4 ms·

>So if we can make it through the next 20-25 years, the people in power will protect technology for us, not fear it. No, they won't. They will be the same corp

>So if we can make it through the next 20-25 years, the people in power will protect technology for us, not fear it. No, they won't. They will be the same corporate sellouts as they are today because we keep thinking like this. That mentality needs to die. We cannot rely on those in power to "protect technology for us" - or anything else, for that matter. We have to do it ourselves. The situation won't magically fix itself just because we sheepishly wait for two or three decades. People have to realize that most, if not all authority is naturally opposed to progress. Authority depends on the status quo, and will try everything in its power to preserve that. The internet is probably the largest threat to authority in the history of mankind. The recoil against it therefore was not only predictable, but inevitable. The internet as it is today is the largest functioning system of anarchy that has ever existed - and on a planetary scale, no less. That's scary to some people, if not utterly terrifying. But it's the way forward. Authority trying to preserve itself by all means possible is nothing new. It's to be expected, and must likewise be resisted with every available countermeasure - atterete dominatum.

waqf 15y ago
> People have to realize that most, if not all authority is naturally opposed to progress. That is absolutely true, but as the people in power get younger, their reference point for what counts as "progress" advances. Politicians who grew up in the iPad era will be reactionaries against some as-yet-unconceived-of technological or social change, not against iPads.
- dantheman 15y ago
  I'd have to disagree, we had multiple presidents who were drug users; the hippies are in power now, and the war on drugs marches on.
  - doron 15y ago
    They smoke, but don't inhale.
    - roc 15y ago
      That was yester-year's white lie. Since then Marion Barry was re-elected as mayor of DC. GWB admitted not only to use, but substance abuse. Obama not only admitted to using pot and cocaine, but cracked a joke about the silliness of Clinton's dodge. Using drugs is simply another thing that the ruling class openly admits to doing and doesn't suffer notably for, while they throw the book at any other citizen for doing the same, or less. e.g. dodging taxes, soliciting prostitutes, cheating on their spouses, not paying child support, hiring illegal immigrants and maybe even covering up the odd mysterious death.
      - Djehngo 15y ago
        Because politicians will largely enact policies which enable them to be re-elected. I don't know the specifics but I strongly suspect that coming out against the war on drugs will lose them more support than it would gain them. Support in terms of some mix of votes, finance, influence and connections. If this was un-true then some politician would have realised that standing for legalisation would win them an election and would have done so by now.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  >but as the people in power get younger Except they aren't. If at all, they will be getting older. But anyways, age doesn't really matter. Neither does understanding of the current technology. It's the fact that we allow corporations to buy out the government, and continuously run away from responsibility by telling us that 'things are surely going to change in x years / with the next election'. It's highly delusional. If we want to change something, we can't wait for some authority (usually the government) to solve our problems. We've got to do it ourselves. With or without its consent, and - if required - against it. This resolution is the catalyst for everything else.
  - waqf 15y ago
    Sorry, I was unclear. By "younger" I mean "born later". This has to happen in the long term, unless human life expectancy increases at a rate of more than one year per year.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      Okay, thanks for clearning that up. It doesn't change my point though.
yuhong 15y ago
Yea, I am advocating retraining legacy MBAs now if possible instead of waiting until they die for similar reasons.
- OstiaAntica 15y ago
  The lawyers (patent, copyright, Congress), not the MBAs, are at the heart of the problem.
  - yuhong 15y ago
    The legacy MBAs are the ones who are lobbying Congress etc, not only on this but also on the financial crisis etc. (I am thinking in particular OWS, for example.)
Matt_Cutts 15y ago
My point is that in 20-25 years, the fight to protect the internet will be easier--not completely hands off, but easier--because more people will understand technology. But in the mean time, we absolutely do have to take action to protect the net ourselves.
- clarkevans 15y ago
  Matt, Why do you think so? This isn't obvious to me.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    I can't speak for Matt, but the argument I would use is that the current politicians are largely from the generations that preceded the technological revolution. Given another generation (~25 years), more of the Internet generation will be in control. It speaks to a larger problem with the American political system, in my opinion, which is that the decisions that affect the next two or three generations are being made by people who came of age two or three generations ago, giving the status quo an undesirable inertia.
  - yellowbkpk 15y ago
    If I said "I need to change my spark plugs." to you today, would you understand what I mean? If I said it to your ancestors in 1911, would they understand what I mean? Over time, the median understanding across the majority of the world of any particular technology goes up as more people get exposed to it and its intricacies. As I understand it, Matt is saying that a larger majority of the world will understand the details behind the internet and its vulnerabilities, thus making it easier to communicate why the issues are important.
- roc 15y ago
  > "more people will understand technology" When has this ever happened? As technologies approach the refinement of appliances, it looks to me like the general understanding plummets. Under-the-hood complexity all but kills the tinker class and buries the professional class in detail that further muddies their attempts to talk to the average person. Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking. And as relevant to popular opinion and voting, the general public has no more (though not clearly less) understanding or appreciation for hardware freedom issues. Trusted computing, the issue of yesterday's hardware freedom battles, is simply the reality of mobile computing.
kiba 15y ago
I propose we create technological means of resistance as opposed while maintaining enough political resistance to allow our technological resistance to mature. Geeks are not good at politicking but we're good at technology.

