CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Internet Philosophy: How can we apply the "spirit of the web" to restructuring society?

Internet Philosophy: How can we apply the "spirit of the web" to restructuring society?

Started by hiddenpuma75 · · 👁 3 views · 64 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants hiddenpuma75Matthew Doyle73Bradley Fisher20swiftcobra15Michelle Alvarez8rapidskipper9casualotter21Eric Wells3mistyfox812Chloe Hall89Dennis Rogers6wiredsurfer72rustymaker5lonecrane42steelridge58Bryan Wood7mistybisonRyan Harris10velvetbear372Amanda Jackson5crimsonseal15
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#1 ·
I was actually inspired by a discussion in another thread to start a little philosophical deep dive regarding the nature of the internet:

(To give you some context, here is how the debate between Mr. Pesica and hiddenpuma75 unfolded, which really sparked this whole idea)

hiddenpuma75:

Just so there isn’t any misunderstanding,😁 let me be clear about my stance!

I wasn't specifically backing Mr. Pesica (nor am I siding with his opponents),

but the role of a moderator...

seems unnecessary to me.
It feels pompous,
unfair (given that the true spirit of the internet is freedom!),
and frankly, quite authoritarian and patriarchal.

I’m not attacking the individual moderator here, but rather the function itself...

So many people never stop to realize they could live perfectly fine without

guardians,
moderators,
boundaries,
visas,
the military,
or even the government (most governments act like legalized mafia syndicates that meddle in people's wallets, bedrooms, and basic liberties through laws that restrict rather than empower).

Whether it’s the legal system,
sacred texts,
the church,
organizations,

or the STATE—with all its taxes and prisons—

and all those artificial authorities...

Most people possess a sort of slave-like, authoritarian mentality. They don't even question
the meaning or origin of the power structures that keep them shackled, much like a modern version of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

(And I’ve just listed some of the most glaring examples of that kind of subjugation above.)

******
Mr. Pesica: An anarchist! 🙂
_________________-
hiddenpuma75: quote:

Mr. Pes says:
An anarchist!
******

If you actually understood what the pioneers of anarchism wrote and proposed,

think of folks like Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Proudhon,

you would never use the word "anarchist" as a slur or in such a negative light again.

In fact, the wonder and essence of the INTERNET is a perfect manifestation of the visionary side of anarchist thought.👍

Great foundational ideas and terms, such as

magic
or anarchism,

have become infamous simply because of mass ignorance
and the ability of state apparatuses to suppress the truth.

It reminds me of how Hitler once admitted

that masses find it much easier to swallow massive lies than small truths.

(The fact that he was a political mastermind only further exposes the twisted nature of politics and the world we inhabit.)

Please understand that the greatest miracle of our age—the Internet—
is, at its core, an anarchist idea.😲

And I truly believe that in some cosmic diner at the end of the universe,😎
Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin will be happily🙂 sipping beers and celebrating how their visionary ideas finally spread.🙂

(Once our planet—this cosmic spaceship we’re all riding through the void of the universe—is organized around the principles of the internet, or the original anarchist ideal... that is when we will achieve true social harmony.)

__________________
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#2 ·
A few thoughts to kick off a discussion:

- Most people can tell you the name of every pop star, actor, or pro athlete out there,

but hardly anyone actually understands who the true architects of the internet are—the most magnificent ideas and realities humanity has ever brought to life!👍

******
The internet is a completely OPEN SYSTEM!

******
The pioneers who actually built and breathed life into this thing didn't see a single dime in "royalties."
Yet, every influencer looking for a bit of attention online demands "rights" or licensing fees for their music or content.

In reality, the internet was built on a spirit of enthusiastic cooperation—
the kind of genuine collaboration that many people today seem to lack, especially when it comes to how we organize our social lives...

