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

I couldn't agree more...

We are drowning in an infinite ocean of data, yet somehow, ninety-five percent of the people surfing the web seem hell-bent on focusing exclusively on absolute nonsense. It feels like books are becoming relics of a bygone era because, let's face it, why bother reading when everything is being spoon-fed to us through a screen? Mass media just keeps getting louder and more invasive, doesn't it? We are rapidly turning into mental slaves to our own technology... it’s as if Huxley’s darkest nightmare is actually unfolding right before our eyes, and the most unsettling part isn't even the loss of freedom, but the fact that people won't even fight back against it... in fact, they'll probably welcome it with open arms.

Honestly, we saw some political action yesterday that just wouldn't have happened without the internet—I’m talking about those high school students protesting. Five years ago? No way anyone could've pulled that off (basically, if you weren't part of the "establishment").
As far as I can tell, this is the first time we've seen actual political movement in America that was totally fueled by being online. It might be a sign that these big "institutions" are starting to lose their grip (and that you don't necessarily need to be a member of them to make a political impact), shifting instead toward quick, grassroots networking to hit specific goals. 🤷

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.)

__________________

Regrettably, that isn't reality, nor is it even feasible.
It might work in some utopia populated by flawless beings, but perfection is a myth...

Some level of oversight has to exist everywhere, even if it’s minimal. Nothing is absolute, and frankly, nothing should be—not even freedom. Your liberty is valid and positive right up until it starts infringing on someone else's; it can't be limitless.

It would be wonderful if people simply followed their conscience and acted with decency and restraint without being forced to. But that's just not how the world works. We need something to protect us from violence, harassment, hate speech... there will always be those who exploit others, the strong against the weak.

There are endless examples proving that absolute freedom, even if it were attainable, would be dangerous, or at the very least, unjust, unnecessary, and profoundly selfish.

Just consider what this very forum would look like if there were no moderators at all? It would descend into pure chaos—insults, shouting matches, pointless chatter, spam, the usual mess. The forum wouldn't serve its purpose of facilitating a public discourse where everyone is invited to participate equally.

Or take a more tangible, historical example of unchecked freedom—laissez-faire economics, or the leave us alone approach. Total lack of economic regulation led us exactly where we are now...

Of course, I believe the internet revolution is one of the greatest shifts in human history and is vital for freedom of speech, thought, and general autonomy.
Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's completely unregulated; that's little more than an illusion...

Dennis Rogers6 said:I couldn't agree more...

We are drowning in an infinite ocean of data, yet somehow, ninety-five percent of the people surfing the web seem hell-bent on focusing exclusively on absolute nonsense. It feels like books are becoming relics of a bygone era because, let's face it, why bother reading when everything is being spoon-fed to us through a screen? Mass media just keeps getting louder and more invasive, doesn't it? We are rapidly turning into mental slaves to our own technology... it’s as if Huxley’s darkest nightmare is actually unfolding right before our eyes, and the most unsettling part isn't even the loss of freedom, but the fact that people won't even fight back against it... in fact, they'll probably welcome it with open arms.

I hear sentiments like this more and more lately, though I don't quite follow the logic. 😕

Personally, I love reading. I still make time for it whenever my schedule allows, completely independent of television or other media outlets (which, for the record, I barely watch at all)...

From what I can see, the people I know who used to be readers are still reading. Those who spend their lives staring blankly at a screen? They were never readers to begin with...

Sorry for drifting off-topic. 😳

mistyfox812 said:Honestly, we saw some political action yesterday that just wouldn't have happened without the internet—I’m talking about those high school students protesting. Five years ago? No way anyone could've pulled that off (basically, if you weren't part of the "establishment").
As far as I can tell, this is the first time we've seen actual political movement in America that was totally fueled by being online. It might be a sign that these big "institutions" are starting to lose their grip (and that you don't necessarily need to be a member of them to make a political impact), shifting instead toward quick, grassroots networking to hit specific goals. 🤷

👍
When you mix the power of the internet with that raw, youthful energy and rebellion, you get something that is just impossible to ignore!
There is actually quite a bit that people could take away from that protest by those students if they were willing to look...

