Back in late 90s, 2000s, even 2010s, the internet was truly awesome. Only once governments started to get involved, by increasing the red tape and adding restrictions and whatnot, it became shit.
So I would argue that you are completely wrong. Yes, it might have been a bit of a wild west, but that is a good thing because you needed to have some smarts to navigate it and that filtered out the dumb masses that pollute it today and why we cannot have nice things.
I am not saying people should not have access to it, just that the less people there were, the better it was and the less attention it had by the governments. Which in turn made it much better experience than it is today.
But most people, actually, have not lived through those "early" days and cannot even comprehend how great it was back then and how crappy and restricted it is today.
The internet became shit not when governments got involved, but when millions of people came online and pushed early enthusiasts into a minority.
The invasion of normal people onto the internet was the seed for handing the web to a small selection of companies, and a decline in etiquette which is now reflected in the real world (misinformation, political polarisation, bullying and group radicalism).
It was inevitable that regulation would need to come as soon as this group came online. Many regulations were postponed way too much, because politicians of the time didn't understand what they were dealing with.
There is nothing wrong with governments putting in regulations about child safety on the internet, so long as that's the real purpose (in the UK, this isn't it). It's not right for companies like Facebook to be misusing the data of child (nor should it be for adults either).
You could argue that, but it would be idiotic. It would be deeply and deliberately ignorant of e.g. Facebook complicity in ethnic massacres in Myanmar. Cambridge Analytica. Youtube as an engine of algorithmic radicalisation. The continued extremism on what was once Twitter. Online anti-vax disinformation. QAnon. All of Truth Social.
You posit it as "people vs governments" but that is not the reality. There is a third force. "The people" don't run the internet any more. A few incredibly wealthy oligarchs control most of it, and this trend is strengthening. Elon. Zuck. Jeff. Satya. Sergey. Rupert. You know who I mean from one or two syllables each and that's telling. This state of affairs requires government inaction as power consolidates.
> But most people, actually, have not lived through those "early" days
I have been online since the mid 1990s, so whatever point you might be trying to make doesn't apply to me.
The idea that "Government red tape ruined the internet" is just nonsense.
Pretty much all countries have governments and the internet and I'd say it tends to end in annoyance rather than disaster, such as having to turn on a vpn to see junk on imgur in this case.
The only actual internet caused disaster I can think of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide - was caused by a lack of regulation and "let's kill them all" stuff on facebook. 25k+ dead.
Everything that Cambridge Analytica did is another good example [1]. Granted that it doesn't rise to the level of a "25k+ dead disaster", but it's not nothing, it's a lot of bad things. And it also stems from lack of regulation, not from the opposite. As will other examples.
But also, Internet with zero governance isn't any better for the people.
So what's left?
Are you sure?
Back in late 90s, 2000s, even 2010s, the internet was truly awesome. Only once governments started to get involved, by increasing the red tape and adding restrictions and whatnot, it became shit.
So I would argue that you are completely wrong. Yes, it might have been a bit of a wild west, but that is a good thing because you needed to have some smarts to navigate it and that filtered out the dumb masses that pollute it today and why we cannot have nice things.
I am not saying people should not have access to it, just that the less people there were, the better it was and the less attention it had by the governments. Which in turn made it much better experience than it is today.
But most people, actually, have not lived through those "early" days and cannot even comprehend how great it was back then and how crappy and restricted it is today.
The internet became shit not when governments got involved, but when millions of people came online and pushed early enthusiasts into a minority.
The invasion of normal people onto the internet was the seed for handing the web to a small selection of companies, and a decline in etiquette which is now reflected in the real world (misinformation, political polarisation, bullying and group radicalism).
It was inevitable that regulation would need to come as soon as this group came online. Many regulations were postponed way too much, because politicians of the time didn't understand what they were dealing with.
There is nothing wrong with governments putting in regulations about child safety on the internet, so long as that's the real purpose (in the UK, this isn't it). It's not right for companies like Facebook to be misusing the data of child (nor should it be for adults either).
1 reply →
> So I would argue that you are completely wrong.
You could argue that, but it would be idiotic. It would be deeply and deliberately ignorant of e.g. Facebook complicity in ethnic massacres in Myanmar. Cambridge Analytica. Youtube as an engine of algorithmic radicalisation. The continued extremism on what was once Twitter. Online anti-vax disinformation. QAnon. All of Truth Social.
You posit it as "people vs governments" but that is not the reality. There is a third force. "The people" don't run the internet any more. A few incredibly wealthy oligarchs control most of it, and this trend is strengthening. Elon. Zuck. Jeff. Satya. Sergey. Rupert. You know who I mean from one or two syllables each and that's telling. This state of affairs requires government inaction as power consolidates.
> But most people, actually, have not lived through those "early" days
I have been online since the mid 1990s, so whatever point you might be trying to make doesn't apply to me.
The idea that "Government red tape ruined the internet" is just nonsense.
6 replies →
[dead]
by the definition inter-net is the net between (something). These laws create intra-nets, which are ruled by different laws
> by the definition inter-net is the net between (something)
Internet was originally defined as the "network of networks", i.e. the net between local nets.
Pretty much all countries have governments and the internet and I'd say it tends to end in annoyance rather than disaster, such as having to turn on a vpn to see junk on imgur in this case.
The only actual internet caused disaster I can think of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide - was caused by a lack of regulation and "let's kill them all" stuff on facebook. 25k+ dead.
Everything that Cambridge Analytica did is another good example [1]. Granted that it doesn't rise to the level of a "25k+ dead disaster", but it's not nothing, it's a lot of bad things. And it also stems from lack of regulation, not from the opposite. As will other examples.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica#Elections