4 ms·

Knock "centralization" all you will, but users must take responsibility for their online lives. I'm sure it gives Sunde revolutionary feels to espouse decentra

by l33tbro 12y ago

Knock "centralization" all you will, but users must take responsibility for their online lives. I'm sure it gives Sunde revolutionary feels to espouse decentralization and demonize Big Internet, but the sad reality is that users are the ones that have made Facebook and Google powerful and monolithic walled gardens. Every society get's the internet it deserves.

Intermernet 12y ago
Is this like saying most hospital patients should take responsibility for their own society's health-care system? It's beyond the scope of the average person to research alternatives, define alternatives, promote said alternatives and push them as hard, or harder, than the big players in any field. Saying that "users are the ones that have made Facebook and Google powerful and monolithic walled gardens" is ignoring the fact that those "in the know" have been arguing against these practices since their inception, and that competing against these corporations would take a huge marketing campaign in order to even get the word out that alternatives exist. For example: Many people are happy with Pandora, Spotify, Rdio etc for their music listening. They aren't aware that they don't actually own the tracks in their playlists until they try to play them on something else, or burn them to CD etc. This is an example of a paradigm shifting, with only half of the parties being aware of the shift. This is happening all the time, in all sorts of areas. The average (non IT industry) person has neither the time, nor inclination to keep up with these changes, they just want to listen to their music, look at their photos, read their email etc. Yes, caveat emptor is still a legitimate rule, but the number of caveats per emptor is getting ridiculous, and no-one in power seems to think this a bad thing. It seems that it's expected to assume that every provider (of goods or services) is megalomaniacally sociopathic, and if you get burnt by such behaviour, it's your own fault.
- l33tbro 12y ago
  "Is this like saying most hospital patients should take responsibility for their own society's health-care system?" Yes, they should. Look, you're right, it is beyond the scope of the average person to research alternatives. However, we live in a democratic society and it is out of our political apathy that the healthcare system has become what it is: an utter disgrace. If we were a truly compassionate society that prioritized ensuing health-care for all, then this is what we would have. Same goes for online. We love to bitch and moan about the government taking away net neutrality, our friends and parents thinking the internet is just Facebook, and of course the NSA. But it is us - you, I, our communities - that are creating this situation; not the government. Why? Because we are the government. Am I aware of how idealistic that sounds in 2014? Absolutely. But we are the ones who, ultimately, decide what level of lobbying and influence corporations have. We are the ones who ultimately decide what level of survelience we allow in our lives. That was my initial point. But of course, HN folks can be super-reacitionary to anything detracting from the open-source caliphate. Believe me, no one wants a more bio-diverse online ecosystem than I. I've written extensively about it. However, this is the issue it comes down to. We get what we deserve. What's more, if these were important issues in society (which I, in the minority, believe theyt are) then it would galvanize into actual policy being created. We're in the West. We have democratic ideals. Utilize them. Our entire system and culture is based upon these. It's what justifies wars. If you're not happy about the system, lobby your friends and create movements. Ironically, this is what the Pirate Bay guys have done. they've gone out and come at IP in a major way, and have felt the might of the law against their favour. I'm not going to comment on whether that's right or wrong, because it isn't the issue. The issue is that we, now, through the sum part of a billion tiny actions, have the chance in this moment to influence the future of this space. The future of IP. The future of rewarding creators fairly. So instead of whinging about Big Internet (which is what happens a lot in this forum - where cries go unheard) - actually take some practical steps to lobby. So that is why. We get the internet we deserve is that we must take collective responsibility for what kind of world we are creating. Unfortunatley, this is a highly unfashionable stance in age of cynicism and entitlement.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
yardie 12y ago
When Google, Facebook, or Microsoft acquire a service I use and love is it still the internet I deserve? Not all centralisation is done through natural, market forces. Sometimes Big Internet uses its bottomless purse to keep itself out in front.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Giant companies using their cash is a market force. How did they get that money? In the market, through their massive user bases.
  - yardie 12y ago
    ...and lawyers, and legislation, and patent portfolio, and many other events that doesn't even touch a "free market". You do know that at the moment the US gov't is deciding if 2 or 3 national ISPs is enough competition. Where are all the other upstarts? Effectively locked out. How? If you showed up early enough you were subsidised in deploying infrastructure. If you showed up a little late that is no longer an option to you. So yes, continue being naive about how those market forces rely exclusively on cash.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      We have one maybe two widely used search engines. One or two social networks dominate the landscape. The third mobile OS is a distant competitor to the main two. Two cell phone companies make almost all the profits in that industry. Until recently, one processor manufacturer dominated the consumer sector, with a competitor that it had to prop up for apperances' sake. Did Google, Facebook, Apple, Intel, Amazon, Microsoft, use lawyers and legislation to achieve victory? Proponents of startups who also believe in the market have to deal with a certain cognitive dissonance. They have to convince themselves that giant corporations can only win through non-market means. But the fact is that the market almost always favors scale. Apple and Samsung win not through suing "upstarts" for patent infringement, but through the kind of vertical integration only possible with scale. If you can spend $2 billion on a factory to make sapphire glass screens at a price point the "upstarts" can't match, then you win, through purely market means. If you're Verizon and can spend billions to have LTE coverage everywhere in the country, that's what leads you to dominance over the upstarts, not the regulatory regime. Go back to before the modern regulatory state. Did Standard Oil and U.S. Steel lawyer themselves to victory? No, they did the same thing Apple and Samsung are doing: dominate the competition by leveraging scale.
bsaul 12y ago
I certainly hope the alternative isn't between the pirate bay on one side and google/facebook on the other, but that there will be some middle ground, both decentralized AND respectful of sales law and private properties.
walterbell 12y ago
> Every society get's the internet it deserves. Why isn't everyone using AT&T phones today? Was that change made by users?

