4 ms·

Of course nothing on the internet is new, it just assumes a default culture and philosophy which is less prominent in real life. It would be interesting to pin

Of course nothing on the internet is new, it just assumes a default culture and philosophy which is less prominent in real life. It would be interesting to pin early internet to a particular demographic. Is it 90s stem graduate students primarily in the US? Middle class engineers?

throwanem 2y ago
I would instead say, as many have, that the entire wonder of the young Internet was that it couldn't be tied to just one demographic.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  I just don’t think that’s true. The sampling of early internet users and writers is not the general population.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Nor did I say that it was. You've assumed an equation between "not just one demographic" and "the general population" where none exists. There are histories in my bookshelf downstairs that I can recommend here. If I don't happen by before the edit window closes on this comment, I'll mention some titles in a reply.
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      And with this black and white thinking you won’t find any trends or patterns anywhere in real life. To rephrase the question, who was influential on the internet? What biases and ideals were on the internet due to those selection effects. For example, the internet was very secular and perhaps nihilistic. Where does that come from.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        It is a remarkable reading of my comment, in which I identify where black-and-white thinking has led your analysis into error, that can mistake that criticism for the error it describes. It really isn't a simple question you're asking, is the problem. If I thought it needed less than a book to answer, why would I be about to recommend books?
        tightbookkeeper 2y ago
        I think the response was an uncharitable reading of my comment. Obviously you get 10 people together and you have all kinds of demographics even in the same neighborhood. The question is about which of many are dominant, or which are simply missing. I didn’t think that needed to be said. > It really isn't a simple question you're asking, I agree. I apologize for miscommunication and if you have any books to share please do.
        throwanem 2y ago
        It needed to be said because that question makes no sense in the situation of which you ask it. That any demographic or mix of same would necessarily be "dominant" in the context of early Internet culture, indeed even the unitary integrity the phrase "early Internet culture" grammatically implies, is an assumption. As long as you keep that, no history I can recommend is going to help you, because read with that assumption they will also make no sense. (I'll still recommend them, of course; just that I don't see them doing you any good this way.) The scare quotes are because I honestly do not understand what you mean by that term here; I think you and I might be speaking across an ocean, too.
- krapp 2y ago
  We have to differentiate between the "young Internet" that existed before Eternal September and the internet that existed afterwards, which is just "young" relative to most current users. The former was definitely an elite monoculture composed of primarily young, white, nerdy American college students and faculty. It would be correct to say internet culture, for better or worse, comprised the common interests and affectations of that culture.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Yes, that's true. After "Eternal September" the Internet for the first time had real cultural relevance, and this is important to take into account.
District5524 2y ago
The earlier you go, the easier it is to pinpoint a single demographic (although not sure what's the point in doing that). But from '95 on, I'd say it's pretty misleading to point that to US or middle class engineers. Even in 95, it was already available to non-ranked university students in peripheric countries, and not just for those studying at engineering faculties. Although most web content at that time was related to porn (90%) and jokes (9%) and some other content (1% - probably stem and engineering?), but I don't know exactly in what philosophy that content is considered prominent and default. From 2000, it was accessible and even not too expensive for most middle class households by landline. From that time on, it was more about which demographic is not yet present... I think you had to wait e.g., another 10-12 years for mobile-first minors and for the idle retired people.
tbrownaw 2y ago
> It would be interesting to pin early internet to a particular demographic. Well, what counts as "early"? This says that fully half of US adults were online by y2k: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... This is titled "Profile of computer owners in the 1990s" with data points for 1990 and 1997: https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/04/atissue.pdf https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/04/atissue.pdf

throwanem 2y ago

I would instead say, as many have, that the entire wonder of the young Internet was that it couldn't be tied to just one demographic.

tightbookkeeper 2y ago
I just don’t think that’s true. The sampling of early internet users and writers is not the general population.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Nor did I say that it was. You've assumed an equation between "not just one demographic" and "the general population" where none exists. There are histories in my bookshelf downstairs that I can recommend here. If I don't happen by before the edit window closes on this comment, I'll mention some titles in a reply.
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    And with this black and white thinking you won’t find any trends or patterns anywhere in real life. To rephrase the question, who was influential on the internet? What biases and ideals were on the internet due to those selection effects. For example, the internet was very secular and perhaps nihilistic. Where does that come from.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      It is a remarkable reading of my comment, in which I identify where black-and-white thinking has led your analysis into error, that can mistake that criticism for the error it describes. It really isn't a simple question you're asking, is the problem. If I thought it needed less than a book to answer, why would I be about to recommend books?
      - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
        I think the response was an uncharitable reading of my comment. Obviously you get 10 people together and you have all kinds of demographics even in the same neighborhood. The question is about which of many are dominant, or which are simply missing. I didn’t think that needed to be said. > It really isn't a simple question you're asking, I agree. I apologize for miscommunication and if you have any books to share please do.
        throwanem 2y ago
        It needed to be said because that question makes no sense in the situation of which you ask it. That any demographic or mix of same would necessarily be "dominant" in the context of early Internet culture, indeed even the unitary integrity the phrase "early Internet culture" grammatically implies, is an assumption. As long as you keep that, no history I can recommend is going to help you, because read with that assumption they will also make no sense. (I'll still recommend them, of course; just that I don't see them doing you any good this way.) The scare quotes are because I honestly do not understand what you mean by that term here; I think you and I might be speaking across an ocean, too.
krapp 2y ago
We have to differentiate between the "young Internet" that existed before Eternal September and the internet that existed afterwards, which is just "young" relative to most current users. The former was definitely an elite monoculture composed of primarily young, white, nerdy American college students and faculty. It would be correct to say internet culture, for better or worse, comprised the common interests and affectations of that culture.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Yes, that's true. After "Eternal September" the Internet for the first time had real cultural relevance, and this is important to take into account.

District5524 2y ago

The earlier you go, the easier it is to pinpoint a single demographic (although not sure what's the point in doing that). But from '95 on, I'd say it's pretty misleading to point that to US or middle class engineers. Even in 95, it was already available to non-ranked university students in peripheric countries, and not just for those studying at engineering faculties. Although most web content at that time was related to porn (90%) and jokes (9%) and some other content (1% - probably stem and engineering?), but I don't know exactly in what philosophy that content is considered prominent and default. From 2000, it was accessible and even not too expensive for most middle class households by landline. From that time on, it was more about which demographic is not yet present... I think you had to wait e.g., another 10-12 years for mobile-first minors and for the idle retired people.

tbrownaw 2y ago

> It would be interesting to pin early internet to a particular demographic. Well, what counts as "early"? This says that fully half of US adults were online by y2k: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-bro... This is titled "Profile of computer owners in the 1990s" with data points for 1990 and 1997: https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/04/atissue.pdf https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/04/atissue.pdf