I'm going to have to disagree. Vastly more alternative information and perspectives are available now than 50 years ago. It's not a close call. Those old alternative rags were often fun and brave ventures, but they had tiny distribution and could never have the reach of the internet, even an internet now heavily policed by the big tec…
I'm going to have to disagree. Vastly more alternative information and perspectives are available now than 50 years ago. It's not a close call. Those old alternative rags were often fun and brave ventures, but they had tiny distribution and could never have the reach of the internet, even an internet now heavily policed by the big tech powers.
I could be proven wrong, but I don't think internet control will ever be that effective in countries like the US. If literally turn into China, then yeah. But there are many obstacles to that.
Skeptic, thanks for engaging. I wish you were right, but I think not. 500-channel TV was sold to us (and I do mean SOLD!) with the line that now there would be more access for and to different groups and views, that people would now be exposed to many more parts of our multi-cultural reality. The exact opposite occurred. Suddenly you could be entertained and have whatever you already believed reinforced 24/7. The internet is 500-channel TV on steroids and speed.
As to the ability of effective online opposition: superficially, yes, but fundamentally, no. Corporations are not about to enable the cutting of their own throats. And that does not even get into government actions or the greater risk from hackers and trolls, whether national, group, or individual trying to cause division and chaos.
Yes, the alternative press was largely local (with significant national and regional exceptions). However, those papers could not be stopped by corporate power, as they were produced with local resources. Even the Feds threatening advertisers, printers, and press people had very limited effect, because people were willing to walk the walk, not merely talk the talk, the reality of today's "opposition", an "opposition" largely limited to whining online, not willing to acknowledge there aint no free lunch, that to make actual change rather than just stake out a position, you have to be willing to get down and dirty, to take personal risks and personally sacrifice.
"Suddenly you could be entertained and have whatever you already believed reinforced 24/7." Not everyone uses the internet for this, I think I see the point here but it's way too reductive. For instance, I often wonder at how my dad was able to figure out how to diagnose and fix problems around the house 40 years ago while I can get my answers in minutes from free, detailed step-by-step with pics/video. The internet is nothing short of amazing.
Hierochloe, thatks for engaging substantively and with a personal anecdote. It's a refreshing change from the vast majority of ad hominem comments that sound like my 4th grade playground.
Two things I would suggest mulling over:
1/ If the electricity went off, your Dad could still fix things. Also, nobody could hack into his brain.
2/ Pre-internet, our nuclear command and control apparatus was not subject to hacking.
1) I can also still fix things using the same non-internet resources as my dad, but it's grossly less efficient than the internet (which is far more than simply a 500-channel theme-park for passive consumption while stuffing oneself with cheetos).
2) Hacking doesn't at all require the internet. The most efficient hacking done on the internet relies almost entirely on exploiting stupid people, and plenty of them were exploited (ie hacked) before the internet was born. Yes, to your point, the internet has made it easier to reach and exploit stupid people, but so did the printing press.
I think the differen is speed and reach. In the way back, it took time to communicate. If you wrote an angry letter to someone or to a newspaper, of necessity you had time to think if you really wanted to say that, befor you put it in the mailbox. One time I even was able to have the post office retrieve a letter I had mailed a day earlier berfore they delivered it. It was only after mailing it that I learned it had significantly wrong info in it. With the internet, once you hit SEND, that's it for eternity, and your credibility will stand behind it.
Also, pre-internet you had much greater control over the dissemination of what you wanted to say. And, with a zillion fewer sources, you had a much better chance to ascertain the credibility of a source. And with almost all online "sources", there is no economic incentive to scour the net to make corrections.
The implications of hacking "stupid" people are greatly exaggerated by the internet. It is one thing to try to fool a person involved in nuclear command-and-control. It is a whole different issue to hack an algorithm that controls the use of nukes.
Sure, we can mostly agree on all this despite our quibbling. Based on this, I think you can see how the internet is much more than simply a 500-channel theme park of bias confirmation and group-think circle-jerk bellyaching, that was really my point.
Hacking an 'algorithm that controls the use of nukes', if such a thing even exists and is connected to the internet, would almost certainly first involve exploiting a stupid/careless person (or at least this is far and away the easiest POE).
Alas, but that is precisely the problem: there will always be a stupid and/or careless, bribeable, blackmailable person somewhere in every long, broad chain of command. Think of the Natanz centirfuges that were destroyed. The problem is not that such behavior is new, but that the destructive implications are now magnified by orders of magnitude.
Many of the comments here are likely trolls trying to sow chaos. Or, maybe just a gal or guy living in their parent's basement, trying to be "relevant" in the outside world. The rare substantive comments, including those I disagree with, are a real pleasure. After all, I love learning, and you learn from people who disagree with you, not those who agree with you.
Hierochloe, you are the kind of person that I would love to discuss things with and from whom I might learn something, but this really isn't a good forum for lengthy, substantive discussions. If we ever meet.....
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” – Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Dawn, 1881
Oh, but it 100% WILL be that effective. Hell, they're already flexing against the most popular sources of "unapproved" thought, and what's more populist than the most popular voices?
Snap of a finger, and they're gone. The Internet used to be a wild place, arguably free, and now they've moved it into being a tool of authoritarian control. But hey! Better an oppressive oligarchy than "misinformation" amirite?
It's coming. Me, I'm hoping for a major Coronal Mass Ejection event that will take out the communications satellites.