Then there's the other side of things, where negativity seems to find its way to users much faster than anything else, but I suppose that just reinforces why every single person needs to start using their own brain and taking actual responsibility for their choices and what follows them...

the internet is just porn and masturbation, nothing else

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNJ7BZ7fwD0

swiftcobra15 said: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.😁

I always honestly assumed the whole point of the Internet was just to link up universities, thinking that was the core philosophy and the original reason it even existed, so I decided to do a little digging into the history... (Parsifal wrote about the history here too, but he didn't touch on what actually motivated the creation of the Internet or what its true initial purpose was, which is exactly what you pointed out, steelridge58).
DARPA was established back in 1958 right after the space race kicked off between the USSR and the USA following the launch of Sputnik 1, and one of the very first projects that agency tackled was finding a way to link radar systems all across the USA. Once they pulled that off, they realized just how massive the potential was for connecting computers, so eventually, a small office within the agency managed to link two universities together into a network in 1969, calling it ARPANET, which served as the precursor to the modern www.. web, and so on...

So, it really doesn't hold up to say that the Internet is inherently an anarchic idea in its essence and spirit (like Parsifal suggested in his first post... or if we look at the roots of anarchist thought—if those roots lie in an idea of power where the consequences wouldn't be felt by the person holding, or trying to grab, that power... which seems pretty obvious when you look at the actual origins and the driving motivations that allowed the Internet to develop in the first place).

Of course, I can't quite bridge that gap with us—the everyday users dealing with all the perks and headaches 🙂 regarding connectivity, communication, and access to information and such—but when we step back and look at the very beginning of its development, we see that the fundamental concept of networking was really about control and the power that comes from it. (?)

What is the fundamental necessity for the concept of "social engineering" in the first place...?

The fact that our society clearly requires reform is not a failure of society itself, but rather a reflection of us... the individuals who comprise it...

Attempting to "reorganize society" is merely a way of placating an opponent by addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause... This, I believe, is precisely how individuals find themselves slipping into a state of subjugation. People sense that a change is necessary, yet once they succumb to the thought that a single person cannot possibly reshape the entire nation, they simply abandon the pursuit and allow governments and massive corporations to dictate their destinies...

The task at hand should not be the restructuring of society itself, but rather the fundamental upbringing of its individual members... though I fear the internet can never fulfill such a role, nor was it ever designed for it. It remains merely a tool, much like any other instrument in our possession; a person breathes life into the internet through their own usage, just as they imbue an oil rig with purpose, function, or even the utility of a hammer...
The internet, whether viewed as a medium or merely a tool, possesses nothing more mystical, fascinating, or magical than a simple sewing needle...

It is far more efficient to implement changes on an individual basis rather than attempting a global overhaul... While geometric progression requires a certain amount of time to gain momentum, once that threshold is crossed, the impact becomes truly overwhelming...

The fundamental restructuring of society can only truly commence once a critical mass of disillusioned individuals begins to act... which ultimately brings us back to the individual as both the genesis of change and the root of our problems...

steelridge58 said:I always honestly assumed the whole point of the Internet was just to link up universities, thinking that was the core philosophy and the original reason it even existed, so I decided to do a little digging into the history... (Parsifal wrote about the history here too, but he didn't touch on what actually motivated the creation of the Internet or what its true initial purpose was, which is exactly what you pointed out, steelridge58).
DARPA was established back in 1958 right after the space race kicked off between the USSR and the USA following the launch of Sputnik 1, and one of the very first projects that agency tackled was finding a way to link radar systems all across the USA. Once they pulled that off, they realized just how massive the potential was for connecting computers, so eventually, a small office within the agency managed to link two universities together into a network in 1969, calling it ARPANET, which served as the precursor to the modern www.. web, and so on...