waqf 15y ago

> People have to realize that most, if not all authority is naturally opposed to progress. That is absolutely true, but as the people in power get younger, their reference point for what counts as "progress" advances. Politicians who grew up in the iPad era will be reactionaries against some as-yet-unconceived-of technological or social change, not against iPads.

dantheman 15y ago
I'd have to disagree, we had multiple presidents who were drug users; the hippies are in power now, and the war on drugs marches on.
- doron 15y ago
  They smoke, but don't inhale.
  - roc 15y ago
    That was yester-year's white lie. Since then Marion Barry was re-elected as mayor of DC. GWB admitted not only to use, but substance abuse. Obama not only admitted to using pot and cocaine, but cracked a joke about the silliness of Clinton's dodge. Using drugs is simply another thing that the ruling class openly admits to doing and doesn't suffer notably for, while they throw the book at any other citizen for doing the same, or less. e.g. dodging taxes, soliciting prostitutes, cheating on their spouses, not paying child support, hiring illegal immigrants and maybe even covering up the odd mysterious death.
    - Djehngo 15y ago
      Because politicians will largely enact policies which enable them to be re-elected. I don't know the specifics but I strongly suspect that coming out against the war on drugs will lose them more support than it would gain them. Support in terms of some mix of votes, finance, influence and connections. If this was un-true then some politician would have realised that standing for legalisation would win them an election and would have done so by now.
slowpoke 15y ago
>but as the people in power get younger Except they aren't. If at all, they will be getting older. But anyways, age doesn't really matter. Neither does understanding of the current technology. It's the fact that we allow corporations to buy out the government, and continuously run away from responsibility by telling us that 'things are surely going to change in x years / with the next election'. It's highly delusional. If we want to change something, we can't wait for some authority (usually the government) to solve our problems. We've got to do it ourselves. With or without its consent, and - if required - against it. This resolution is the catalyst for everything else.
- waqf 15y ago
  Sorry, I was unclear. By "younger" I mean "born later". This has to happen in the long term, unless human life expectancy increases at a rate of more than one year per year.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    Okay, thanks for clearning that up. It doesn't change my point though.

yuhong 15y ago

Yea, I am advocating retraining legacy MBAs now if possible instead of waiting until they die for similar reasons.

OstiaAntica 15y ago
The lawyers (patent, copyright, Congress), not the MBAs, are at the heart of the problem.
- yuhong 15y ago
  The legacy MBAs are the ones who are lobbying Congress etc, not only on this but also on the financial crisis etc. (I am thinking in particular OWS, for example.)

Matt_Cutts 15y ago

My point is that in 20-25 years, the fight to protect the internet will be easier--not completely hands off, but easier--because more people will understand technology. But in the mean time, we absolutely do have to take action to protect the net ourselves.

clarkevans 15y ago
Matt, Why do you think so? This isn't obvious to me.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  I can't speak for Matt, but the argument I would use is that the current politicians are largely from the generations that preceded the technological revolution. Given another generation (~25 years), more of the Internet generation will be in control. It speaks to a larger problem with the American political system, in my opinion, which is that the decisions that affect the next two or three generations are being made by people who came of age two or three generations ago, giving the status quo an undesirable inertia.
- yellowbkpk 15y ago
  If I said "I need to change my spark plugs." to you today, would you understand what I mean? If I said it to your ancestors in 1911, would they understand what I mean? Over time, the median understanding across the majority of the world of any particular technology goes up as more people get exposed to it and its intricacies. As I understand it, Matt is saying that a larger majority of the world will understand the details behind the internet and its vulnerabilities, thus making it easier to communicate why the issues are important.
roc 15y ago
> "more people will understand technology" When has this ever happened? As technologies approach the refinement of appliances, it looks to me like the general understanding plummets. Under-the-hood complexity all but kills the tinker class and buries the professional class in detail that further muddies their attempts to talk to the average person. Consider hardware issues. In absolute numbers there may be more hardware tinkers than 25 years ago. But as a ratio of technologists, they're shrinking. And as relevant to popular opinion and voting, the general public has no more (though not clearly less) understanding or appreciation for hardware freedom issues. Trusted computing, the issue of yesterday's hardware freedom battles, is simply the reality of mobile computing.

kiba 15y ago

I propose we create technological means of resistance as opposed while maintaining enough political resistance to allow our technological resistance to mature. Geeks are not good at politicking but we're good at technology.