Internet control will only be very effective with people who don't care, same as it is now. For people that care, I think dark web will just expand its user base and infrastructure.
I'm going to have to disagree. Vastly more alternative information and perspectives are available now than 50 years ago. It's not a close call. Those old alternative rags were often fun and brave ventures, but they had tiny distribution and could never have the reach of the internet, even an internet now heavily policed by the big tech powers.
I could be proven wrong, but I don't think internet control will ever be that effective in countries like the US. If literally turn into China, then yeah. But there are many obstacles to that.
Skeptic, thanks for engaging. I wish you were right, but I think not. 500-channel TV was sold to us (and I do mean SOLD!) with the line that now there would be more access for and to different groups and views, that people would now be exposed to many more parts of our multi-cultural reality. The exact opposite occurred. Suddenly you could be entertained and have whatever you already believed reinforced 24/7. The internet is 500-channel TV on steroids and speed.
As to the ability of effective online opposition: superficially, yes, but fundamentally, no. Corporations are not about to enable the cutting of their own throats. And that does not even get into government actions or the greater risk from hackers and trolls, whether national, group, or individual trying to cause division and chaos.
Yes, the alternative press was largely local (with significant national and regional exceptions). However, those papers could not be stopped by corporate power, as they were produced with local resources. Even the Feds threatening advertisers, printers, and press people had very limited effect, because people were willing to walk the walk, not merely talk the talk, the reality of today's "opposition", an "opposition" largely limited to whining online, not willing to acknowledge there aint no free lunch, that to make actual change rather than just stake out a position, you have to be willing to get down and dirty, to take personal risks and personally sacrifice.
"Suddenly you could be entertained and have whatever you already believed reinforced 24/7." Not everyone uses the internet for this, I think I see the point here but it's way too reductive. For instance, I often wonder at how my dad was able to figure out how to diagnose and fix problems around the house 40 years ago while I can get my answers in minutes from free, detailed step-by-step with pics/video. The internet is nothing short of amazing.
Hierochloe, thatks for engaging substantively and with a personal anecdote. It's a refreshing change from the vast majority of ad hominem comments that sound like my 4th grade playground.
Two things I would suggest mulling over:
1/ If the electricity went off, your Dad could still fix things. Also, nobody could hack into his brain.
2/ Pre-internet, our nuclear command and control apparatus was not subject to hacking.
1) I can also still fix things using the same non-internet resources as my dad, but it's grossly less efficient than the internet (which is far more than simply a 500-channel theme-park for passive consumption while stuffing oneself with cheetos).
2) Hacking doesn't at all require the internet. The most efficient hacking done on the internet relies almost entirely on exploiting stupid people, and plenty of them were exploited (ie hacked) before the internet was born. Yes, to your point, the internet has made it easier to reach and exploit stupid people, but so did the printing press.
I think the differen is speed and reach. In the way back, it took time to communicate. If you wrote an angry letter to someone or to a newspaper, of necessity you had time to think if you really wanted to say that, befor you put it in the mailbox. One time I even was able to have the post office retrieve a letter I had mailed a day earlier berfore they delivered it. It was only after mailing it that I learned it had significantly wrong info in it. With the internet, once you hit SEND, that's it for eternity, and your credibility will stand behind it.
Also, pre-internet you had much greater control over the dissemination of what you wanted to say. And, with a zillion fewer sources, you had a much better chance to ascertain the credibility of a source. And with almost all online "sources", there is no economic incentive to scour the net to make corrections.
The implications of hacking "stupid" people are greatly exaggerated by the internet. It is one thing to try to fool a person involved in nuclear command-and-control. It is a whole different issue to hack an algorithm that controls the use of nukes.
Sure, we can mostly agree on all this despite our quibbling. Based on this, I think you can see how the internet is much more than simply a 500-channel theme park of bias confirmation and group-think circle-jerk bellyaching, that was really my point.
Hacking an 'algorithm that controls the use of nukes', if such a thing even exists and is connected to the internet, would almost certainly first involve exploiting a stupid/careless person (or at least this is far and away the easiest POE).
Alas, but that is precisely the problem: there will always be a stupid and/or careless, bribeable, blackmailable person somewhere in every long, broad chain of command. Think of the Natanz centirfuges that were destroyed. The problem is not that such behavior is new, but that the destructive implications are now magnified by orders of magnitude.
Many of the comments here are likely trolls trying to sow chaos. Or, maybe just a gal or guy living in their parent's basement, trying to be "relevant" in the outside world. The rare substantive comments, including those I disagree with, are a real pleasure. After all, I love learning, and you learn from people who disagree with you, not those who agree with you.
Hierochloe, you are the kind of person that I would love to discuss things with and from whom I might learn something, but this really isn't a good forum for lengthy, substantive discussions. If we ever meet.....
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” – Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Dawn, 1881
Amen to that!
10-4 Good Buddy
Unless............
Oh, but it 100% WILL be that effective. Hell, they're already flexing against the most popular sources of "unapproved" thought, and what's more populist than the most popular voices?
Snap of a finger, and they're gone. The Internet used to be a wild place, arguably free, and now they've moved it into being a tool of authoritarian control. But hey! Better an oppressive oligarchy than "misinformation" amirite?
It's coming. Me, I'm hoping for a major Coronal Mass Ejection event that will take out the communications satellites.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
Internet control will only be very effective with people who don't care, same as it is now. For people that care, I think dark web will just expand its user base and infrastructure.