3 ms·

The question is, how many mutually disjoint digital domains will the planet eventually split into? Countries have their own everything (laws, regulations, mone

The question is, how many mutually disjoint digital domains will the planet eventually split into? Countries have their own everything (laws, regulations, money, taxes etc) given that this is how the world's political power is managed. Digital tech and information flow spread like if it is a universal something, but that is not how the worlds political power is managed. At most you might have coalitions of allies that trust each other enough to have a joint info-space. But there isnt much trust even between EU and US, and ultimately its every truly sovereign entity for itself.

imiric 3y ago
Humans are tribal by nature. Countries and borders exist precisely because we can't agree on the same set of laws, forms of government, and how society is structured. In that sense, an open and universal internet is an anomaly. It was a great thought experiment by hippie technophiles, and "connecting the world" is a commonly parroted platitude by social media executives, but humans are far from ready to interact with millions of strangers from their own country, let alone from around the world. If anything, all this technology that was supposed to bring us together, has instead driven us further apart. The internet is our main source of information, yet it's been corrupted by advertising, corporations and governments to spread disinformation and propaganda on an unprecedented scale, and influence the masses towards their own agenda. We're still in the early stages of the technological revolution, but it's clear that a universal communication medium cannot exist yet. We're not ready for it. China and Russia already have isolated alternatives, and it's only a matter of time before other countries or coalitions follow suit. In any case, we can safely assume that all of it will be heavily censored and controlled by each government. Cryptography will exist in some form, but there will be backdoors for any government to exploit as needed. Is this too pessimistic? :) I'd really like to be wrong about all this, but I can't picture a scenario where billions of us happily sing kumbaya together around a virtual campfire.
- nologic01 3y ago
  No, I don't think its too pessimistic. In fact the illusion of a global digital village lasts longer than what one might expect, probably because of tech illiteracy and the capture of various local elites. But I also dont think that the hippy technofiles were all wrong. Ironically, when you combine the finite Earth with extreme levels of digital information gathering and the zero cost of replication and transmission it is very hard to keep silos. E.g., pretty soon automated translation is a thing (and I am not an AI bro :-). Also you cant do much about joint dependencies on environmental deterioration without global coordination. How its going to play out is unclear but the scenario of the same old clans fighting it out in the same old ways is not a given in the longer term. There are centripetal and centrifugal forces. For now the pattern seems to be tearing apart.

imiric 3y ago

Humans are tribal by nature. Countries and borders exist precisely because we can't agree on the same set of laws, forms of government, and how society is structured. In that sense, an open and universal internet is an anomaly. It was a great thought experiment by hippie technophiles, and "connecting the world" is a commonly parroted platitude by social media executives, but humans are far from ready to interact with millions of strangers from their own country, let alone from around the world. If anything, all this technology that was supposed to bring us together, has instead driven us further apart. The internet is our main source of information, yet it's been corrupted by advertising, corporations and governments to spread disinformation and propaganda on an unprecedented scale, and influence the masses towards their own agenda. We're still in the early stages of the technological revolution, but it's clear that a universal communication medium cannot exist yet. We're not ready for it. China and Russia already have isolated alternatives, and it's only a matter of time before other countries or coalitions follow suit. In any case, we can safely assume that all of it will be heavily censored and controlled by each government. Cryptography will exist in some form, but there will be backdoors for any government to exploit as needed. Is this too pessimistic? :) I'd really like to be wrong about all this, but I can't picture a scenario where billions of us happily sing kumbaya together around a virtual campfire.

nologic01 3y ago
No, I don't think its too pessimistic. In fact the illusion of a global digital village lasts longer than what one might expect, probably because of tech illiteracy and the capture of various local elites. But I also dont think that the hippy technofiles were all wrong. Ironically, when you combine the finite Earth with extreme levels of digital information gathering and the zero cost of replication and transmission it is very hard to keep silos. E.g., pretty soon automated translation is a thing (and I am not an AI bro :-). Also you cant do much about joint dependencies on environmental deterioration without global coordination. How its going to play out is unclear but the scenario of the same old clans fighting it out in the same old ways is not a given in the longer term. There are centripetal and centrifugal forces. For now the pattern seems to be tearing apart.