I disagree. The Internet was mostly good in the early days, not because of the people using it, but because corporations hadn't yet figured out how profitable it would become. Everything was free, the standards/protocols all open, if someone made a thing for the Internet it was because they thought it would be useful, not because they thought it would make them a lot of money.
Look at Wikipedia, one of the last remnants of the early Internet. It's a mostly good tool because it hasn't been overrun by profit motive.
Profit motives are destroying the Internet. Because profit is divorced from the actual value a thing provides. Enshitification works because a worse technology results in higher profits.
Wikipedia certainly isn't perfect, liberalism is the primary global ideology so it should come as no surprise that most of the contributors are liberals and therefore liberalism is present throughout.
But open access to knowledge is a good thing. I much prefer liberal wiki which is free to anyone with an Internet connection than buying collections of liberal encyclopedias and then having to periodically rebuy them (and they were not cheap!) for updated information.
When you have a system that funnels power to the few they will wield that power to edit Wikipedia. Such a system will then render these open platforms to serve it. Wikipedia is a tool for capital and should be treated accordingly.
Could the same not be said about Hexbear/Lemmy? While there certainly have been cases where people acting directly at the behest of capitol have been caught directly editing Wikipedia, these changes are typically caught and reversed.
These open platforms reflect the values and biases of the people who contribute to them. Leftists contribute to Hexbear. Liberals contribute to Wikipedia (because liberalism is the dominant global ideology). So it may appear that capitol is directly editing the pages, but in reality, capitol is manufacturing consent at a global scale, and that is reflected on Wikipedia because the consumers of that manufactured consent become the producers when they go to edit Wikipedia. When cracks in the neoliberal messaging begin to become evident to the masses, so too does Wikipedia reflect that: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/21/headlines/wikipedia_declares_adl_an_unreliable_source_on_the_israel_palestine_conflict
No, they're not amateur historical records. 5th graders do not look up information about the trail of tears or Tienanmen square here.
While there certainly have been cases where people acting directly at the behest of capitol have been caught directly editing Wikipedia, these changes are typically caught and reversed.
This is beyond naive.
These open platforms reflect the values and biases of the people who contribute to them.
And large orgs can "correct the record" and do.
Leftists contribute to Hexbea
Nope just
So it may appear that capitol is directly editing the pages, but in reality, capitol is manufacturing consent at a global scale, and that is reflected on Wikipedia because the consumers of that manufactured consent become the producers when they go to edit Wikipedia.
A distinction without a difference.
When cracks in the neoliberal messaging begin to become evident to the masses, so too does Wikipedia reflect that: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/21/headlines/wikipedia_declares_adl_an_unreliable_source_on_t
Wow one of their mouthpieces was slightly inconvenienced. Wikipedia allows tons of garbage BBC. Wapo etc.
There have been companies making profit from the internet a lot longer than you suggest. They've just gotten more ruthless these days as its much easier to collect user data to monetize when theres a requirement that normal people have to use it to function in socisty.
So yes, more people that can't participate in society without internet makes more marks for these vultures and it becomes an oroboros of cringe
Sometimes I wonder if there is an inflection point where the personal data becomes overwhelming to the point of useless too.
Like, if I want everybody who has looked up an adjacent product or related product and has the disposable income to purchase my product. Well, how many people is that and how many of those people are high volume Internet users who google whatever thought comes into their head, and how many of those people are fortified behind layers of spam filters or the natural filter of advertisment fatigue?
I assume the idea these people are jerking themselves off to is that they can get really sophicated predictive profiles of people, and this will somehow be monetizable. But I just don't see it. Tik tok seems to be the best in the biz and it appears to be a slightly more elaborate version of "people who looked at these things you looked at also looked at these things, I bet you'd like to look at this too"
To be clear about timeframe, I'm talking early days of the TCP/IP protocol. Like when HTTP was being drafted, the days of BBSs. If you look at the fundamental design of the Internet, it was intended to be regulated by subject matter experts from around the world. Not for and by any one country, but for use by everyone, borders be damned.
