5 ms·

Putting the internet in the hands of corporations was the worst thing that ever happened to technology

jjulius 3y ago
"The internet" isn't in their hands, the "Pop Web" (eg, pop music) is. Plenty of other internet out there, it's just time for people to start paying attention to it again.
warmwaffles 3y ago
[x] doubt Putting the internet in the hands of the Government wouldn't fair much better.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  The internet started in the hands of the government.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  False dichotomy - there are more options for Internet control than purely private and purely government.
- agluszak 3y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Government-regulated doesn't mean government-run. I wish we had laws in place that would prevent Facebook/Apple/Google/Twitter monopolies/walled gardens from happening
- hkt 3y ago
  See my comment above: these companies could be the formal and effective property of their users.
darkarmani 3y ago
No. Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed is what is stupid. The Internet is supposed to be distributed. We've gotten so used to consolidated services that we have forgotten this lesson.
- skrowl 3y ago
  [dead]
- badtension 3y ago
  > No. Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed is what is stupid. Sounds like the issues we currently have with democracy.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Distributed power takes more effort. Of course people naturally trend towards lazy over the generations because it's easier and more efficient at the cost of everything it was initially supposed to be. And now we are where we are: executive branch agencies legislating.
    - badtension 3y ago
      That's why we shouldn't optimize everything, the longer I live the more I understand that overoptimization is the root of all evil. We should analyse what we are doing and how we are changing things in the long term, monitor the situation and adjust accordingly. Otherwise our systems will find a local optimum that benefit the most powerful groups. Happens in all aspects of life, modern capitalism being the prime example.
      - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
        Neil Postman was only slightly wrong. Optimizing Ourselves to Death indeed.
- convolvatron 3y ago
  don't you think one is a consequence of the other?
- staplers 3y ago
  Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed This is human nature/greed unfortunately. Look at any natural (distributed) resource. The current economic system rewards this as well.
RIMR 3y ago
The internet was conceived as a democratic haven, a realm where every individual had the potential to influence and shape their digital experience. However, a pervasive dip in technological literacy and a rising dependency on heavily-guided online pathways has begun to shift this balance. If this trend persists, corporations will continue to maintain their overarching dominion. A dynamic, user-driven community still thrives in the vast expanse of the digital world, yet it lies hidden beyond the towering edifices of corporate-controlled structures. Discovering these spaces has become an increasingly formidable task, as the infusion of corporate social content into journalistic and blogging platforms perpetuates the mirage that such networks are all that exist. Each colossal tech corporation we see today began its journey as a modest, affable endeavor. As these projects expanded with their burgeoning popularity, users neglected to challenge the escalating influence and control these companies wielded. Nitter was merely an alternative facade to Twitter. Despite offering an ad-free environment, it lacked substantial advantages as the underlying platform remained the same - Twitter. However, the digital realm is not void of choices. Federated social media is emerging as a profound alternative. Yet, a majority of those voicing concerns about corporate social media seem to dismiss options like Mastodon. This is primarily due to their increased technological demands and people's comfort in having a corporation guide their online journey. The power to reshape your digital footprint rests in your hands. You can sever ties with your corporate social media accounts. You can choose to eschew media that incessantly embeds corporate social media content. You can advocate for an internet not ruled by corporate influence. All it requires is the willingness to venture beyond the realm of comfort.
- the-printer 3y ago
  > The internet was conceived as a democratic haven, a realm where every individual had the potential to influence and shape their digital experience. I have a hard time reconciling this perspective with history. Were any of these ideals present among the people/organizations responsible for the internet and the Web at the time that they were being developed? Or is sentiment like yours something that people adopted later on?
  - RIMR 3y ago
paxys 3y ago
Doesn't come as a surprise when you look at how openly hostile the open source community still is to prioritizing user experiences and supporting tech-illiterate users in general. FOSS, fediverse, IPFS all had their chance, and they blew it. Corporations were the ones who opened up the internet to the 99% of people who would otherwise never have been there at all, and now they want to collect their cut.
- MrOwen 3y ago
  To be completely fair, FOSS' marketing budget is orders of magnitude smaller than these corporation's budgets. Not to say that you're wrong but I suspect that's more like a drop in the bucket compared to marketing. Even now, these federated sites on the rise have technicial growing pains. And those will probably take years to get through until it's to a point where everyone can use it with little friction.
nomel 3y ago
I'm not sure that's a fair perspective. Twitter made a convenient, easy to use, centralized (which is an absolute positive for user experience), social media product that attracted people, by their own free will. The number of people using a social media service amplifies its "usefulness", so the more people, the stronger it attracts new users. We didn't put the internet in the hands of these corporations. We walked over and sat in their, easy to use, hands.
throwaway1777 3y ago
What in the heck are you even talking about? The internet would be nothing without tech companies.
- ben_w 3y ago
  At university I was using JANET, and in some ways it was better than what we have now. I don't think they'd have ever bothered inventing privacy violating trackers A/B testing (though if I'm wrong this is the best place to assert wildly and be quickly corrected).
  - throwaway1777 3y ago
    Who cares. 99.99% of the world would never use something like that. They want apps on iPhones.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      You said it would be nothing without tech companies. Without tech companies, it was still immensely useful. Apps on iPhones? Great, but the internet doesn't need them to be hugely culturally and socially important — and I'm saying that as an iPhone app developer since before the first iPad came out.
jrflowers 3y ago
This makes sense. It’s all been downhill since we stopped using the public utility company America Online
rektide 3y ago
No one put it there. We the people were inactive & didn't figure out how to weave together our individual & community sites to create a compelling multi-party space. Or we could try to create alternative centralized but non-corporate systems. Not sure what other options there are. I don't like where we are either. But new power has to be created. Hard work of figuring out protocols to converse across & usefully home our content/words on is sort of just beginning.

