6 ms·

I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. Back in the early 90s we were all about PGP and

by efitz 4y ago

I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. Back in the early 90s we were all about PGP and anonymous remailers and we’ve let the forces of government and big business slowly nullify every mitigation we’ve tried. As technologists we haven’t used our positions on technical standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve freedom by not providing the capabilities needed for control. So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created.

spacemark 4y ago
I think you overestimate how much control we technologists actually have. Takes far more than a few seats on some standards boards.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
In the 90s, you had a few people on the internet, who knew all that stuff, but because the internet was "hard", they (we?) represented the majority of internet users. Now, they/we are all still here, knowing all the ways of private communications, protocols, etc. + all the new, better ways to communicate privately and securely. The only difference now is, that a few billions of "normal people" joined us online, and they don't know and don't care about all that, so the propaganda just moved from TV to facebook and youtube.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  I think the real difference is those same 90's Internet users actually have a lot of power right now, and it's become too hard to cede that. It's easy to argue that power should be distributed when you don't think you have much of a stake in it, a little harder when you command a huge chunk of the national economy and culture. I doubt it's because of the Internet's barrier to entry back then. Are you supposing the ability to set up a SLIP/PPP script is associated with some kind of sensitivity to power imbalances?
  - bfuller 4y ago
    Yeah sadly all the old heads that tell me stories of putting think tanks together so that consumers owned their metadata, all the excitement of activism by those few super nerds end up telling it to me from their mansions bought by creating SaaS services or whatever. I'd say the 90s hacktivists for the most part took the golden handcuffs and left the rest of humanity out to dry. We need like 1000 more Pavel Durovs,
ComplexSystems 4y ago
"...we’ve let the forces of government and big business slowly nullify every mitigation we’ve tried" Who is "we?" The Pakistani government is unilaterally doing this. Surely you don't mean the Pakistani people?
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  I think they definite it “we as technologists”. So technologists then and now. I don’t see you you would end up with your interpretation, whether you agree with GP or not.
neilv 4y ago
Even in the early '90s, there was already suspicion of remailers. (Not only among cypherpunks-types; for example, I vaguely recall some relatively mainstream outlet, maybe Michael O'Brien in SunExpert magazine, saying to be skeptical of new anon services.)
hackernewds 4y ago
If anything due to monopolies like YouTube, it's EASIER to restrict access. we have to begin decentralizing compute power
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  There are smartphones in so many hands around the world and you want to decentralise compute power? Need to USE that power already there.
  - efitz 4y ago
    Those smartphones are forced to use non-open networks (GSM, LTE, 5G) which are riddled with proprietary encryption, back doors, and mandatory built in interfaces to facilitate monitoring by state actors.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  How is youtube a monopoly?
tialaramex 4y ago
> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. To prevent their citizens from listening to one man giving a speech, Pakistan needed to organise blocking all access from ordinary customers to the entire Youtube platform. That's the smallest thing which works. And your reaction is you are sad because of "how susceptible it is to control and censorship" ? What if Khan instead wrote a letter to a newspaper? Government can just tear up the letter, and tell the newspaper not to publish it - no need to shut every newsagent and corner store in the whole country. Or if he wrote a book? Government just orders the book pulped, there's no need to shut libraries and close every bookstore. The minimum effective action was to completely cut off their country from this invaluable resource, loads of Pakistanis who had no intention of viewing the speech are now aware because their favourite clip of a guy getting kicked in the nuts was blocked, or the pop video they liked, or a defence of their preferred way to make a common snack. "Hey, why doesn't Youtube work?" "Oh the government are censoring Khan".
- nwiswell 4y ago
  Just because Pakistan is ham-handedly Streisanding Khan doesn't mean other countries (like China) don't have this down to a science.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Is your contention that China is somehow able to censor individual Youtube videos? No, China simply doesn't allow the entire platform. Whether it is a video about how to fix your bicycle, about Hong Kong protests, or a song praising President Xi, you can't see it on Youtube from a Chinese residential connection, everything is blocked.
    - dec0dedab0de 4y ago
      I don't think blocking individual videos would be very difficult.
      - 4y ago
BrainVirus 4y ago
I love how this perfectly reasonable observation gets replies that deny it and simultaneously contradict one another. Somehow no one cares. Different replies are claiming that there is no problem, that the problem could be solved only if more users were technical, and that the problem cannot be solved by technologists at all. So, which one is it?
Barrin92 4y ago
>As technologists we haven’t used our positions on technical standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve freedom there's no such thing because it's in the very nature of protocols to enable legibility and automation which always benefits centralization. (see James Scott, Seeing like a State). The internet, book-printing, even 'crypto', whatever you pick that sounds superficially decentralizing is in actuality re-centralizing because it enables more powerful administration and as such higher forms of organization.
bergenty 4y ago
I’m going to get pushback but the far right has really made it easy for the common person to look away. All that hate has made it easy to get the general public to not care when privacy is being taken away. They always ruin everything.
fomine3 4y ago
I wonder what if ESNI was invented at around 2010, perhaps before Xi regime.
hulitu 4y ago
> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. > So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created. Internet was created by DARPA (the military). It is now used as a weapon to spread disinformation.

