I find it far more ironic that they are called Reclaim the Internet.
I am dating myself, but I remember the Internet. It’s rather ironic too that the actual Internet, literal and figuratively free internet, was always doomed from the start, just like AI is effectively doomed in terms of it being some kind of productivity tool or amazing thing you can use to build your own thing, because the logical conclusion is very bad for most people, including the technorati types here that think themselves above it and immune.
If you’re shocked and surprised by the way there Internet was maneuvered into the surveillance prison Flock made itself the poster child of at the hands of Mr Langley, take that trajectory and lay it over AI, but only at exponential rates. You don’t have to believe me, it won’t matter either way, it’s happening, short of the Soviet style implosion of the “American” empire.
Maybe once the planet has been made uninhabitable to biological life there will be an AI robot cybernetic splinter group trying to “reclaim humanity”.
Sigh. Web. Not Internet. Why is this distinction so hard to make on a WEB site dedicated to technology?
The reason I keep repeating this whenever I see this is because I've seen idiotic mislabeling and mischaracterization materialize as idiotic legislature or idiotic activism based on the former. Someone invented the term "AI datacenter", and now there's a swiping movement of idiots fighting... datacenters. Same as with 5G before it.
Please. Please. Don't blame the Internet for something it has absolutely nothing to do with. Your misattributed criticism is going to be amplified by thousands of automatic and semi-automatic morons and, who knows, maybe people will start cutting cables or attack ISP crew as a result.
The same thing would happen on any platform. Social media diverged from the web a while ago - accessing it through web is like accessing Usenet through Google Groups. Its native environment is the corresponding non-web phone apps.
Not on any platform. The platform needs to have certain characteristics that enable it.
The platform needs to be a monopoly or an oligopoly. A highly distributed platform would be a lot more resilient to the problems created by modern social media because it would be too hard for a single organization to manipulate the news reported by thousands of independent publishers.
The platform needs to financially sustain itself in such a way that the users don't directly contribute to it, otherwise it would be way too easy for users to "vote with their wallet".
The platform use should be allowed (or even encouraged) by state or other important service providers, thus making its use mandatory for the holdouts / those who would normally not use it on conscientious grounds.
Perhaps there are other aspects that I've overlooked.
Phone apps are, in general, an even worse alternative than the original Web because of being either completely closed-source, or even if not, not really allowing simple viewing and modification of the program behavior by the users. The way they are created and distributed amplifies the monopoly aspect and the government / service provider sanctioning aspect.
But, I think, that the problems we see now in Web can be partially addressed technologically and partially legislatively. It doesn't have to be this bad.
On technological level, if social media was available as an Internet application, i.e. as an additional service from your ISP, which would remove the need to sustain it with ads, it would make it less interesting for companies like those that run modern social media platforms to manipulate it.
On legislative level, there should be some form of anti information monopoly laws that would make it illegal to have such an outsized effect for social media platforms and would allow the court to require that a platform is split into multiple platforms. The laws that assign responsibility for the published content and its distribution should also address the problem of mis- and disinformation proliferation through such platforms. Even up to the point that they make it impossible for such platforms to exist (today it's common to blame the lack of moderation on the poor quality of content).
peri-cl · · focus · HN ↗
Lio · · focus · HN ↗
An article about internet censorship of an archive site that requires an archive site to read!
That’s Brilliant! :D
tyrabound · · focus · HN ↗
I am dating myself, but I remember the Internet. It’s rather ironic too that the actual Internet, literal and figuratively free internet, was always doomed from the start, just like AI is effectively doomed in terms of it being some kind of productivity tool or amazing thing you can use to build your own thing, because the logical conclusion is very bad for most people, including the technorati types here that think themselves above it and immune.
If you’re shocked and surprised by the way there Internet was maneuvered into the surveillance prison Flock made itself the poster child of at the hands of Mr Langley, take that trajectory and lay it over AI, but only at exponential rates. You don’t have to believe me, it won’t matter either way, it’s happening, short of the Soviet style implosion of the “American” empire.
Maybe once the planet has been made uninhabitable to biological life there will be an AI robot cybernetic splinter group trying to “reclaim humanity”.
crabbone · · focus · HN ↗
The reason I keep repeating this whenever I see this is because I've seen idiotic mislabeling and mischaracterization materialize as idiotic legislature or idiotic activism based on the former. Someone invented the term "AI datacenter", and now there's a swiping movement of idiots fighting... datacenters. Same as with 5G before it.
Please. Please. Don't blame the Internet for something it has absolutely nothing to do with. Your misattributed criticism is going to be amplified by thousands of automatic and semi-automatic morons and, who knows, maybe people will start cutting cables or attack ISP crew as a result.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
crabbone · · focus · HN ↗
The platform needs to be a monopoly or an oligopoly. A highly distributed platform would be a lot more resilient to the problems created by modern social media because it would be too hard for a single organization to manipulate the news reported by thousands of independent publishers.
The platform needs to financially sustain itself in such a way that the users don't directly contribute to it, otherwise it would be way too easy for users to "vote with their wallet".
The platform use should be allowed (or even encouraged) by state or other important service providers, thus making its use mandatory for the holdouts / those who would normally not use it on conscientious grounds.
Perhaps there are other aspects that I've overlooked.
Phone apps are, in general, an even worse alternative than the original Web because of being either completely closed-source, or even if not, not really allowing simple viewing and modification of the program behavior by the users. The way they are created and distributed amplifies the monopoly aspect and the government / service provider sanctioning aspect.
But, I think, that the problems we see now in Web can be partially addressed technologically and partially legislatively. It doesn't have to be this bad.
On technological level, if social media was available as an Internet application, i.e. as an additional service from your ISP, which would remove the need to sustain it with ads, it would make it less interesting for companies like those that run modern social media platforms to manipulate it.
On legislative level, there should be some form of anti information monopoly laws that would make it illegal to have such an outsized effect for social media platforms and would allow the court to require that a platform is split into multiple platforms. The laws that assign responsibility for the published content and its distribution should also address the problem of mis- and disinformation proliferation through such platforms. Even up to the point that they make it impossible for such platforms to exist (today it's common to blame the lack of moderation on the poor quality of content).