"The internet" isn't in their hands, the "Pop Web" (eg, pop music) is. Plenty of other internet out there, it's just time for people to start paying attention to it again.

warmwaffles 3y ago

[x] doubt Putting the internet in the hands of the Government wouldn't fair much better.

JohnFen 3y ago
The internet started in the hands of the government.
phone8675309 3y ago
False dichotomy - there are more options for Internet control than purely private and purely government.
agluszak 3y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Government-regulated doesn't mean government-run. I wish we had laws in place that would prevent Facebook/Apple/Google/Twitter monopolies/walled gardens from happening
hkt 3y ago
See my comment above: these companies could be the formal and effective property of their users.

darkarmani 3y ago

No. Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed is what is stupid. The Internet is supposed to be distributed. We've gotten so used to consolidated services that we have forgotten this lesson.

skrowl 3y ago
[dead]
badtension 3y ago
> No. Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed is what is stupid. Sounds like the issues we currently have with democracy.
- seanw444 3y ago
  Distributed power takes more effort. Of course people naturally trend towards lazy over the generations because it's easier and more efficient at the cost of everything it was initially supposed to be. And now we are where we are: executive branch agencies legislating.
  - badtension 3y ago
    That's why we shouldn't optimize everything, the longer I live the more I understand that overoptimization is the root of all evil. We should analyse what we are doing and how we are changing things in the long term, monitor the situation and adjust accordingly. Otherwise our systems will find a local optimum that benefit the most powerful groups. Happens in all aspects of life, modern capitalism being the prime example.
    - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
      Neil Postman was only slightly wrong. Optimizing Ourselves to Death indeed.
convolvatron 3y ago
don't you think one is a consequence of the other?
staplers 3y ago
Centralizing control of something that was designed to be distributed This is human nature/greed unfortunately. Look at any natural (distributed) resource. The current economic system rewards this as well.