by efitz 4y ago

spacemark 4y ago

I think you overestimate how much control we technologists actually have. Takes far more than a few seats on some standards boards.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

In the 90s, you had a few people on the internet, who knew all that stuff, but because the internet was "hard", they (we?) represented the majority of internet users. Now, they/we are all still here, knowing all the ways of private communications, protocols, etc. + all the new, better ways to communicate privately and securely. The only difference now is, that a few billions of "normal people" joined us online, and they don't know and don't care about all that, so the propaganda just moved from TV to facebook and youtube.

jasonfarnon 4y ago
I think the real difference is those same 90's Internet users actually have a lot of power right now, and it's become too hard to cede that. It's easy to argue that power should be distributed when you don't think you have much of a stake in it, a little harder when you command a huge chunk of the national economy and culture. I doubt it's because of the Internet's barrier to entry back then. Are you supposing the ability to set up a SLIP/PPP script is associated with some kind of sensitivity to power imbalances?
- bfuller 4y ago
  Yeah sadly all the old heads that tell me stories of putting think tanks together so that consumers owned their metadata, all the excitement of activism by those few super nerds end up telling it to me from their mansions bought by creating SaaS services or whatever. I'd say the 90s hacktivists for the most part took the golden handcuffs and left the rest of humanity out to dry. We need like 1000 more Pavel Durovs,

ComplexSystems 4y ago

"...we’ve let the forces of government and big business slowly nullify every mitigation we’ve tried" Who is "we?" The Pakistani government is unilaterally doing this. Surely you don't mean the Pakistani people?

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I think they definite it “we as technologists”. So technologists then and now. I don’t see you you would end up with your interpretation, whether you agree with GP or not.

neilv 4y ago

Even in the early '90s, there was already suspicion of remailers. (Not only among cypherpunks-types; for example, I vaguely recall some relatively mainstream outlet, maybe Michael O'Brien in SunExpert magazine, saying to be skeptical of new anon services.)

hackernewds 4y ago

If anything due to monopolies like YouTube, it's EASIER to restrict access. we have to begin decentralizing compute power

_carbyau_ 4y ago
There are smartphones in so many hands around the world and you want to decentralise compute power? Need to USE that power already there.
- efitz 4y ago
  Those smartphones are forced to use non-open networks (GSM, LTE, 5G) which are riddled with proprietary encryption, back doors, and mandatory built in interfaces to facilitate monitoring by state actors.
InCityDreams 4y ago
How is youtube a monopoly?

tialaramex 4y ago

> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. To prevent their citizens from listening to one man giving a speech, Pakistan needed to organise blocking all access from ordinary customers to the entire Youtube platform. That's the smallest thing which works. And your reaction is you are sad because of "how susceptible it is to control and censorship" ? What if Khan instead wrote a letter to a newspaper? Government can just tear up the letter, and tell the newspaper not to publish it - no need to shut every newsagent and corner store in the whole country. Or if he wrote a book? Government just orders the book pulped, there's no need to shut libraries and close every bookstore. The minimum effective action was to completely cut off their country from this invaluable resource, loads of Pakistanis who had no intention of viewing the speech are now aware because their favourite clip of a guy getting kicked in the nuts was blocked, or the pop video they liked, or a defence of their preferred way to make a common snack. "Hey, why doesn't Youtube work?" "Oh the government are censoring Khan".

nwiswell 4y ago
Just because Pakistan is ham-handedly Streisanding Khan doesn't mean other countries (like China) don't have this down to a science.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Is your contention that China is somehow able to censor individual Youtube videos? No, China simply doesn't allow the entire platform. Whether it is a video about how to fix your bicycle, about Hong Kong protests, or a song praising President Xi, you can't see it on Youtube from a Chinese residential connection, everything is blocked.
  - dec0dedab0de 4y ago
    I don't think blocking individual videos would be very difficult.
    - 4y ago

BrainVirus 4y ago

I love how this perfectly reasonable observation gets replies that deny it and simultaneously contradict one another. Somehow no one cares. Different replies are claiming that there is no problem, that the problem could be solved only if more users were technical, and that the problem cannot be solved by technologists at all. So, which one is it?

Barrin92 4y ago

>As technologists we haven’t used our positions on technical standards boards, etc., to force protocols that would preserve freedom there's no such thing because it's in the very nature of protocols to enable legibility and automation which always benefits centralization. (see James Scott, Seeing like a State). The internet, book-printing, even 'crypto', whatever you pick that sounds superficially decentralizing is in actuality re-centralizing because it enables more powerful administration and as such higher forms of organization.

bergenty 4y ago

I’m going to get pushback but the far right has really made it easy for the common person to look away. All that hate has made it easy to get the general public to not care when privacy is being taken away. They always ruin everything.

fomine3 4y ago

I wonder what if ESNI was invented at around 2010, perhaps before Xi regime.

hulitu 4y ago

> I think the thing that makes me most sad about the internet is how susceptible it is to control and censorship. > So now I guess we’re just supplicants on the internet we created. Internet was created by DARPA (the military). It is now used as a weapon to spread disinformation.