5 ms·

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 tec

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.
- firefoxman1 15y ago
  Absolutely right. The rate of new people understanding technology is pretty rapid at first, but then flatlines. I think actually less people understand how a car works than 2 generations ago, but when the Model T first made it to mass market the number of people who understood how the automobile works grew each year. But that trend couldn't have continued or everyone would be an expert mechanic by now, and that obviously isn't the case even though more people than ever own a car.
- glhaynes 15y ago
  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. I'm not sure this is true. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's at least not obvious. (Unless you're counting, say, anybody who today owns a smartphone as a technologist.)
  - roc 15y ago
    I was just relying on personal experience with programmers and IT people. When I started programming 20 years ago, pretty much anyone who worked at any level with computers could build a PC. These days, half the programmers I know can barely maintain their machines, let alone build one from parts. [1] If you told them they should oppose some piece of legislation because it would bar them from loading whatever OS they wanted on the hardware they purchased, they would (and do) shrug. They fully consider their choice to be synonymous with the hardware they bought in the first place. They don't think it at all odd that Android phones ship with locked bootloaders. [1] I don't mean to disparage them; some of them are fantastic programmers. That said, I do know far too many of them who are running home wifi with whatever configuration the Comcast/UVerse guy set up.
    - corford 15y ago
      Assuming your experience is not isolated, I find that very scary.
      - 15y ago
mdc 15y ago
If technology stood still, that might work. In 20-25 years, all politicians will understand the web and email, but the same kind of politician that today is ignorant of the web will then be ignorant of technologies x, y, and z that are new and cutting edge.
CamperBob 15y ago
Yeah, just like the generation that dropped acid at Woodstock is now running the DEA.
jbjohns 15y ago
I totally disagree. In fact, I would say the only thing that's saved us thus far is that those in power don't understand technology. If they would have been able to see what the internet was capable of, they would never have allowed it to be so open. When the day comes that the power hungry know technology as well as we do the real fight will begin.
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  Yes... The thing about "understanding" and "misunderstanding" is that since any censorship approach would break the web, any effort at censorship benefits from "playing dumb", not describing the complexity of the situation and instead reducing things to simple claims like "we need to stop the bad stuff on the net..." The one thing that might help us in twenty years is that public might be sophisticated enough to not be as easily fooled by such claims. On the other hand, seventy years of an automobile-based society has not made everyone into auto mechanics...
brc 15y ago
I think this overlooks the underlying trend, which is the growth in lobbying funds. Until the linear growth upwards of lobbying funding changes, I don't think it will make any difference what the average makeup of people will be. If anything, future voters who are being born today will grow up with internet services intwined in their lives, and may be even less understanding of the free and open nature of the internet. They may be broadly brand-loyal to an internet property that doesn't yet exist. Imagine a Facebook size company that is for SOPA-like laws because it is funded by vested interests. No, I'm not optimistic about these things getting better over time. I actually think it needs a second-amendment type intervention to cut off these types of approaches in the future. 'The right to keep and bear websites' - that type of thing. On the other hand, one thing the internet is good at is routing around attempts to damage it. I can see alternative systems popping up quickly to counteract any regulatory damage to DNS.
olaf 15y ago
I think, this is a dangerous illusion, nothing will get easier, there will always be enemies of freedom, fighting hard for their goals (control, exploit, suppress others)! I suppose, this fight is a never ending story.
charlieok 15y ago
It isn't that congresspeople (or voters) don't understand, or like, technology. The funding chart in your post is all the explanation that is necessary.

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.

firefoxman1 15y ago
Absolutely right. The rate of new people understanding technology is pretty rapid at first, but then flatlines. I think actually less people understand how a car works than 2 generations ago, but when the Model T first made it to mass market the number of people who understood how the automobile works grew each year. But that trend couldn't have continued or everyone would be an expert mechanic by now, and that obviously isn't the case even though more people than ever own a car.
glhaynes 15y ago
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. I'm not sure this is true. I'm not saying it isn't, but it's at least not obvious. (Unless you're counting, say, anybody who today owns a smartphone as a technologist.)
- roc 15y ago
  I was just relying on personal experience with programmers and IT people. When I started programming 20 years ago, pretty much anyone who worked at any level with computers could build a PC. These days, half the programmers I know can barely maintain their machines, let alone build one from parts. [1] If you told them they should oppose some piece of legislation because it would bar them from loading whatever OS they wanted on the hardware they purchased, they would (and do) shrug. They fully consider their choice to be synonymous with the hardware they bought in the first place. They don't think it at all odd that Android phones ship with locked bootloaders. [1] I don't mean to disparage them; some of them are fantastic programmers. That said, I do know far too many of them who are running home wifi with whatever configuration the Comcast/UVerse guy set up.
  - corford 15y ago
    Assuming your experience is not isolated, I find that very scary.
    - 15y ago

mdc 15y ago

If technology stood still, that might work. In 20-25 years, all politicians will understand the web and email, but the same kind of politician that today is ignorant of the web will then be ignorant of technologies x, y, and z that are new and cutting edge.

CamperBob 15y ago

Yeah, just like the generation that dropped acid at Woodstock is now running the DEA.

jbjohns 15y ago

I totally disagree. In fact, I would say the only thing that's saved us thus far is that those in power don't understand technology. If they would have been able to see what the internet was capable of, they would never have allowed it to be so open. When the day comes that the power hungry know technology as well as we do the real fight will begin.

joe_the_user 15y ago
Yes... The thing about "understanding" and "misunderstanding" is that since any censorship approach would break the web, any effort at censorship benefits from "playing dumb", not describing the complexity of the situation and instead reducing things to simple claims like "we need to stop the bad stuff on the net..." The one thing that might help us in twenty years is that public might be sophisticated enough to not be as easily fooled by such claims. On the other hand, seventy years of an automobile-based society has not made everyone into auto mechanics...

brc 15y ago

I think this overlooks the underlying trend, which is the growth in lobbying funds. Until the linear growth upwards of lobbying funding changes, I don't think it will make any difference what the average makeup of people will be. If anything, future voters who are being born today will grow up with internet services intwined in their lives, and may be even less understanding of the free and open nature of the internet. They may be broadly brand-loyal to an internet property that doesn't yet exist. Imagine a Facebook size company that is for SOPA-like laws because it is funded by vested interests. No, I'm not optimistic about these things getting better over time. I actually think it needs a second-amendment type intervention to cut off these types of approaches in the future. 'The right to keep and bear websites' - that type of thing. On the other hand, one thing the internet is good at is routing around attempts to damage it. I can see alternative systems popping up quickly to counteract any regulatory damage to DNS.

olaf 15y ago

I think, this is a dangerous illusion, nothing will get easier, there will always be enemies of freedom, fighting hard for their goals (control, exploit, suppress others)! I suppose, this fight is a never ending story.

charlieok 15y ago

It isn't that congresspeople (or voters) don't understand, or like, technology. The funding chart in your post is all the explanation that is necessary.