So, it really doesn't hold up to say that the Internet is inherently an anarchic idea in its essence and spirit (like Parsifal suggested in his first post... or if we look at the roots of anarchist thought—if those roots lie in an idea of power where the consequences wouldn't be felt by the person holding, or trying to grab, that power... which seems pretty obvious when you look at the actual origins and the driving motivations that allowed the Internet to develop in the first place).

Of course, I can't quite bridge that gap with us—the everyday users dealing with all the perks and headaches 🙂 regarding connectivity, communication, and access to information and such—but when we step back and look at the very beginning of its development, we see that the fundamental concept of networking was really about control and the power that comes from it. (?)

But look, we shouldn't focus on who originally kicked off the internet or what their motives were; instead, we need to look at how the net actually EVOLVED
That’s exactly my point. Look at what it is in the USA today!
(It’s pretty obvious that "the Net has a Budweiser nature" 🙂—meaning the web essentially "evolved on its own" and escaped the grasp of those initial, short-sighted ideas.)

The Internet functions as an "entity" that possesses all the hallmarks of a SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEM where order exists without the need for control, authority, or centralization.

We see harmony emerging naturally, without the massive overreach and coercion we often see when the government apparatus is abused.
In reality, nobody truly owns the internet, and no single entity can simply switch it off. 🙂
(Anarchism is fundamentally right about this, and it deeply challenges our assumptions regarding ownership. As the internet proves, mutual cooperation
and generosity can thrive perfectly fine without any notion of "ownership," specific owners, or a thousand different laws.)

(And honestly, that is one of the grand, bold, and clearly achievable ideals of anarchism. 🙂

hiddenpuma75 said:But look, we shouldn't focus on who originally kicked off the internet or what their motives were; instead, we need to look at how the net actually EVOLVED
That’s exactly my point. Look at what it is in the USA today!
(It’s pretty obvious that "the Net has a Budweiser nature" 🙂—meaning the web essentially "evolved on its own" and escaped the grasp of those initial, short-sighted ideas.)

The Internet functions as an "entity" that possesses all the hallmarks of a SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEM where order exists without the need for control, authority, or centralization.

We see harmony emerging naturally, without the massive overreach and coercion we often see when the government apparatus is abused.
In reality, nobody truly owns the internet, and no single entity can simply switch it off. 🙂
(Anarchism is fundamentally right about this, and it deeply challenges our assumptions regarding ownership. As the internet proves, mutual cooperation
and generosity can thrive perfectly fine without any notion of "ownership," specific owners, or a thousand different laws.)

(And honestly, that is one of the grand, bold, and clearly achievable ideals of anarchism. 🙂

I just can't help but look at who kicked this all off and why. 🙂 That said, I wouldn't dream of making any definitive claims about something I don't feel I understand deeply enough to speak on with total certainty.
That comparison you made about the Net having a Budweiser nature is probably the kind of thing that would get you smacked with a bamboo stick... 🙂 though I can't say for sure.
As for this idea of a self-organizing system where order exists without control—something we might actually want to apply to how we run society—it makes me think a bit about anarchy, because from my perspective, if we're talking about a self-organizing system like that... it would require every single individual to possess the same level of critical thinking and competence, so if everyone actually had that, we wouldn't even need any form of control.

So, about anarchy:
Every mystic is essentially a vessel for anarchy.
An "anarchist" is really just an observer who sees things for what they truly are, rather than how tradition dictates they should be seen.
They actually take the time to think about it.

