4 ms·

The point of early internet discussions was that "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog". One could discuss things without the usual silly accusations of

The point of early internet discussions was that "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog". One could discuss things without the usual silly accusations of sexism or racism or ageism or whatever because no-one knew the characteristics of the other interlocutors. X now broadcasting everyone's location and people self-announcing their pronouns/race/age whatever are backward steps and make it way to easy for the silly people who want to be victims rather than argue the facts of an issue.

techblueberry 11mo ago
You’re saying the great thing about the early internet is you could be sexist and racist without being called out? I thought the great thing about the early internet was the experimentation and discovery on consistently evolving technologies and ideas with like minded folks, but to each their own.
- zahlman 11mo ago
  No, the point was that criticizing someone else wouldn't get you wrongly accused of sexism or racism (as it commonly does now), simply because everyone would be able to see the accusation as absurd (it is logically impossible to discriminate on the basis of information you don't have).
- wkat4242 11mo ago
  Back then people online weren't really sexist or racist. They were really nice and helpful people. No extreme right. The internet was a really friendly place. Although back then it was also kinda taboo so they were usually banned everywhere (not just online). Which was great IMO. Not very much later of course came the masses and the emergence of awful platforms.
  - rkomorn 11mo ago
    I don't know how far "back then" is but I got on the internet in the 90s and people on freenode and other IRC networks making racist/sexist comments was definitely not a rarity. Edit: or actually, whatever predated freenode (OPN?) because I forgot freenode was a 2000s change.
    - wkat4242 11mo ago
      I wasn't on IRC much in those days but yeah IRC was a subculture that wasn't great. A lot of people messing around with scripts too to harass people. Agreed. I was thinking more about Usenet which was very helpful in my experience. When it was still a discussion forum and not a place for warez. Though it goes for society as a whole. It's very hostile and confrontational now. I tend to avoid most mainstream situations now. I only frequent a few websites that are still ok (like this one), some fediverse, some cosplay and when going out I only go to specific LGBT-positive parties where a "rave culture" still exists (think the love everybody kinda thing). I'm done with this tough guy act that most males think is normal now.
  - damnitbuilds 10mo ago
    Back then people online weren't really called out for no reason as "sexist" or "racist" or any other nonsense, just because someone disagreed with them. They were really nice and helpful people. No hateful woke. The internet was a really friendly place.
toast0 11mo ago
At the same time, showing the IP/hostname you were connecting from was also an early internet norm. IRC, SMTP, Usenet, etc.
tqi 11mo ago
There is no reason why "the point" of the internet has to be dictated by people who happened to be online in 1995.
- SilverElfin 11mo ago
  Sure, it doesn’t have to be dictated by anyone. But there is still value in what the GP said. Considering ideas for what they are, and evaluating them on their merits, is a better way to discuss things. In the least, showing locations (which can be faked), or implying that someone in certain geographies is more legitimate, is incorrect. If someone lives near me and is commenting on some local issue, they can still post fake AI-generated images, or spread misinformation, or mislead with missing context, or whatever. Those problems still exist, and the need to consider the information on its own merits still exists. So what do you really gain?
- wkat4242 11mo ago
  The internet was one hell of a lot better place to be back then, just saying. Though it's commerce that really broke it.
- coldtea 11mo ago
  There's a big reason: they see all the development of the internet, and can compare what's good and what's shit.
- damnitbuilds 10mo ago
  No one mentioned '"the point" of the internet'. Try and follow the discussion.
snowwrestler 11mo ago
“On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog” was a joke in a New Yorker cartoon, and it was not written to be complimentary. It definitely was not “the point” of early Internet discussions.
- simondotau 11mo ago
  On the contrary, I read the cartoon as being very complimentary, as it espouses the virtue of egalitarianism. Why should someone on the internet know that you're a dog? If you're campaigning for the eradication of cats, perhaps. But even then, shouldn't we assume everyone is personally motivated and that a good argument is a good argument? There's an impossible balance to be found between total transparency and not having to reveal all truths about your being, such as your species.
- bookofjoe 11mo ago
  >On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
wkat4242 11mo ago
True but I usually give all fake info. Except my pronouns because I want to support the LGBTIQ movement in this day of so much hate against us. But even when I sign to too a web shop or whatever I don't give them my real DOB because they have no legit reason to want to have it. I just randomise it and store it in my password manager.
1659447091 11mo ago
> broadcasting everyone's location and people self-announcing their pronouns/race/age whatever are backward steps Or it could been seen as a pro-active way of eliminate the annoying "a/s/l" spam from them yonder days of internet chatrooms/forums. > the silly people who want to be victims Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"
- damnitbuilds 10mo ago
  > > the silly people who want to be victims > Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue" Au contraire. Exactly the people that keep ruining proper debate. People who are unable to discuss facts but try so very very hard to construe other people's factual comments as attacks on someone, somewhere, and therefore 'bad' and worthy of censorship.
thomassmith65 11mo ago
The beauty of "nobody knows you're a dog" was that the world would take seriously, for example, a precocious 14 year old so long as her ideas were brilliant enough. The reality of "nobody knows you're a dog" is that the world takes seriously a precocious 14 year old even if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers. Many of the world's most influential minds are dogs now; the masses have trouble distinguishing between reason and dog shit.
- coldtea 11mo ago
  >if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers. Well, if she has 100K followers, then clearly there is something to her ideas. You might not like it, but 100K others do.
  - thomassmith65 11mo ago
    That's valid, if just barely, when it comes to art, poetry or music. In most other matters, it is invalid, unless we're reckless in how we interpret "something to it". Like, there was something to the practice of slavery: it was popular in the South! ...and yet I'm comfortable making a value judgement about it. If the point of the internet is to popularize Flat Earth Theory or whatever, then I have a feeling humanity would be better off without the internet.
    - coldtea 11mo ago
      >Like, there was something to the practice of slavery: it was popular in the South! ...and yet I'm comfortable making a value judgement about it. Saying "there's something to it" (for this or for the 100K influencer) is an acknowledgement of it being something more than random, and possibly worth checking why it got popular, not an endorsment. If anything the value judgement regarding slavery is closer to an personal opinion in matters of "art, poetry or music". As a value judgement, it's as "objective" as "I like/dislike the Beatles": in cultures which practiced slavery the mainstream view was that it was morally acceptable, and they'd think anybody wanting to stop it as in the wrong ("Mississipi Burning" sure shows this sentiment going on way after the Civil War too). After all slavery was popular all over the world for millenia, and still remains practiced today in many places. There's also slavery in all but name practiced (from sex trafficking to debt slavery to forced prison labor, and many other forms). So, yes, there's something to it. This doesn't mean it's morally good, and even less it means it's objectively good. Same for the 100K-fans influencer. Unless those are fake fans, there clearly would be some draw. Perhaps even a draw worth studying and learning from. But surely a need that it satisfies.