*******

IN MEMORY OF VANNEVAR BUSH,
WHO FIRST CONCEPTUALIZED IT,👍

AND TO TIM BERNERS-LEE,

WHO ACTUALLY MADE IT A REALITY.🙂

And let's not forget Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin, who first envisioned the idea of an "internet society."
Matthew Doyle73 Matthew Doyle73 Active Member
107 messages
joined Dec 2002
#3 ·
The internet represents the first time in history where people can wander freely within a strictly controlled environment. Yet, somehow, everything in existence becomes infinitely easier to find here than in those dark, gritty alleys of the "real world" where nobody’s watching. What does that actually say about us? I haven't the slightest clue, but I'm certainly not complaining. 😛
Bradley Fisher20 Bradley Fisher20 Active Member
142 messages
joined May 2005
#4 ·
I'm with you on this. Honestly, the internet is probably the single greatest thing ever invented for society. It’s got this massive potential to actually bring people together and create some real social harmony. But man, there's a huge difference between just talking about it and actually making it happen 🙂. It's one thing to dream, but another thing entirely to execute
.
Matthew Doyle73 Matthew Doyle73 Active Member
107 messages
joined Dec 2002
#5 ·
If an American were telling that joke, they’d probably say, "Man, you guys should really get off your butts and do something about this," 😛 🙂
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#6 ·
Matthew Doyle73 said:The internet is really the first time we've been able to wander around relatively freely while being watched more closely than ever before. It's amazing how much easier it is to find everything you need right here...

At its core, the internet was built for military "necessity," and even today, it primarily serves the military and intelligence agencies as a way to establish total oversight over every single citizen.😉

The fact that we’re all having fun and picking up bits of knowledge is just the bait used to catch the fish. I remember reading about how Napoleon once noted that while bayonets can accomplish a lot, you certainly can't sit on them.
Those in power figured that out a long time ago; they've switched to much softer methods of subjugation. To me, the internet stands as the most perfect tool for mass control ever devised.

It’s nice to be an optimist, but honestly, I find it too exhausting to maintain.😁
Michelle Alvarez8 Michelle Alvarez8 Regular
299 messages
joined Nov 2015
#7 ·
Yeah, we really dropped the ball back then. Honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting on those Intel chips to drop.
It's gonna be a wild ride.
rapidskipper9 rapidskipper9 Member
20 messages
joined Feb 2003
#8 ·
hiddenpuma75 says:

You guys really need to wrap your heads around the fact that the Internet, which is basically the biggest miracle of our age,
is actually built on this totally anarchist core idea at its heart and soul.

👍

Exactly! See?!
And now you're getting all defensive just because someone called you an anarchist?

As for everything else, yeah, that all sounds super pretty and wonderful, but...
You’re kind of ignoring some pretty hard truths here, hiddenpuma75.
Like, for instance, the computer hosting this whole forum isn't some public commons—it's private property, which means whoever owns it can moderate the place however they damn well please.
So, I guess if you actually wanted your vision to work, we'd first have to dismantle this entire messed-up version of civilization we've stumbled into.

😁 😁 😁 VIVA ZAPATA!

I mean, sure, there are probably people out there who agree with you and think moderation is total garbage, so they can just go somewhere else if they feel suffocated here. I'm not trying to kick you out or anything, heaven forbid, I'm just laying out the rules of the game. But if you wander over to one of those unmoderated corners of the web and run into creeps, predators, or whatever, well, hey, that's just part of the deal.
Plus, I honestly think moderation is necessary, mostly because we should be keeping the enemies of freedom and democracy away too!

By the way: Hitler!

Regarding g. Pes, even though I'm still a relatively new face around here, I don't have any complaints about how she moderates; I actually think she does it in the true spirit of that freedom we're talking about.

🙂
Matthew Doyle73 Matthew Doyle73 Active Member
107 messages
joined Dec 2002
#9 ·
adriatic said:The internet has basically become the ultimate tool for mass surveillance.

It’s nice to be an optimist, but honestly, I just can't find the energy for it.😁

The reality is that they see everything and know everything, but they aren't going to go around arresting every single person sharing info for free. They can't—there are just too many people to keep tabs on. Plus, it’s much easier to tear something down than to build it up, so no security measure is ever truly foolproof.

They can try, but if they actually started making arrests, they’d have half of America behind bars. And we all know that once the internet exists, digital piracy doesn't slow down; it just explodes out of control.

So, are we moving this conversation toward open-source software?