by l33tbro 12y ago

Intermernet 12y ago

Is this like saying most hospital patients should take responsibility for their own society's health-care system? It's beyond the scope of the average person to research alternatives, define alternatives, promote said alternatives and push them as hard, or harder, than the big players in any field. Saying that "users are the ones that have made Facebook and Google powerful and monolithic walled gardens" is ignoring the fact that those "in the know" have been arguing against these practices since their inception, and that competing against these corporations would take a huge marketing campaign in order to even get the word out that alternatives exist. For example: Many people are happy with Pandora, Spotify, Rdio etc for their music listening. They aren't aware that they don't actually own the tracks in their playlists until they try to play them on something else, or burn them to CD etc. This is an example of a paradigm shifting, with only half of the parties being aware of the shift. This is happening all the time, in all sorts of areas. The average (non IT industry) person has neither the time, nor inclination to keep up with these changes, they just want to listen to their music, look at their photos, read their email etc. Yes, caveat emptor is still a legitimate rule, but the number of caveats per emptor is getting ridiculous, and no-one in power seems to think this a bad thing. It seems that it's expected to assume that every provider (of goods or services) is megalomaniacally sociopathic, and if you get burnt by such behaviour, it's your own fault.

l33tbro 12y ago
"Is this like saying most hospital patients should take responsibility for their own society's health-care system?" Yes, they should. Look, you're right, it is beyond the scope of the average person to research alternatives. However, we live in a democratic society and it is out of our political apathy that the healthcare system has become what it is: an utter disgrace. If we were a truly compassionate society that prioritized ensuing health-care for all, then this is what we would have. Same goes for online. We love to bitch and moan about the government taking away net neutrality, our friends and parents thinking the internet is just Facebook, and of course the NSA. But it is us - you, I, our communities - that are creating this situation; not the government. Why? Because we are the government. Am I aware of how idealistic that sounds in 2014? Absolutely. But we are the ones who, ultimately, decide what level of lobbying and influence corporations have. We are the ones who ultimately decide what level of survelience we allow in our lives. That was my initial point. But of course, HN folks can be super-reacitionary to anything detracting from the open-source caliphate. Believe me, no one wants a more bio-diverse online ecosystem than I. I've written extensively about it. However, this is the issue it comes down to. We get what we deserve. What's more, if these were important issues in society (which I, in the minority, believe theyt are) then it would galvanize into actual policy being created. We're in the West. We have democratic ideals. Utilize them. Our entire system and culture is based upon these. It's what justifies wars. If you're not happy about the system, lobby your friends and create movements. Ironically, this is what the Pirate Bay guys have done. they've gone out and come at IP in a major way, and have felt the might of the law against their favour. I'm not going to comment on whether that's right or wrong, because it isn't the issue. The issue is that we, now, through the sum part of a billion tiny actions, have the chance in this moment to influence the future of this space. The future of IP. The future of rewarding creators fairly. So instead of whinging about Big Internet (which is what happens a lot in this forum - where cries go unheard) - actually take some practical steps to lobby. So that is why. We get the internet we deserve is that we must take collective responsibility for what kind of world we are creating. Unfortunatley, this is a highly unfashionable stance in age of cynicism and entitlement.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

yardie 12y ago

When Google, Facebook, or Microsoft acquire a service I use and love is it still the internet I deserve? Not all centralisation is done through natural, market forces. Sometimes Big Internet uses its bottomless purse to keep itself out in front.

rayiner 12y ago
Giant companies using their cash is a market force. How did they get that money? In the market, through their massive user bases.
- yardie 12y ago
  ...and lawyers, and legislation, and patent portfolio, and many other events that doesn't even touch a "free market". You do know that at the moment the US gov't is deciding if 2 or 3 national ISPs is enough competition. Where are all the other upstarts? Effectively locked out. How? If you showed up early enough you were subsidised in deploying infrastructure. If you showed up a little late that is no longer an option to you. So yes, continue being naive about how those market forces rely exclusively on cash.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    We have one maybe two widely used search engines. One or two social networks dominate the landscape. The third mobile OS is a distant competitor to the main two. Two cell phone companies make almost all the profits in that industry. Until recently, one processor manufacturer dominated the consumer sector, with a competitor that it had to prop up for apperances' sake. Did Google, Facebook, Apple, Intel, Amazon, Microsoft, use lawyers and legislation to achieve victory? Proponents of startups who also believe in the market have to deal with a certain cognitive dissonance. They have to convince themselves that giant corporations can only win through non-market means. But the fact is that the market almost always favors scale. Apple and Samsung win not through suing "upstarts" for patent infringement, but through the kind of vertical integration only possible with scale. If you can spend $2 billion on a factory to make sapphire glass screens at a price point the "upstarts" can't match, then you win, through purely market means. If you're Verizon and can spend billions to have LTE coverage everywhere in the country, that's what leads you to dominance over the upstarts, not the regulatory regime. Go back to before the modern regulatory state. Did Standard Oil and U.S. Steel lawyer themselves to victory? No, they did the same thing Apple and Samsung are doing: dominate the competition by leveraging scale.

bsaul 12y ago

I certainly hope the alternative isn't between the pirate bay on one side and google/facebook on the other, but that there will be some middle ground, both decentralized AND respectful of sales law and private properties.

walterbell 12y ago

> Every society get's the internet it deserves. Why isn't everyone using AT&T phones today? Was that change made by users?