Pretty thought provoking. It ties into my view that a free internet is a major democratizing force (like the next stepping stone after printing): anyone may speak up, anyone may distribute knowledge, it spreads at near light speed. And possibly, given an initial investment, basically for free. This is very powerful, which is why I don't approve of the glorification of the developments in many governments or Silicon Valley or elsewhere. A walled internet is just as powerful as an open one, but in the wrong direction.
This is really exciting, feels like open standards, independent internet is going to continue getting extreme motivation to expand and establish, with private "freedom of speech" censorship by for-profit platforms.
We're going to see more fragmentation, and growth of closed platforms perceived by users as "slightly less evil" such as telegram vs watsapp. This may also motivate the return to truly open internet ideals of the past.
The bright side is that information wants to be free. If one day we have a closed web on a two-tier Internet, there will always be a group of people wanting to make it work like the old way. Unless they somehow made it illegal, the libre internet with an open ecosystem will always be available.
Yep. Personally, I want a free and open internet. Mainly because I've noticed a trend where social media sites have started censoring anything except far-left opinions.
I don't know. Given that the free internet gave us the likes of 4chan, things are changing in the other direction for a reason. It's kind of unclear to me whether the pendulum is ready to swing back towards lack of oversight again.
In a way it is ironic. Twenty years ago, the great fear was that governments would regulate the internet. Now we hope that the governments will regulate the internet.
This gives me some hope in the face of the seemingly endless proposed bills to censor the Web. Information seeks the light. A free Internet will prove more useful to society than marginal gains to business and security guaranteed by mandatory moderation.
It's true my first reaction was against internet regulation. If it ain't broke... However, I read his statement, and his decision seems well considered. And, the regulations are in the direction of ensuring openness. My biggest concern is that now that there is regulation, it can go in any direction in the future.
Disagree as these internet "reforms" are often only paid lip service, make it harder to build new products, and in practice are rarely enforced anyways. The other obvious trend, as I alluded to previously, is people just claiming something is a step in the right direction based on intent instead of reality. There are lots of ways to make steps in the right direction and these legislative approaches are heavy handed and harmful towards providers with little user benefit.
The Internet is enabling a government of the people for the first time since our population exploded in the last century.
Things are bad right now, but they're getting better. As long as the Internet remains an open and free place, society as a whole will continue to progress and grow at a faster and faster pace.
Seems like open expression is an important requirement of an open internet.
Not sure if that’s in one of the 10 or not there because it conflicts with their ad revenue (ie, open expression doesn’t mesh with ads), or conflicts with authoritarian regimes (eg, Great Firewall of China), or conflicts with “language is violence” or conflicts with “nudity offends me” or something else.
It seems like one of the big things at risk now is the ability of the internet to allow direct connections between people without intermediaries. I feel like standards bodies kind of help with this (ie, protocols over platforms).
This isn't a binary choice between a fully state controlled internet and a fully free and open internet. There is a spectrum. I believe the ideal internet rests much closer to the free and open side than the state controlled side, but existing at the extreme of free and open would be come with its own set of problems. Just look at all the most popular places on the web that champion their lack of censorship or moderation. Most of them end up as cesspools.
I would be inclined to agree, though whether that shows more the problems with liberal democracies and free markets or with the internet is still to decide.
Going forward, this will make achieving true neutrality more of an uphill battle than ever.
How so? Most change and reform happens incrementally, rather than in a big-bang revolution. Yes, this particular set of rules may not get us to the ideal set of policies for the Internet, but it is an improvement on the current condition. If the new rules are wanting, push for further change.
Whatever the case, we live in interesting times.
reply