Software monetization was certainly happening, but largely not by way of the Internet, software was sold in stores and magazines and by mail via floppy disks.
Like sure, it didn't take long for nerds in their garages to figure out that their lists of URLs could be profitable, but this was not instantly recognized by the ruling class.
I disagree. The Internet was mostly good in the early days, not because of the people using it, but because corporations hadn't yet figured out how profitable it would become. Everything was free, the standards/protocols all open, if someone made a thing for the Internet it was because they thought it would be useful, not because they thought it would make them a lot of money.
Look at Wikipedia, one of the last remnants of the early Internet. It's a mostly good tool because it hasn't been overrun by profit motive.
Profit motives are destroying the Internet. Because profit is divorced from the actual value a thing provides. Enshitification works because a worse technology results in higher profits.
I'd rather not.
Wikipedia certainly isn't perfect, liberalism is the primary global ideology so it should come as no surprise that most of the contributors are liberals and therefore liberalism is present throughout.
But open access to knowledge is a good thing. I much prefer liberal wiki which is free to anyone with an Internet connection than buying collections of liberal encyclopedias and then having to periodically rebuy them (and they were not cheap!) for updated information.
When you have a system that funnels power to the few they will wield that power to edit Wikipedia. Such a system will then render these open platforms to serve it. Wikipedia is a tool for capital and should be treated accordingly.
Could the same not be said about Hexbear/Lemmy? While there certainly have been cases where people acting directly at the behest of capitol have been caught directly editing Wikipedia, these changes are typically caught and reversed.
These open platforms reflect the values and biases of the people who contribute to them. Leftists contribute to Hexbear. Liberals contribute to Wikipedia (because liberalism is the dominant global ideology). So it may appear that capitol is directly editing the pages, but in reality, capitol is manufacturing consent at a global scale, and that is reflected on Wikipedia because the consumers of that manufactured consent become the producers when they go to edit Wikipedia. When cracks in the neoliberal messaging begin to become evident to the masses, so too does Wikipedia reflect that: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/6/21/headlines/wikipedia_declares_adl_an_unreliable_source_on_the_israel_palestine_conflict
No, they're not amateur historical records. 5th graders do not look up information about the trail of tears or Tienanmen square here.
This is beyond naive.
And large orgs can "correct the record" and do.
Nope just
A distinction without a difference.
Wow one of their mouthpieces was slightly inconvenienced. Wikipedia allows tons of garbage BBC. Wapo etc.
There have been companies making profit from the internet a lot longer than you suggest. They've just gotten more ruthless these days as its much easier to collect user data to monetize when theres a requirement that normal people have to use it to function in socisty.
So yes, more people that can't participate in society without internet makes more marks for these vultures and it becomes an oroboros of cringe
Sometimes I wonder if there is an inflection point where the personal data becomes overwhelming to the point of useless too.
Like, if I want everybody who has looked up an adjacent product or related product and has the disposable income to purchase my product. Well, how many people is that and how many of those people are high volume Internet users who google whatever thought comes into their head, and how many of those people are fortified behind layers of spam filters or the natural filter of advertisment fatigue?
I assume the idea these people are jerking themselves off to is that they can get really sophicated predictive profiles of people, and this will somehow be monetizable. But I just don't see it. Tik tok seems to be the best in the biz and it appears to be a slightly more elaborate version of "people who looked at these things you looked at also looked at these things, I bet you'd like to look at this too"
To be clear about timeframe, I'm talking early days of the TCP/IP protocol. Like when HTTP was being drafted, the days of BBSs. If you look at the fundamental design of the Internet, it was intended to be regulated by subject matter experts from around the world. Not for and by any one country, but for use by everyone, borders be damned.
Software monetization was certainly happening, but largely not by way of the Internet, software was sold in stores and magazines and by mail via floppy disks.
Like sure, it didn't take long for nerds in their garages to figure out that their lists of URLs could be profitable, but this was not instantly recognized by the ruling class.