Or maybe catching online predators?
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#10 ·
10 things you might not know about the Internet)

1 Just how old is it?

While the version of the Internet we recognize today really took shape in 1983, its roots go back to ARPANET, a research network that sent its very first messages on October 1, 1969. So, if you're counting from those early days, you could argue the Internet is already 30 years old this year.

2 Who actually invented it?

The development of packet-switching technology was independently pioneered in the 1960s by Paul Baran in the US and Donald Watts Davies in the UK, but in reality, it's more accurate to say it's the result of massive cooperation among thousands of dedicated scientists and engineers.

3 Was it designed to survive a nuclear strike?

Actually, that's a bit of a myth. The real motivation behind funding the ARPANET project was much more practical: finding a way to get expensive, incompatible mainframe computers to talk to one another. This allowed researchers funded by DARPA to share computing resources more efficiently.

4 How long has the World Wide Web been around?

It’s hitting its ten-year anniversary this year! 😛 It was originally created back in 1989 at CERN by the software engineer Tim Berners-Lee.

5 How many people are actually online?

It’s impossible to give a definitive number since the count shifts every single second, but back in the spring of 1999, the best estimate was upwards of 160 million people. If you want to see the most current estimates, check out this link.

6 Is it truly the fastest-growing medium ever?

Without a doubt. To put it in perspective, it took radio 37 years to hit 50 million listeners, and television needed about 15 years to reach 50 million viewers. The World Wide Web managed to grab 50 million users in just over three years.

7 Who owns the internet?
Technically, nobody—which means everyone owns it. Much of the foundation relies on open source software. While the physical Internet infrastructure (like the cables, servers, and switches) is owned by various corporations, the Internet itself serves as our collective digital commons.

8 Where did the term 'Cyberspace' originate?

It actually comes from the novel *Neuromancer*, released in 1984 by the American author William Gibson. He famously characterized it as a "consensual illusion."

9 Isn't the Internet just flooded with pornography?

That depends on your definition of "flooded." The internet is the first uncensored medium, so it makes sense that adult content exists there. There is a massive global market for it across all formats—from print to video. In the US alone, for instance, the print pornography industry is worth about $8 billion. However, while it certainly exists, it's actually dwarfed by the sheer volume of everything else available. You probably wouldn't realize that if you only ever looked at the tabloids!

10 Is the Internet basically just television with a billion channels?

Not even close! Television is what we call a "push" medium. A handful of big networks and studios decide what gets produced, and then they push that content toward an audience that can only choose from what's being broadcast. The Internet, however, is a "pull" medium. Users actively decide what they want to see and then request it. Because publishing is so accessible, the variety is staggering. The internet is an active medium, whereas television is fundamentally passive.
casualotter21 casualotter21 Regular
264 messages
joined Feb 2003
#11 ·
Your thoughts on the internet prompted me to offer an example of why moderation is such a vital necessity for online forums:

hiddenpuma75 said:Unnecessary.
Pretentious.
Unfair (though let's be honest, internet freedom is absolute!).
authoritarian

What a... haiku.

Quincey:
It’s all rooted in that old-school patriarchal mindset.
What exactly does Mr. Dog mean by "male"? Honestly, Mr. Dog, I imagine your husband must have been quite surprised on your wedding night. 😁

Quincey:
I'm not making this claim about the individual moderator specifically, but rather about the role itself.

It will never occur to many people that a perfectly normal life can be lived without all of this.

I suppose I should offer some guidance, though I’m hardly an expert on these matters.
moderator
The border.
Visa.
The military.
Another haiku.

Quincey:
The government.
Exactly. Most people think that way, but you’re just going to go out and prove how clueless they actually are—even if you have to personally dismantle the government yourself since nobody else seems willing to do it, right?

Quincey:
Most of the government is little more than legalized organized crime, meddling in people's wallets, their private lives, and their basic freedoms through laws that aren't meant to empower anyone, but rather to restrict them.
Man, these so-called "laws" are absolute garbage. I still remember when we were planning to head down to Central Park to target some old ladies with slingshots, and the police showed up and hauled me away just for that. It’s a total violation of my rights, seriously.

