I guess the question that occupies my mind a lot these days is:
Can we build a healthy, positive, life-affirming Internet?
I feel like large parts of our Internet infrastructure are toxic to mental health and social freedom and were designed that way on purpose, because the system seeks money, and you get more money by controlling people than by allowing them to flourish and reach their full potential. This has always been capitalism's big problem (and socialism's too).
@natecull The real issue is technological change outpacing society's speed of adaptation.
As environments change, people develop etiquette, laws, religious traditions & stories to pass on what behaviours work & which values we need to remember.
Companies have just been responding to what's favoured by the social, legal and social context. So there's a feedback loop with both positive and negative consequences.
Maybe we need to increase the rate of social response.
I don't really buy this. Technological change has slowed down substantially since its peak in the 70s (to the point that most of what we, as individuals and even as early-adopters, run into as 'new' technology' is really 70s tech that finally became profitable), & smaller groups had bigger shifts in tech for decades.
We *are* seeing the effects of certain tech at a larger scale than before, but mostly, we're seeing the effects of capital-amplifiers.
There's no qualitative change happening in, say, ad targeting. Ad targeting works exactly the same way it did in 1995 (and exactly the same way folks were expecting it to eventually start working in the 70s, when computers & statistics were first being applied to the problem).
There's a quantitative change happening, which is that we reached the physics-theoretic peak of speed for integrated circuits 15 years ago, & we're working on getting everybody on the grid.
And until that bubble collapses (which nobody really wants, because it'll take the global economy with it, because most of the economy is just gambling on futures of futures of futures of ad valuations for novelty t-shirts and other trash), the reaction is that everybody in that industry doubles-down and makes promises about how they'll get two tenths of one percent more likelihood of a sale from three gigs more targeting data per person.
This isn't a 'new' phenomenon at all. It's the inevitable result of following the original 1970s script. And, you'll find people -- not even necessarily terribly technical people, but essayists and science fiction authors -- writing in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, about this script and talking about its end-game (which we are living through) because all it takes to predict it is an unwillingness to buy into the hype.
@enkiv2 @natecull Some parts of the dystopian imagination of the 70s and so on were well conceived, like John Brunner's idea that the successful modern humans would be the ones best at adapting to hyper rapid change, or his prescient ideas about crowdsourcing knowledge.
But those visions are always lopsided, seeing one set of forces without anticipating the counterforces equally well.
The 1920s reference is something I've been thinking about too. It feels like we're in a very similar spot.
In some ways, the smartphone is just the final (or interim) delivery on what 'radio' promised in the 1920s. Took a while to get batteries, transmitters, aerials, small enough, and then layering computers over the top was something nobody quite imagined then. But the definite feeling was in the air. "what if... telecommunication?"
@natecull @byron @enkiv2
In my humble opinion, there's a lot of exploration to do, but we are stuck in this post-PC phase where the convenience of having our systems online & available outweigh the apparent advantages of having computing be personal, be thing we can change & control & orchestrate & customize.
We are all trapped, bound to online cloud mainframes that offer us only a small slice of the world they contain & computer, where all powers we receive must be baked into the application layer & there is no cloud os we can expect.
The challenge seems obvious, that we are all online, but supplicants. We could have a million responses to disinformation, to bad actors, try & discover what works to grow healthily together, but we are locked onto these giant properties, reliant on them to give us all tools & systems for socialization about this hostile environment. We must begin to be of our own minds, bring our own minds online. #noospherics
> John Brunner's idea that the successful modern humans would be the ones best at adapting to hyper rapid change, or his prescient ideas about crowdsourcing knowledge.
> But those visions are always lopsided, seeing one set of forces without anticipating the counterforces equally well.
But right now there are less than a dozen corporations who have their own cloud, who have the basis to begin to adapt & explore & adventure. The rest of us monkeys scratching about in the dirt can use these tools to advance ourselves, but at great expense, & with limited control & greatly restricted understanding. For corporations, these restraints are not so bad, but the de-personalization places a hard limit on the individual & their expression & adaption.
Still, it *must* be a short-term solution. I'd love to see a growth of mesh computing, both physical networks (wifi) and P2P cloud computing.
The value of CPU time keeps dropping right? If you could sell spare CPU cycles to a P2P cloud network and it ran your computer down a little faster, you'd come out ahead.
And we'd get cloud computing power without the monopolies.
Centralization creates economies of scale that are only useful when centralizing. A little bit of duplication, properly distributed, is not noticeable to those who it is distributed to, while duplication of the whole of a network's data by some centralized owner can easily bankrupt the owner. I don't see why we should bother with this centralization at all. We have the tech to avoid it.
If you are already centralized, there are structural incentives to double down and become even more centralized, and economies of scale are part of that.
If you are not centralized (not even federated), then none of that stuff applies. Much easier to run everything off a raspberry pi hooked up to the wifi of the coffee shop down the street than pay amazon to let you access their nightmare of overlapping security groups.
As soon as you admit any centralization (even so much as a client-server model), you're trapped by an inevitable logic that leads you to exactly the things we are complaining about in "big tech", & you either go all the way and become the bad guy or you fail earlier.
If you avoid that centralization, however, you've got a lot of flexibility in creating and responding to incentives. You don't need to get subsumed by capital.
I really hope this is true! I've always *felt* it to be true, even way back in the 80s era of cassette tapes and modem BBSes. It always felt like we were the pioneers of a new underground and there was this vast potential for radical decentralisation.
but, lol, I spent all my time online downloading games, and most of my programming time making games, and not even great games. And now I don't even do much programming and what little I do seems to be harder
They're linked, though.
Back in the day, the go-to explanations for why users didn't have control over application behavior were:
* "our source code is a valuable business secret, and keeping it secret makes us better than competitors"
* "interpreted languages are too slow"
* "end users can't be trusted with compilers"
All of that is clearly bullshit or irrelevant no.
But a corporation can still take their local modifications of open source code, stick it on a machine they own or rent, and write some interpreted code to interface with it -- and boom! web app, which they can modify whenever they want and which end users can't even see the whole of.
Mandatory network connection is part of keeping users away from meaningful control of these systems.
(This is, in fact, to some degree intentional, as you can see from the geneaology. The first applications to require unnecessary always-on internet, way back in the 90s, were expensive CAD systems like Maya that used this for DRM -- checking for simultaneous license use from different machines.)