Books is politically divergent from Verso, Larson's just a more careful writer. I feel compelled to point inaccurate things out because if people actually take heed and do their diligence on it, using reality should help them better analyze the world around them. We should all strive to have as little nonsense as possible when we're trying to be serious.