This article is confusing or confused. It conflates the people and companies that use the internet with the network itself, and then supports its argument that the internet is splitting by talking about what's going on with TV networks. There's a lot of division going on in America, but I think they've failed to see its shape.
Half of Americans do not identify with either major party. They are not nearly as "split" as the partisans that try to control the political discourse.
First 8chan, then Parler. Tomorrow it might be you.<p>At some point the service providers have to be able to stand on a utility status and provide equal access to all comers.
The hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in this article is a bit much. Is America splitting by sexuality because different dating apps and media properties are popular with each group? Some balkanization is inevitable when systems with network effects and low initial switching costs serve a heterogenous population.
simple minds are attracted to simple "realizations" .. the Internet by definition has hundreds of dimensions of "splitting" .. someone call the Principal Component Analysis crew and give these journalists a time-out.
"America's internet"<p>The first two words of the headline are wrong. Applications are not the <i>I</i>nternet. This must be some kind of record for HN headlines.
The picture implies a segregation way below the app/social media tier, into the space where the right-oriented xSPs (x = M, I, etc.) and large network providers of such orientation will no longer advertise their IP space outside their own routing areas, with maybe some exceptions for common/shared services (financials, gov, transportation, logistics, supply chains, etc., etc.), and also blackhole the left ones, and the other way around. The right-oriented networks could expand to include the to-be-new Russian IP space, maybe bringing along North Korea, Belarus and the likes. Firewalls could also be built, between right and left, where some [tightly controlled] traffic will be necessary. Interesting times ahead ...
idk I don't have data to back this, but I feel like the Internet was always split between "party lines". You can always find what you want to find on the Internet, regardless of whether it's "right" or "wrong."<p>Hell, Google Maps represents countries completely differently depending on where you're using the product. Hell, Google isn't even really a thing in China! That's a huge part of Western internet that is represented completely differently elsewhere.
Well, when the media and politicians work so hard to keep American’s disagreeing, and then hating one another, this is bound to happen. The media, the corporate owned cable television streaming media, is the enemy of the people.
This is where censorship and propaganda leads.<p>The split is as much of (or more) a reaction to Big Tech and Big Media collusion than it is political. If truth and discourse weren't censored there would be no need for this.<p>Customers should boycott products they disagree with or that are opposed to their beliefs. New companies springing up to meet the market demand is capitalism working as expected. A monopoly of companies controlling public free speech is not.
I'm not that familiar with axios but by the looks of things they are left-wing. Left of center for sure.<p>This is important context because it's wonderful to see their point of view for what is going down.<p>They are focusing on dailywire vs disney and other symptoms of the problem.<p>>Progressives are focused on making sure that the existing media and online platforms crack down on misinformation.<p>But who gets to define what is misinformation. Obviously progressives have taken this upon themselves to define.<p>>Conservatives increasingly feel disenfranchised by media from mainstream news outlets to social platforms and have begun to invest in alternatives.<p>because of... oh wait we just discussed it. Progressives have taken it upon themselves to define what is misinformation and are censoring conservatives. The conservatives then look at their criticisms fairly. Lab Leak was misinformation and censored. Oh wait that's pretty much fact now. Hunter Biden's laptop suddenly found to be legit? Nope, misinformation and needs to be censored.<p>And they are investing in alternatives? No no. that was years ago. There's now a dozen that are self-sufficient and better yet, growing to the size they are unstoppable.<p>The progressives who were pretty happy to censor legitimate stories are now pissed off they suddenly have no power anymore. They can't get on parler and censor their 'misinformation' stories.<p>>On the right, Donald Trump's new social network, which is struggling to launch<p>Shrug? It was years late. It's not even a big contender at all.<p>>Conservative billionaire Rebekah Mercer co-founded and funded conservative Twitter alternative Parler.<p>Yes but oh look again those progressives tried to cancel parler as well. Parler going offline for awhile kind of killed it.<p>>Media companies and online platforms in the past have thrived by serving as big an audience as possible without regard to political bent.<p>Who is creating this split? One side takes sole blame here.<p>>Zoom out: Since the aftermath of the January 6th Capitol riot when most internet companies de-platformed former President Donald Trump, conservatives have been aggressively building out alternative communications infrastructure, including their own cloud storage and cryptocurrency companies.<p>You're starting to see the picture. You dont even see 1/4 of the picture year but you're starting to see it.<p>>The bottom line: As this trend continues, companies that have long positioned themselves as apolitical will face overwhelming pressure to choose sides.<p>This doesn't make sense. You can be on twitter and parler at the same time. You dont have to pick sides. Companies that are apolitical can continue to do so.<p>In fact, what's more important is to see why they even say this. It's the same reason this article doesn't even name the actual replacements. They want to say Trump's new network is floundering. Attack, attack, attack.<p>The 'progressives' built their platforms on the backs of everyone and then ejected the right. Then are now angry that the conservatives didn't just roll over and die? What did you think would happen?
At least we have an Internet. Imagine the bad old days of the 1980s when everyone had to get their news from CNN! For all the bellyaching conservatives do the fact is that information is freer today than it was in the past. Ultimately we all found out about Hunter Biden’s laptop notwithstanding the Facebook and Twitter blackout. (And when it turned out to be real, I’m sure the Facebook and Twitter censors felt shame, at least the ones who are capable of feeling shame.) That wouldn’t have been true 30 years ago.
There was a time when most papers in Norway were party papers. And it was totally fine! The reason for it being totally fine was because you'd already know where the paper stood on a certain topic, and with whom. And so when you read an article from that sender, with that very clear affiliation, you could ironically also trust them more, because you would be weary of any attempts of manipulation beforehand, and perhaps you'd even know their "tribal language" as it were. And so it would be much easier to decide for yourself whether it was something you'd believe in, or concern yourself with, or react to. Those who were hardcore "tribalists" would of course only read "their" party's papers, but those who wanted a more balanced view, would simply buy papers from the other parties. For that reason most households would hold several papers from different, and often opposing parties in order to stay up to date. So if the USA's web pages are tribalizing, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, because you can always just peek at the competition to get a more even view on things. With that said, it still <i>is</i> a bad thing if our collective "town squares" are monopolized by just one side. That's why I remain positive to Elon Musk's majority buy-up of Twitter stocks, knowing that he's a free speech absolutist. Whether it'll be "good for Twitter" remains to be seen, however I remain hopeful.