Quincey:
The law.
The Holy Bible...
It’s all going to hell.
association

The state and its endless cycle of taxes and prisons.
Is this for real? Has anyone actually seen them put proven killers behind bars? Honestly, we might be better off just letting them roam free to go out and kill more people instead.

Quincey:
And those manufactured authorities, too.
So, you're suggesting that anarchism is nothing more than a manufactured ideal?

Quincey:
Most people just have it.
And here is my favorite part of the post.

Quincey:
A robotic, authoritarian, and patriarchal mindset.
Go ahead and try saying that five times fast.

It’s nothing more than a slave-like, authoritarian, patriarchal mentality. Just a repetitive cycle of servitude and control.

Quincey:
And yet, they never even bother to ask.
One might find themselves contemplating the origins and inherent purpose of those pervasive daily illusions—the subtle mechanisms of power that keep us shackled within a modern iteration of Plato's Cave.

(I’ve listed some of the most ridiculous examples of slavery above.)
Man, I feel like you’d find it absolutely soul-crushing if someone actually suggested washing your hands before dinner.

Quincey:
If you actually knew what they were writing and proposing about the eyes of anarchism, you might find things a bit different.

Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon.

I would never again use the word "anarchism" in such a negative light—not if I wanted to keep my sense of humor intact.

I would. I’m on it.

Quincey:
The internet miracle and its spirit are essentially just classic manifestations of that visionary streak found within anarchist thought. 👍
Yeah, thanks to the internet, I have the luxury of being able to troll your post.

Quincey:
Grand, sweeping concepts and expansive vocabulary, such as...

I suppose I should probably address this, though I'm hardly sure where to begin.
Anarchism.
Aha! So... you're one of *those* people. Look, I can handle a little anarchism, but once they start bringing up that New Jersey nonsense...

Quincey:
They've become infamous, purely due to the sheer ignorance of the masses.
It’s truly remarkable how much effort the government will put into suppressing the truth.
Or perhaps it’s just because they are downright stupid.

Quincey:
Just like when Hitler accidentally let the truth slip and admitted it himself.
Just like that one time you slipped up and brought up Hitler during an online debate—effectively violating the ultimate rule of internet discourse: Godwin's Law. For those who aren't in the loop:

Godwin's Law states that as any online debate drags on, the likelihood of someone bringing up Nazis or Hitler eventually hits 100%. In most communities, there’s an unwritten rule that once that comparison happens, the conversation is officially dead—and the person who made the Nazi comparison immediately loses the argument. Essentially, Godwin's Law sets a built-in limit on how long any single thread can actually last.

But since you already pulled that stunt in your very first post, this probably applies to you:

"However there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."

Quincey:
(the fact that Hitler was a political genius more than anything else exposes the true nature of politics and the world we live in)
Hitler was just a fanatic and an idiot who happened to be in the right place at the right time. We all know how much the universe loves rewarding lunatics and fools; that’s precisely why he managed to seize power.

What was the point of this post, aside from my own crude, tasteless, and unnecessary insults? It was quite simple! I was demonstrating to hiddenpuma75 exactly why forums require moderators. As long as people like myself, him, and every other user aren't allowed to moderate the board exactly how we see fit, we are going to need official moderators. That is because, without them, there is nothing to stop some random idiot with internet access from flooding a topic by copy-pasting the word “SPAM!” 25,000 times in a single post, just like I used to do back in the day.
On sites like Reddit, there is a wonderful mechanism called a "filter" that allows every user to decide for themselves which posts their computer should pull from the web and which it should ignore. If someone like a total nutcase showed up there, I could settle the score with them very quickly. Meanwhile, everyone else could choose to read his nonsense if they wanted to, while I wouldn't have to see it at all.
This forum lacks such options and—which is even worse—it doesn't even have threads. To find a specific post I actually care about, I often have to scroll through four or five massive posts that usually have nothing to do with what I'm looking for. The only freedom I get as a user on an unmoderated forum is the ability to pick at the brains of every other user with my own giant, senseless posts. Or perhaps by opening fifteen different accounts to argue with myself. Or by starting fifteen separate threads every single day that all cover the exact same topic.
What you are suggesting, hiddenpuma75, is forcing users to endure every malicious egoist with an internet connection (one could draw an analogy to anarchism in the real world, but let's not go there).
What I am proposing is the introduction of a filter that would allow every user to moderate the forum according to their own whims—or choose NOT to moderate it at all—so they only see the posts that interest them. Until that becomes possible, we are stuck needing moderators.
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#12 ·
It’s actually pretty fascinating when you think about how impossible it would be to just pull the plug on the internet!!