techblueberry 11mo ago

You’re saying the great thing about the early internet is you could be sexist and racist without being called out? I thought the great thing about the early internet was the experimentation and discovery on consistently evolving technologies and ideas with like minded folks, but to each their own.

zahlman 11mo ago
No, the point was that criticizing someone else wouldn't get you wrongly accused of sexism or racism (as it commonly does now), simply because everyone would be able to see the accusation as absurd (it is logically impossible to discriminate on the basis of information you don't have).
wkat4242 11mo ago
Back then people online weren't really sexist or racist. They were really nice and helpful people. No extreme right. The internet was a really friendly place. Although back then it was also kinda taboo so they were usually banned everywhere (not just online). Which was great IMO. Not very much later of course came the masses and the emergence of awful platforms.
- rkomorn 11mo ago
  I don't know how far "back then" is but I got on the internet in the 90s and people on freenode and other IRC networks making racist/sexist comments was definitely not a rarity. Edit: or actually, whatever predated freenode (OPN?) because I forgot freenode was a 2000s change.
  - wkat4242 11mo ago
    I wasn't on IRC much in those days but yeah IRC was a subculture that wasn't great. A lot of people messing around with scripts too to harass people. Agreed. I was thinking more about Usenet which was very helpful in my experience. When it was still a discussion forum and not a place for warez. Though it goes for society as a whole. It's very hostile and confrontational now. I tend to avoid most mainstream situations now. I only frequent a few websites that are still ok (like this one), some fediverse, some cosplay and when going out I only go to specific LGBT-positive parties where a "rave culture" still exists (think the love everybody kinda thing). I'm done with this tough guy act that most males think is normal now.
- damnitbuilds 10mo ago
  Back then people online weren't really called out for no reason as "sexist" or "racist" or any other nonsense, just because someone disagreed with them. They were really nice and helpful people. No hateful woke. The internet was a really friendly place.

toast0 11mo ago

At the same time, showing the IP/hostname you were connecting from was also an early internet norm. IRC, SMTP, Usenet, etc.

tqi 11mo ago

There is no reason why "the point" of the internet has to be dictated by people who happened to be online in 1995.

