The internet is for whoever wants to send bits to each other and is willing to pay for transit to do it. The WWW might be for end users, though that seems less obvious by the day.
show comments
vouaobrasil
I think fighting for a purpose-based ideology of the internet is actually doomed to fail because the form of the technology will dictate how its used and regulation and efforts will only slightly affect that.
E.g. If the internet is super-fast and has the capability to deliver video ads, it will be used for that. If everyone just had a connection with the speed of a 56K modem, that video-based ad model wouldn't work.
If we really want the internet to be a certain way, we have to change the underlying technology used, not the ideology behind it. Because if an technology has a capability, it will be used to do whatever is most successful in the capitalistic system, not what's best for 'end users'.
Regulation sometimes be effective, but...the model of regulation in a world of freely-evolving technology is a broken system most of the time.
show comments
Atlas667
This is why ideology is so important.
Is the end user viewed as an ISPs client? a consumer of tech companies?
The idealistic language is fine but isnt based on any scientific approach to society. Its neutral at best.
The internet is for end users, but how if its not "by end users"?
If most protocols and standard implementations depend on adoption by ISPs and tech companies what does it mean to be "for the end user"?
Is prison architecture "for the prisoners"?
So how do we solve the "by end users" dilemma?
iso1631
Who's an end user.
Unless you own your hardware, you aren't the end user. When your phone, tv, camera, or even laptop on a non-free OS is on your network, you can get some semblance of control by controlling what network services it uses.
Things like DoH are part of the removal of my control as a home user and give it to Sony, or Apple, or TPLink
The most obvious thing is it becomes harder to block adverts.
Throw in internet-centralisation through HN darlings like cloudflare and you're screwed. You have no idea what anything is talking to, as it's the same destination IPs, so the choice is either block it completely, or allow it with no control.
show comments
paulddraper
This is an awkward read, the result of trying to convey an idea while couched in other language.
That idea being that AI is less important than humans.
Inevitably the internet will have two types of users:
andThe internet is for porn [1] Mostly SFW, headphones
I know I know, it's original purpose was to be a weapon. [2] It has certainly devolved into a weapon to divide the people.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_zAlVv73HI
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Xxi0b9trY
The internet is for whoever wants to send bits to each other and is willing to pay for transit to do it. The WWW might be for end users, though that seems less obvious by the day.
I think fighting for a purpose-based ideology of the internet is actually doomed to fail because the form of the technology will dictate how its used and regulation and efforts will only slightly affect that.
E.g. If the internet is super-fast and has the capability to deliver video ads, it will be used for that. If everyone just had a connection with the speed of a 56K modem, that video-based ad model wouldn't work.
If we really want the internet to be a certain way, we have to change the underlying technology used, not the ideology behind it. Because if an technology has a capability, it will be used to do whatever is most successful in the capitalistic system, not what's best for 'end users'.
Regulation sometimes be effective, but...the model of regulation in a world of freely-evolving technology is a broken system most of the time.
This is why ideology is so important.
Is the end user viewed as an ISPs client? a consumer of tech companies?
The idealistic language is fine but isnt based on any scientific approach to society. Its neutral at best.
The internet is for end users, but how if its not "by end users"?
If most protocols and standard implementations depend on adoption by ISPs and tech companies what does it mean to be "for the end user"?
Is prison architecture "for the prisoners"?
So how do we solve the "by end users" dilemma?
Who's an end user.
Unless you own your hardware, you aren't the end user. When your phone, tv, camera, or even laptop on a non-free OS is on your network, you can get some semblance of control by controlling what network services it uses.
Things like DoH are part of the removal of my control as a home user and give it to Sony, or Apple, or TPLink
The most obvious thing is it becomes harder to block adverts.
Throw in internet-centralisation through HN darlings like cloudflare and you're screwed. You have no idea what anything is talking to, as it's the same destination IPs, so the choice is either block it completely, or allow it with no control.
This is an awkward read, the result of trying to convey an idea while couched in other language.
That idea being that AI is less important than humans.