While I wish a different phrase than “The Internet” was being used, I agree with the intention of the article.
I believe we are still talking about media concentration. While the underlying technology of “The Internet” was neutral, specific policies were put in place (many based on the USA’s National Information Infrastructure Task Force under Bill Clinton) that recreated the traditional centralized media landscape but without the regulation that previously existed.
While I spent decades opposing the NII policy as it was being pushed onto Canada (through policy laundering/etc — all within the Clinton era, for those who think policies that benefit the right-wing were Republican rather than simply the USA), I saw how existing concentrated media in many countries pushed to ensure that what they were calling “New Media” would become even more concentrated than traditional media.
I wish appropriate regulation would come forward, but from what I’ve seen the confusion that the problem is “The Internet” rather than “media concentration” will cause Anglosphere (and beyond) regulation to make the problem worse.
good points. i think both can be true. while media concentration is indeed an issue within the internet, i don't believe the internet was a neutral technology when it was created. it was essentially a military technology used for spying that was then privatized and handed over to silicon valley from the get go. while the underlying technology itself might in a theoretical sense be neutral, the way it was developed into what it is today wasn't.
I believe we are agreeing, even if we might chose to use different language.
I'm an IT person, so was talking about TCP/IP and related protocols as the technology. That technology was for reliable communication (packet switching vs circuit switching, OSI layers, etc) enabling link redundancy, and not optimized for use for spying or military applications.
How specifically the US governments (and thus corporations created/regulated/etc by those governments) deployed this technology was never neutral, any more than how these governments (Anglosphere is my focus as someone living under the Canadian governments) deploy any other technology within the narrow ideological/political/etc frames of these nation-states.
I don't believe any technology deployed within the context of Canada or the USA is "neutral".
thank you for articulating why i find it so freaky when people around me (myself included) start using internet slang as though it’s a natural part of their vocabulary. we are not YAPPERS we are people who enjoy conversation with each other for the love of all that is humanly textured, and so on. the homogenization of our language is chilling not cute.
This article is extremely on point on what we are currently living through, and with the rise of AI it is only going to get worse. We need to start supporting our local libraries and other sources of human knowledge.
While I wish a different phrase than “The Internet” was being used, I agree with the intention of the article.
I believe we are still talking about media concentration. While the underlying technology of “The Internet” was neutral, specific policies were put in place (many based on the USA’s National Information Infrastructure Task Force under Bill Clinton) that recreated the traditional centralized media landscape but without the regulation that previously existed.
While I spent decades opposing the NII policy as it was being pushed onto Canada (through policy laundering/etc — all within the Clinton era, for those who think policies that benefit the right-wing were Republican rather than simply the USA), I saw how existing concentrated media in many countries pushed to ensure that what they were calling “New Media” would become even more concentrated than traditional media.
I wish appropriate regulation would come forward, but from what I’ve seen the confusion that the problem is “The Internet” rather than “media concentration” will cause Anglosphere (and beyond) regulation to make the problem worse.
good points. i think both can be true. while media concentration is indeed an issue within the internet, i don't believe the internet was a neutral technology when it was created. it was essentially a military technology used for spying that was then privatized and handed over to silicon valley from the get go. while the underlying technology itself might in a theoretical sense be neutral, the way it was developed into what it is today wasn't.
I believe we are agreeing, even if we might chose to use different language.
I'm an IT person, so was talking about TCP/IP and related protocols as the technology. That technology was for reliable communication (packet switching vs circuit switching, OSI layers, etc) enabling link redundancy, and not optimized for use for spying or military applications.
How specifically the US governments (and thus corporations created/regulated/etc by those governments) deployed this technology was never neutral, any more than how these governments (Anglosphere is my focus as someone living under the Canadian governments) deploy any other technology within the narrow ideological/political/etc frames of these nation-states.
I don't believe any technology deployed within the context of Canada or the USA is "neutral".
thank you for articulating why i find it so freaky when people around me (myself included) start using internet slang as though it’s a natural part of their vocabulary. we are not YAPPERS we are people who enjoy conversation with each other for the love of all that is humanly textured, and so on. the homogenization of our language is chilling not cute.
this is genuinely terrifying
This article is extremely on point on what we are currently living through, and with the rise of AI it is only going to get worse. We need to start supporting our local libraries and other sources of human knowledge.