SilverElfin 11mo ago
Sure, it doesn’t have to be dictated by anyone. But there is still value in what the GP said. Considering ideas for what they are, and evaluating them on their merits, is a better way to discuss things. In the least, showing locations (which can be faked), or implying that someone in certain geographies is more legitimate, is incorrect. If someone lives near me and is commenting on some local issue, they can still post fake AI-generated images, or spread misinformation, or mislead with missing context, or whatever. Those problems still exist, and the need to consider the information on its own merits still exists. So what do you really gain?
wkat4242 11mo ago
The internet was one hell of a lot better place to be back then, just saying. Though it's commerce that really broke it.
coldtea 11mo ago
There's a big reason: they see all the development of the internet, and can compare what's good and what's shit.
damnitbuilds 10mo ago
No one mentioned '"the point" of the internet'. Try and follow the discussion.

snowwrestler 11mo ago

“On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog” was a joke in a New Yorker cartoon, and it was not written to be complimentary. It definitely was not “the point” of early Internet discussions.

simondotau 11mo ago
On the contrary, I read the cartoon as being very complimentary, as it espouses the virtue of egalitarianism. Why should someone on the internet know that you're a dog? If you're campaigning for the eradication of cats, perhaps. But even then, shouldn't we assume everyone is personally motivated and that a good argument is a good argument? There's an impossible balance to be found between total transparency and not having to reveal all truths about your being, such as your species.
bookofjoe 11mo ago
>On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...

wkat4242 11mo ago

True but I usually give all fake info. Except my pronouns because I want to support the LGBTIQ movement in this day of so much hate against us. But even when I sign to too a web shop or whatever I don't give them my real DOB because they have no legit reason to want to have it. I just randomise it and store it in my password manager.

1659447091 11mo ago

> broadcasting everyone's location and people self-announcing their pronouns/race/age whatever are backward steps Or it could been seen as a pro-active way of eliminate the annoying "a/s/l" spam from them yonder days of internet chatrooms/forums. > the silly people who want to be victims Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue"

damnitbuilds 10mo ago
> > the silly people who want to be victims > Not really a great example to showcase how to advocate one "argue the facts of an issue" Au contraire. Exactly the people that keep ruining proper debate. People who are unable to discuss facts but try so very very hard to construe other people's factual comments as attacks on someone, somewhere, and therefore 'bad' and worthy of censorship.

thomassmith65 11mo ago

The beauty of "nobody knows you're a dog" was that the world would take seriously, for example, a precocious 14 year old so long as her ideas were brilliant enough. The reality of "nobody knows you're a dog" is that the world takes seriously a precocious 14 year old even if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers. Many of the world's most influential minds are dogs now; the masses have trouble distinguishing between reason and dog shit.

coldtea 11mo ago
>if her ideas are completely absurd, provided she has 100K followers. Well, if she has 100K followers, then clearly there is something to her ideas. You might not like it, but 100K others do.
- thomassmith65 11mo ago
  That's valid, if just barely, when it comes to art, poetry or music. In most other matters, it is invalid, unless we're reckless in how we interpret "something to it". Like, there was something to the practice of slavery: it was popular in the South! ...and yet I'm comfortable making a value judgement about it. If the point of the internet is to popularize Flat Earth Theory or whatever, then I have a feeling humanity would be better off without the internet.
  - coldtea 11mo ago
    >Like, there was something to the practice of slavery: it was popular in the South! ...and yet I'm comfortable making a value judgement about it. Saying "there's something to it" (for this or for the 100K influencer) is an acknowledgement of it being something more than random, and possibly worth checking why it got popular, not an endorsment. If anything the value judgement regarding slavery is closer to an personal opinion in matters of "art, poetry or music". As a value judgement, it's as "objective" as "I like/dislike the Beatles": in cultures which practiced slavery the mainstream view was that it was morally acceptable, and they'd think anybody wanting to stop it as in the wrong ("Mississipi Burning" sure shows this sentiment going on way after the Civil War too). After all slavery was popular all over the world for millenia, and still remains practiced today in many places. There's also slavery in all but name practiced (from sex trafficking to debt slavery to forced prison labor, and many other forms). So, yes, there's something to it. This doesn't mean it's morally good, and even less it means it's objectively good. Same for the 100K-fans influencer. Unless those are fake fans, there clearly would be some draw. Perhaps even a draw worth studying and learning from. But surely a need that it satisfies.