Has it ever crossed your mind before?

The way I see it, the web isn't just some standalone machine anymore; it’s more like this deep symbiosis between humans and technology.

We’re basically living like cyborgs.
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#13 ·
777 represents perfection—the total sum of all paths on the Tree of Life. It signifies Christ, God, and the ideal human being.

111 stands for the Aleph, symbolizing pure unity.

If you subtract 111 from 777, you get 666.

The "perfect man" minus "unity" equals 666—which is just humanity, stripped down.

Isn't it possible that the "number of the beast" is actually just the number of man? Someone once mentioned that to me.

By the way...

Aganore, I really hope ideas like "the internet is the antichrist" aren't actually making their way through those little gray cells of yours.😲

Does that mean Bill Gates is our new Messiah or something?😁 😎
Matthew Doyle73 Matthew Doyle73 Active Member
107 messages
joined Dec 2002
#14 ·
Back in the early '90s, Bill Gates claimed the internet was never going to catch on, and he missed the mark big time. So yeah, he’s nowhere near being some kind of visionary savior. 🙄
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#15 ·
I’ve been falling down some fascinating internet rabbit holes lately, and I stumbled upon a few tidbits that would be perfect little conversation starters over coffee.

It took radio about 37 years to build up an audience of 50 million listeners.

Television needed roughly 15 years to hit that same milestone.

But the World Wide Web? It reached its first 50 million users in just three short years.

********
There are actually more phones on Manhattan than there are in all of Africa combined.😲

*****
Dyson describes the internet as a globally networked, ELECTRONICALLY SENSITIVE BEING.😲

The web is essentially a self-organizing system where order exists without any need for external control, government oversight, or centralization.
👋

Most of what we know about the net is an American invention.

At its core, the internet actually challenges the very concept of ownership—even if, ironically, it currently generates the most massive profits and wealth opportunities in history.
Eric Wells3 Eric Wells3 Active Member
61 messages
joined Dec 2005
#16 ·
hiddenpuma75 said:I find the inner workings of the internet absolutely mesmerizing, which led me down a rabbit hole of trivia that serves as excellent fodder for conversation over a cup of coffee.

Radio, acting as a medium, essentially "spent" thirty-seven years just to cultivate an audience of fifty million listeners.

Television required roughly fifteen years to reach that exact same milestone.

However, the World Wide Web managed to scale to its first fifty million users in a mere three years.

The reality is quite simple: technology is vastly more accessible today than it ever was in previous eras.

Furthermore, why don't you try giving us the actual user statistics for television so we can conduct a proper comparison?
mistyfox812 mistyfox812 Regular
295 messages
joined Mar 2004
#17 ·
hiddenpuma75 said:Dyson describes the internet as this massive, globally interconnected, ELECTRONICALLY SENSITIVE BEING😲

That’s wild!🙂
Okay, but if it's actually alive... are we living in symbiosis with it, or is it just some giant parasite?
What's the word from Dyson? Or anyone else got an opinion on this?
hiddenpuma75 hiddenpuma75 RegularOP
376 messages
joined Dec 2002
#18 ·
2006: THE YEAR THE INTERNET DIES

THE DEATH OF THE INTERNET THREATENS
THE WORLD WITH SOMETHING WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL

If today’s Internet were to collapse, the global economy would face catastrophic fallout. We could see a recession even more severe than the Great Depression of the 1930s.