Reading what the "father of the internet" has to say about his child today really brings me back. It makes me reflect on this exact topic that I first brought up years ago—back when I was much younger, much more handsome, and significantly more naive. 🙂

The recent deep dive by *The Economist* regarding the revolving door between Washington’s regulatory agencies and the massive corporations they oversee is honestly a bit sobering. It lays out a pattern that many of us have suspected for years: the lines between the people writing the rules and the people profiting from them are becoming increasingly blurred. It isn't just about a few rogue individuals looking for a payday; it's about a systemic loop where high-level officials move from government roles straight into lucrative lobbying positions at firms like Goldman Sachs or Lockheed Martin, only to circle back into policy advisory roles later. This "insider" culture creates a feedback loop that can prioritize corporate interests over the public good, often without anyone even realizing how much influence is being traded behind closed doors. While it’s easy to get cynical, reading this makes you realize that the issue isn't just "corruption" in the Hollywood sense—it’s more subtle and structural. It’s about how expertise is commodified. When the person regulating an industry is the same person who spent a decade running a division within that industry, can we truly expect impartial oversight? I find myself wondering if there's any realistic way to break this cycle without fundamental legislative reform. We talk a lot about transparency, but knowing that the revolving door exists doesn't necessarily stop the door from spinning. It’s a complex, messy reality of American governance that deserves far more scrutiny than it currently gets.

It’s actually pretty interesting to see that he isn't exactly thrilled with his son—or daughter, for that matter. 🤔 ...or perhaps even some kind of gender-neutral being altogether.

With an abundance of charts that—let’s be honest—probably won't impress anyone else, this is my attempt at diving deep into the massive complications currently facing the website.

How do you all view this whole situation through a philosophical, sociological, and cognitive-behavioral lens? 🙄 It’s all about perspective...

If you ask me, isn't the title of this thread and those first two introductory posts—especially those specific points made by hiddenpuma75 in posts 12 and 15—all pointing toward the same thing?

It’s nothing short of genius. 🙂

I have the impression that the internet is simultaneously bringing us closer together and pulling us further apart.

The internet serves those with wisdom—it’s a tool—but for the foolish, it can be quite dangerous...
Much like any other instrument—a chef's knife, high-voltage electricity, a Harley, or even a fine glass of bourbon...

Eric Schmidt:

The Internet is essentially the first thing humanity has ever constructed without actually understanding how it works. It’s easily the most massive experiment in anarchy we've ever attempted.

Nikola Tesla

When wireless technology is applied perfectly, the entire planet will be transformed into one massive, interconnected brain.

This discussion really needs to focus more on Marshall McLuhan—who, I noticed, hasn't been mentioned at all, which isn't surprising—and his concept of the global village. For anyone looking to get acquainted with him, I’d suggest picking up a book by Douglas Coupland.

A quick summary via Wikipedia:

McLuhan is perhaps best known for his catchphrase "the medium is the message" and the term "global village." He actually predicted the internet and the World Wide Web decades before they were discovered. He reached the height of his fame in the 1960s, but was largely forgotten shortly after his death. With the arrival of the internet, McLuhan resurfaced from obscurity, sparking a renewed interest in his work. Source: wiki.

After publishing *Understanding Media*, McLuhan achieved worldwide fame, though he was quickly sidelined following his passing. However, his ideas and works have been revitalized by the information revolution. To a new generation of hackers, journalists, and theorists, McLuhan's legacy is often described as something almost religious or prophetic. Source: wiki.

Man, he understood the internet. He basically *was* the internet back in the sixties. The world is finally catching up to him now. In that sense, he was "online"—he was in touch with the entire world... He was connected long before the editors at > were even born. He was truly connected. Source: wiki.

While he occasionally expressed doubt regarding the impact of media on civilization, McLuhan was deeply convinced that the electronic age creates spaces akin to spiritual connections between humans and gods—much like the faith people immerse themselves in without question or critique. Source: wiki.

We are rapidly approaching the final stage of human extensions—a technological simulation of consciousness where the creative process of knowledge will collectively encompass all of human society, just as we have already extended our senses and limbs through various media. Source: wiki.

In 1993, > adopted McLuhan as their "patron saint." McLuhan was using the term "surfing" nearly forty years ago, and his theses on mass media feel more relevant in the internet age than ever. This professor is now considered a classic in media studies. Source: wiki.

velvetbear372 said:This discussion really needs to focus more on Marshall McLuhan—who, I noticed, hasn't been mentioned at all, which isn't surprising—and his concept of the global village. For anyone looking to get acquainted with him, I’d suggest picking up a book by Douglas Coupland.

