My problem with this proposal is that it promotes the misconception of "the Internet" as some physical thing that can be used or changed, when I think we all understand by now that "the Internet" merely stands for the set of social conditions whereby instantaneous communication between any two computers is possible without intermediation, made possible by the universality of communication via TCP/IP and other protocols. There is simply no way to discard this set of social conditions now that the tools exist to implement them somewhere. What might occur is simply a permutation of the trend of consumers conceding freedom in exchange for of perceived security, which will take the form of closed and opaque protocols, kept secret and proprietary so that people will be "safe" from malware. It will likely be an inferior product, collect untold amounts of private data, and further lock consumers into whatever service offers it first.
-- RickSchwartz - 17 Feb 2009
I hope this isn't too presumptuous of me, but I've copied the conversation here and posted it to the Questions and Discussion page for the sake of consolidation. Obviously the conversation can continue here as well, but it might be easier for people to follow one page of changes.
-- RickSchwartz - 17 Feb 2009 |