written by Ivo Šćepanović

American scientist Hannah Kohl has been making headlines worldwide lately. Her prediction—that the Internet might actually reach its breaking point by 2006—has sparked widespread concern. To clear things up, she sat down for an interview with the Los Angeles Times to elaborate on her theories.
How much do you truly believe the Internet could die within two years?
- I’d say the probability of a near-term collapse is significantly higher than zero percent. If we want to prevent this from escalating into a total catastrophe
on a global scale, the world needs to act decisively to stop it. Honestly, the death of the Internet would hit the world harder than the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl ever did.
How many other scientists agree with your outlook?
- Experts are pretty split into three camps. One group agrees with me but prefers to stay quiet in public; the second group generally agrees but believes there’s still a window to save the Internet; and the third group disagrees entirely, convinced there isn't a problem at all. Those skeptics argue that issues like viruses and spam are easily solvable. Most experts, however, fall into that middle category.
Have scientists from around the globe reached out to you since your initial statements started circulating?
- I’ve received some very encouraging feedback from experts in those first two groups. Generally, they appreciate that someone finally spoke up publicly to try and "wake people up." I have to admit, though, the reactions from the third group weren't quite as kind—some weren't shy about calling me an "idiot professor who should be fired."
What was the primary driver behind your prediction that the Internet is headed for a shutdown?
- My goal was simply to alert people to the very real danger of an Internet collapse. It isn't just about pesky viruses or spam; it's about the fundamental architecture of the Internet itself, which is incredibly vulnerable to various internal attacks. Think of it like a frog in a pot of water. As the temperature slowly rises, the frog doesn't notice the change until the water starts boiling. If you dropped the frog straight into boiling water, it would jump out immediately. But because the heat builds up gradually, it ends up cooked. That’s exactly how it’s happening with the Internet.
In your view, who—or what—are the greatest enemies of the Internet?
- Hackers are really just the tip of the iceberg. The bigger threats are the professionals looking to turn a profit through extortion and industrial espionage. Criminals can hijack thousands upon thousands of computers using viruses to exploit vulnerabilities in commercial systems. With that kind of firepower, it wouldn't be hard to paralyze major corporations or even the infrastructure of entire nations. For instance, the entire American network could potentially be crippled by a botnet attack involving just ten thousand hijacked machines. If an attacker uses more subtle methods, a server often can't even distinguish between a legitimate user and a malicious bot.
Would banking systems also be at risk in your scenario of an endangered Internet?
- Absolutely, because our entire society and economy rely on the flow of money. By choking off that flow, attackers could destabilize entire countries. Here in the States, we've already seen instances where banks had to shut their doors for a day or two due to the threat of computer viruses—even when those viruses weren't specifically targeting them. During a scientific workshop back in April, expert Jon Mynther demonstrated just how fragile banking systems are, showing how criminals could theoretically block 26 major German banks at once.
Despite all your grim predictions, do you believe there is still hope for saving the Internet?
- It’s a bit of a toss-up. We might actually make things worse by trying to fix them. But honestly? The open Internet as we know it is on borrowed time. From the ashes of this free web, a "Secure Network" will rise. Picture virtual communities where small groups can actually talk without being drowned out by spam or targeted by hackers. There would likely be an Internet Highway Patrol to enforce the rules of the road. If you play by the rules, you’re safe; if you don't, you'll be caught. Your data stays private, and Big Brother won't be watching your every move, but they'll certainly be tracking your behavior.
If the Internet were to collapse, would the world revert to how things were twenty years ago? Or would this Secure Network successfully take its place?
- Because the Internet is either going to "die" or hit a massive wall, more and more companies are already retreating into closed networks, completely walled off from the public web. We can't just rewind twenty years—modern life wouldn't allow it. This means that if, or when, today's Internet fails, we'll find a way to survive, but the global economy is going to take a massive hit. We'd likely see a recession reminiscent of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Born from the fear of nuclear war

Is it true that the Internet was originally designed as a way to survive a potential nuclear strike?
- Exactly. At its core, the Internet was envisioned as a military network to support the American fight against communism during the Cold War. Since a nuclear exchange was one of the primary nightmare scenarios back then, Americans wanted a network capable of functioning both during and after such a conflict.
Chloe Hall89 Chloe Hall89 Newcomer
1 message
joined Nov 2004
#19 ·
parsifal says:
The year 2006 will witness the death of the Internet

THE DEATH OF THE INTERNET THREATENS
THE WORLD MORE THAN CHERNOBYL

If today's Internet were to collapse, the global economy would face catastrophic issues. We could see a recession similar to the one we saw in the 1920s.

written by Ivo Šćepanović

An American scientist, Hannah Kohl, has been making headlines globally over the last few days. Her prediction—that the Internet might meet its end in 2006—has certainly caused quite a stir, and the professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology actually sat down with the Los Angeles Times to clarify her stance.