A quick summary via Wikipedia:

McLuhan is perhaps best known for his catchphrase "the medium is the message" and the term "global village." He actually predicted the internet and the World Wide Web decades before they were discovered. He reached the height of his fame in the 1960s, but was largely forgotten shortly after his death. With the arrival of the internet, McLuhan resurfaced from obscurity, sparking a renewed interest in his work. Source: wiki.

After publishing *Understanding Media*, McLuhan achieved worldwide fame, though he was quickly sidelined following his passing. However, his ideas and works have been revitalized by the information revolution. To a new generation of hackers, journalists, and theorists, McLuhan's legacy is often described as something almost religious or prophetic. Source: wiki.

Man, he understood the internet. He basically *was* the internet back in the sixties. The world is finally catching up to him now. In that sense, he was "online"—he was in touch with the entire world... He was connected long before the editors at > were even born. He was truly connected. Source: wiki.

While he occasionally expressed doubt regarding the impact of media on civilization, McLuhan was deeply convinced that the electronic age creates spaces akin to spiritual connections between humans and gods—much like the faith people immerse themselves in without question or critique. Source: wiki.

We are rapidly approaching the final stage of human extensions—a technological simulation of consciousness where the creative process of knowledge will collectively encompass all of human society, just as we have already extended our senses and limbs through various media. Source: wiki.

In 1993, > adopted McLuhan as their "patron saint." McLuhan was using the term "surfing" nearly forty years ago, and his theses on mass media feel more relevant in the internet age than ever. This professor is now considered a classic in media studies. Source: wiki.

Humans have this unique ability to think abstractly, which sets us apart from the animal kingdom. It’s that capacity to grasp the underlying essence of reality, looking right past our own sensory limitations and the basic ways we perceive the world. Because of that, we don't just settle for what we can touch or see; we build technology to serve as extensions of ourselves. We create microscopes and particle accelerators to push the boundaries of our sight and understanding, and we build cars and airplanes as literal prosthetics for our physical movement. We even go as far as constructing entirely new versions of reality through the media we consume—kind of like how Quote : McLuhan famously argued that the medium itself is the message, giving rise to the whole concept of the global village.

izvor: Sigmund, forum.hr, 2016.

Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

crimsonseal15 said:Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

In what sense, exactly?

crimsonseal15 said:Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

It’s essentially an extension of our nervous system—a digital prosthetic, if you will—that doubles as a medium for constructing reality itself.

crimsonseal15 said:Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

So, we’re really going to sit here and debate the entire foundation of the monetary system? It feels a bit like trying to argue about the structural integrity of a skyscraper while standing in the lobby, wondering if the concrete was mixed correctly. It’s a massive, sweeping concept that most people only notice when the floor starts shaking under their feet.

crimsonseal15 said:Amanda Jackson5, do you think technology can actually be something more than just a tool? Why wouldn't it be? What would the internet even represent—maybe an extension of our own memory? And what kind of system is Bitcoin an extension of?

To put it simply, when we throw a die in a game of Craps, is the die just a tool, or have we become tools of the die because we're forced to act however it dictates?

I don't think that analogy actually holds water, mostly because there are just too many moving parts that don't line up.

Amanda Jackson5 said:In what sense, exactly?

It’s essentially an extension of our nervous system—a digital prosthetic, if you will—that doubles as a medium for constructing reality itself.

So, we’re really going to sit here and debate the entire foundation of the monetary system? It feels a bit like trying to argue about the structural integrity of a skyscraper while standing in the lobby, wondering if the concrete was mixed correctly. It’s a massive, sweeping concept that most people only notice when the floor starts shaking under their feet.

I don't think that analogy actually holds water, mostly because there are just too many moving parts that don't line up.

I mean, whether the technology views us as its tool or as an extension of itself. Think of it like a Monopoly piece being used by players during a game—it doesn't feel any resentment about it. Or like those old "Russian reversal" jokes where the situation flips on you.