RIMR 3y ago

The internet was conceived as a democratic haven, a realm where every individual had the potential to influence and shape their digital experience. However, a pervasive dip in technological literacy and a rising dependency on heavily-guided online pathways has begun to shift this balance. If this trend persists, corporations will continue to maintain their overarching dominion. A dynamic, user-driven community still thrives in the vast expanse of the digital world, yet it lies hidden beyond the towering edifices of corporate-controlled structures. Discovering these spaces has become an increasingly formidable task, as the infusion of corporate social content into journalistic and blogging platforms perpetuates the mirage that such networks are all that exist. Each colossal tech corporation we see today began its journey as a modest, affable endeavor. As these projects expanded with their burgeoning popularity, users neglected to challenge the escalating influence and control these companies wielded. Nitter was merely an alternative facade to Twitter. Despite offering an ad-free environment, it lacked substantial advantages as the underlying platform remained the same - Twitter. However, the digital realm is not void of choices. Federated social media is emerging as a profound alternative. Yet, a majority of those voicing concerns about corporate social media seem to dismiss options like Mastodon. This is primarily due to their increased technological demands and people's comfort in having a corporation guide their online journey. The power to reshape your digital footprint rests in your hands. You can sever ties with your corporate social media accounts. You can choose to eschew media that incessantly embeds corporate social media content. You can advocate for an internet not ruled by corporate influence. All it requires is the willingness to venture beyond the realm of comfort.

the-printer 3y ago
> The internet was conceived as a democratic haven, a realm where every individual had the potential to influence and shape their digital experience. I have a hard time reconciling this perspective with history. Were any of these ideals present among the people/organizations responsible for the internet and the Web at the time that they were being developed? Or is sentiment like yours something that people adopted later on?
- RIMR 3y ago

paxys 3y ago

Doesn't come as a surprise when you look at how openly hostile the open source community still is to prioritizing user experiences and supporting tech-illiterate users in general. FOSS, fediverse, IPFS all had their chance, and they blew it. Corporations were the ones who opened up the internet to the 99% of people who would otherwise never have been there at all, and now they want to collect their cut.

MrOwen 3y ago
To be completely fair, FOSS' marketing budget is orders of magnitude smaller than these corporation's budgets. Not to say that you're wrong but I suspect that's more like a drop in the bucket compared to marketing. Even now, these federated sites on the rise have technicial growing pains. And those will probably take years to get through until it's to a point where everyone can use it with little friction.

nomel 3y ago

I'm not sure that's a fair perspective. Twitter made a convenient, easy to use, centralized (which is an absolute positive for user experience), social media product that attracted people, by their own free will. The number of people using a social media service amplifies its "usefulness", so the more people, the stronger it attracts new users. We didn't put the internet in the hands of these corporations. We walked over and sat in their, easy to use, hands.

throwaway1777 3y ago

What in the heck are you even talking about? The internet would be nothing without tech companies.

ben_w 3y ago
At university I was using JANET, and in some ways it was better than what we have now. I don't think they'd have ever bothered inventing privacy violating trackers A/B testing (though if I'm wrong this is the best place to assert wildly and be quickly corrected).
- throwaway1777 3y ago
  Who cares. 99.99% of the world would never use something like that. They want apps on iPhones.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    You said it would be nothing without tech companies. Without tech companies, it was still immensely useful. Apps on iPhones? Great, but the internet doesn't need them to be hugely culturally and socially important — and I'm saying that as an iPhone app developer since before the first iPad came out.

jrflowers 3y ago

This makes sense. It’s all been downhill since we stopped using the public utility company America Online

rektide 3y ago

No one put it there. We the people were inactive & didn't figure out how to weave together our individual & community sites to create a compelling multi-party space. Or we could try to create alternative centralized but non-corporate systems. Not sure what other options there are. I don't like where we are either. But new power has to be created. Hard work of figuring out protocols to converse across & usefully home our content/words on is sort of just beginning.