-----------------------------------

It’s interesting, I have to admit... though the idea of a total "end" sounds a little paranoid to me, I suppose I generally agree with the possibility of the Web losing control and shifting toward becoming a more secure network. I'm not entirely sure it has to happen through some massive revolution or sudden crash, though; maybe a more gradual shift is happening where a secure network is already forming alongside the current one... in the near future, our current version of the Internet might just become a playground for amateurs, enthusiasts, eccentrics, and other "lower-tier beings," 🙂 while everyone else operates within their own specialized tiers—much like how things work in "real" life. And I think that's really the core of my point—that in the world of the Internet, only the virtuality is actually virtual; everything else is just as real as anything else that exists. 🙄
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#20 ·
hiddenpuma75 said:I was actually inspired by a discussion in another thread to start a little philosophical deep dive regarding the nature of the internet:

(To give you some context, here is how the debate between Mr. Pesica and hiddenpuma75 unfolded, which really sparked this whole idea)

hiddenpuma75:

Just so there isn’t any misunderstanding,😁 let me be clear about my stance!

I wasn't specifically backing Mr. Pesica (nor am I siding with his opponents),

but the role of a moderator...

seems unnecessary to me.
It feels pompous,
unfair (given that the true spirit of the internet is freedom!),
and frankly, quite authoritarian and patriarchal.

I’m not attacking the individual moderator here, but rather the function itself...

So many people never stop to realize they could live perfectly fine without

guardians,
moderators,
boundaries,
visas,
the military,
or even the government (most governments act like legalized mafia syndicates that meddle in people's wallets, bedrooms, and basic liberties through laws that restrict rather than empower).

Whether it’s the legal system,
sacred texts,
the church,
organizations,

or the STATE—with all its taxes and prisons—

and all those artificial authorities...

Most people possess a sort of slave-like, authoritarian mentality. They don't even question
the meaning or origin of the power structures that keep them shackled, much like a modern version of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

(And I’ve just listed some of the most glaring examples of that kind of subjugation above.)

******
Mr. Pesica: An anarchist! 🙂
_________________-
hiddenpuma75: quote:

Mr. Pes says:
An anarchist!
******

If you actually understood what the pioneers of anarchism wrote and proposed,

think of folks like Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Proudhon,

you would never use the word "anarchist" as a slur or in such a negative light again.

In fact, the wonder and essence of the INTERNET is a perfect manifestation of the visionary side of anarchist thought.👍

Great foundational ideas and terms, such as

magic
or anarchism,

have become infamous simply because of mass ignorance
and the ability of state apparatuses to suppress the truth.

It reminds me of how Hitler once admitted

that masses find it much easier to swallow massive lies than small truths.

(The fact that he was a political mastermind only further exposes the twisted nature of politics and the world we inhabit.)

Please understand that the greatest miracle of our age—the Internet—
is, at its core, an anarchist idea.😲

And I truly believe that in some cosmic diner at the end of the universe,😎
Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin will be happily🙂 sipping beers and celebrating how their visionary ideas finally spread.🙂

(Once our planet—this cosmic spaceship we’re all riding through the void of the universe—is organized around the principles of the internet, or the original anarchist ideal... that is when we will achieve true social harmony.)

__________________


The internet was originally built for military "necessity," and even today,
it primarily serves the military and the agencies
of repression and surveillance, all aimed at establishing
total control over every single individual.

The fact that we’re having fun here and picking up a few things along the way
is nothing more than bait to catch the fish.

Even Napoleon once noted that
bayonets are useful tools, but you can't exactly sit on them comfortably.
The people in power realized this long ago, so they’ve shifted toward
much softer methods of subjugation. To date, the internet is
the most perfect tool for mass control ever devised.


It’s nice to be an optimist, but personally, I find it too exhausting. 🙂

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads