TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Review of Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future

211 pointsby doctorshadyalmost 3 years ago

30 comments

roenxialmost 3 years ago
The article is a bit vague on the actual arguments. This quote deserves special consideration:<p>&gt; &quot;A privatized internet will always amount to the rule of the many by the few&quot;<p>Giving control to the government is rather explicitly giving control to the few - the government is busy responding to issues voters see as key (eg, inflation, war, environmental concerns, skirmishes between different political groups, etc). Unless a voter is willing (and stupid enough) to prioritise cheap internet access above the important issues then public internet is just asking for regulatory capture.<p>The government doesn&#x27;t have the bandwidth to do what this quote implies they can. It will just result in an incompetent, politically connected few in control. We know there is a group who are willing to get involved in corrupting the regulations - it is the people currently profiting off poor internet regulation. How many people are going to use voting as a signal for their displeasure in corruption of a Board of the Internet?
评论 #31778678 未加载
评论 #31780104 未加载
评论 #31774207 未加载
评论 #31774533 未加载
评论 #31776916 未加载
评论 #31778500 未加载
评论 #31774823 未加载
评论 #31780236 未加载
评论 #31778585 未加载
评论 #31775185 未加载
评论 #31774385 未加载
AlbertCoryalmost 3 years ago
In 1990, the federal government released a new version of GOSIP, which required that vendors demonstrate compliance with the OSI suite of protocols. These would really have been the &quot;public internet&quot; with standards agreed upon by international bodies, and voting by country. The large telephone companies, in many countries government-regulated monopolies, expected to run it, as they did telephone service.<p>I actually kicked off a lengthy thread on the internet-history mailing list about this, and the conclusion was that by 1990, the war was already over and TCP had won.<p>Network operators said, in effect, &quot;OK, we support OSI. But GOSIP doesn&#x27;t say we actually have to <i>run</i> it on our network.&quot;<p>One guy from The Wollongong Group said that his company offered a package to assist in converting from TCP to OSI, since obviously everyone would have to do it. They found that in Europe, supposedly the hotbed of international standards, there was only demand for a package to convert the other way: OSI --&gt; TCP.<p>Note that this is not an object lesson proving either that &quot;government works&quot; OR &quot;government always screws things up.&quot;<p>The reason TCP worked and OSI didn&#x27;t was that regular engineers and grad students and postdocs, not politicians and big telecoms, built it. One reason they had such success is that the Defense Department applied time pressure: &quot;give us something that works <i>now</i>, not in the glorious future.&quot; So that&#x27;s also the government -- just a different part of it.
评论 #31780252 未加载
WalterBrightalmost 3 years ago
&quot;Take the protocols that allow these various networks to communicate with one another and eventually produced TCP&#x2F;IP. “Under private ownership, such a language could never have been created,” writes Tarnoff.&quot;<p>Um, networks communicating with each other was commonplace in those days, they were called &quot;gateways&quot;.<p>Also, there were many privately developed networks, like the bulletin board system, that were global.<p>The internet also runs on Ethernet - all those internet cables you&#x27;ve got laying around are Ethernet, developed by Xerox.
评论 #31779990 未加载
评论 #31775317 未加载
评论 #31783286 未加载
bmmayer1almost 3 years ago
&gt; we need a publicly owned internet.<p>Ok, I&#x27;ll bite.<p>The privatized internet has failed us...compared to what?<p>There&#x27;s two prime examples of a publicly owned internet in the world today. One is run by the CCP and is sardonically known as the Great Firewall of China. The other is the state-run intranet of North Korea.<p>Do we really think that these are desirable alternatives to a privately run and distributed internet where unfortunately some people say and do crazy things, and some internet providers happen to have geographical monopolies that really have nothing to do with the internet in the first place but local protectionism?<p>Come on.
评论 #31773933 未加载
评论 #31774186 未加载
评论 #31774738 未加载
评论 #31777959 未加载
评论 #31774056 未加载
评论 #31774231 未加载
评论 #31774016 未加载
评论 #31774060 未加载
评论 #31775747 未加载
Gentilalmost 3 years ago
OK. This is a good article. But the title of the blog post is misleading. The author is talking about the privatized internet as in the <i>infrastructure of the internet</i> that is privatized. Not individual business privatization.<p>Remember the Internet Society planning to sell .org? - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;20&#x2F;org_registry_sale_shambles&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theregister.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;11&#x2F;20&#x2F;org_registry_sale_sha...</a>. ICANN and Internet Society has been under the spotlight for shitty behavior since a very long time.<p>W3C is also heavily lobbied by companies like Google for instance is abusing it&#x27;s browser market share against to make the internet less private. Then there is Manifest v3 - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8&#x2F;edit#" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz...</a>.<p>This article is about things like that. The infrastructure privatization and lobbying. Not individual business privatization.<p>While I didn&#x27;t like the author&#x27;s website&#x27;s patterns, that shouldn&#x27;t change the fact about what the author is trying to convey.
评论 #31775626 未加载
评论 #31775111 未加载
评论 #31775362 未加载
评论 #31776771 未加载
mathlover2almost 3 years ago
Personally, I find this article ridiculous, even without the irony mentioned in the comments.<p>I think there should be regulation of ISPs coupled with more community broadband efforts. I also like protocol-based social media. I also think there should be scrutiny of larger companies for anti-competitive behavior. But you can do these things, and other efforts, without banning private investment in the Internet entirely.<p>Also, this article&#x27;s assertion that the Internet&#x27;s golden age ended in <i>1995</i> is rather laughable. I know Usenet pre-Eternal September was nice, but I&#x27;d hardly call it the &quot;golden age&quot; of the internet, especially since it was barely accessible to the public at that time.
评论 #31775634 未加载
评论 #31775370 未加载
ketzualmost 3 years ago
The article discusses two main points (apparently from a book, but I am not going to read that one before commenting):<p>* Infrastructure<p>* Services<p>On the infrastructure side it proposes community owned access to the internet as an alternative to few, often a single, commercial provider for access. These partially already exist (as discussed in the article) but not as widespread as people would want and, worse, got hampered by local laws forbidding these local organizations in many US cities (as far as I remember at least).<p>This seems relatively straight forward and with removal of those laws this could be practices fairly easily for the last-mile problem. For the backbone this is not a solution though. If that was to be &quot;community owned&quot; it would be equivalent to the government running it on the national scale and unclear on how to run the international connections and who shouold own and operate them. As far as I can tell, the privat sector doesn&#x27;t do a too shabby job at running those (besides major security problems with BGP...).<p>On the services side, the article seems to take a &quot;protocols over platforms&quot; stance, that seems to be popular on HN, too. It leaves open some questions for me, though: What if people do not switch? How to handle existing platforms with severe vendor lock-in or network effects?<p>I think those open questions are not easy or straight forward to answer and that&#x27;s why the article only goes for the anyways-popular approaches. Although, I don&#x27;t think the north-korea and china examples are good &quot;deprivatized internet&quot; examples. I have no idea of the north korean internet, but for chinas great firewall my imperssion is it is an enforcement tool for locality and local laws, the internet itself is as privatized as it is outside of it - centralized platforms, some p2p things, ads, tracking and run by mostly private companies.<p>Maybe something like minitel and other original competitors are more of an example for state managed internet. I am by no means educated well on minitel, but afair companies had to register with a central authority to host a service, which cuased severe friction and protectionism problems.
motohagiographyalmost 3 years ago
Governments can barely manage a website, so we may want to exercise some collective discernment before giving them <i>the whole internet</i> to manage. I&#x27;m skeptical of the intentions of authors at Jacobin though, as the only power they ever want to decentralize and redistribute always seems to be someone else&#x27;s.
评论 #31774224 未加载
评论 #31774007 未加载
评论 #31774067 未加载
评论 #31775597 未加载
评论 #31774038 未加载
评论 #31775558 未加载
评论 #31773975 未加载
评论 #31774715 未加载
评论 #31774057 未加载
评论 #31773970 未加载
dasil003almost 3 years ago
Every time someone starts talking in grand terms about how the entire status quo of some major facet of civilization &quot;should be&quot; a certain way with zero reflection on the systemic incentives that have led it to be the way it is I die a little inside.
评论 #31774545 未加载
评论 #31774554 未加载
teucrisalmost 3 years ago
Please read the entire article before assuming that this is a call for a state takeover of the internet.
评论 #31774062 未加载
评论 #31774173 未加载
kwatsonafteralmost 3 years ago
Great article. I like that it gets to the real meat-and-potatoes of what determines, &quot;tech policy&quot; in the United States. Moving forward it doesn&#x27;t seem like a movement back to a, &quot;science and research-first&quot; communication architecture is really feasible but I think, considering that the real, &quot;Internet&quot; is just, &quot;computers talking to each other&quot; that there are going to be parallelized cultures existing on-top of the extent TCP&#x2F;IP infrastructure that might be worthwhile.
tbrownawalmost 3 years ago
Bit of a weird mix of complaining about the results of last-mile shenanigans (hey, let&#x27;s get municipal broadband banned!) and how centralized services like Facebook and Twitter have managed to out-compete most alternatives.<p>Blaming it all on the presence of business being inherently corruptive of what would have otherwise been a utopia is also a bit sketchy.
voz_almost 3 years ago
Is this that jacobin article again?
评论 #31784511 未加载
voz_almost 3 years ago
The jacobin has completely lost the thread, I used to love this magazine.
评论 #31774770 未加载
heydemoalmost 3 years ago
“&#x27;A privatized internet will always amount to the rule of the many by the few,&#x27; writes Tarnoff, and since that tendency is hardwired into capitalism itself — not just a certain iteration of capitalism — fixing the internet requires a different strategy: deprivatization.&quot;<p>The problem here is that network effects and economies of scale generally make centralization more practical. Capitalism&#x27;s competition between multiple centrally managed models, although not perfect, is tough to beat.<p>&quot;Rather than lay out a concrete plan for a deprivatized internet, Tarnoff explains that experimentation will be key.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s tough to clap your hands and summon a decentralized system, but Jacobin maintains typical faith something never tried will work well, as long as it&#x27;s anti-capitalist.<p>Seems like regulation within capitalism is a much more dependable way of addressing flaws in the free market.
helloworld11almost 3 years ago
To those criticizing the (mostly) absurd arguments of this website that so un-ironically crams in all the same commercial incentives it criticizes of the supposedly terrible private internet, remember that Jacobin is a very markedly left socialist magazine with a long history of throwing shit on anything market oriented. Some of their arguments are valid and decent, others are just ridiculous and not to mention hypocritical considering that the magazine itself is owned by a corporate entity and very much dedicated to its own bottom line of revenues and earnings.<p>edit: I mean, what would you expect of a magazine that named itself after a bunch of &quot;heroes&quot; of the French Revolution whose own extreme, fanatical leftism was a pioneer for mass murder of civilians in the name of ideological purity.
评论 #31776967 未加载
osigurdsonalmost 3 years ago
&gt;&gt; The United States now pays some of the highest prices in the world for some of the worst internet service<p>No, that&#x27;s Canada
评论 #31778071 未加载
0daystockalmost 3 years ago
Jacobin: private capital is BAD. Why? Because it&#x27;s part of evil for-profit capitalism! Seriously, that actually appears to be the thesis.<p>&gt; Instead of waiting to see what Google or Amazon hand us, technology is produced by communities and collectives to serve very different needs and ends.<p>You can already do that - right now. But it&#x27;s easier to write a whiny diatribe than it is to learn how to program though, isn&#x27;t it?
perryizgr8almost 3 years ago
No, privatized interests have brought us whatever is good about the internet today. They have also brought about a lot of the bad stuff, true. In government hands there would have been just incompetemt stagnation and wastage of taxpayer funds.
aanthracitealmost 3 years ago
As a person who lives in a post communist country, I&#x27;m certainly sure we don&#x27;t want the state to manage internet or any other technology for that matter.<p>Look at what&#x27;s going on right now in Russia, North Korea or China (and these are only firsts that come to my mind). It&#x27;s really hard for people there to get any information beyond the state propaganda.<p>Good times create dumb people -&gt; dumb people make communism -&gt; communism creates bad times -&gt; bad times creates smart people -&gt; smart people create capitalism -&gt; capitalism creates good times -&gt; good times create dumb people...<p>So, let us avoid the red color...
g8ozalmost 3 years ago
&gt;&gt;The internet has long been surrounded by a libertarian idealism, despite always failing to deliver on those ambitions<p>Ouch
sovietcattlealmost 3 years ago
Private is bad. Public is good.<p>by Paris <i>Marx</i>
评论 #31778466 未加载
walrus01almost 3 years ago
What has failed us is putting people like Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC and the federal government trying to remove net neutrality.<p>The economics textbook version of the term &quot;regulatory capture&quot; is what has failed us in the large telecom and large ISP industry.<p>The private internet has failed us? No shit, maybe we shouldn&#x27;t allow entities like the combined Centurylink&#x2F;Level3 to acquire various mid sized players and reduce the market competition. Maybe we shouldn&#x27;t allow Rogers and Shaw to merge in Canada. Things like that.<p>Maybe when the US federal government hands out subsidy money to companies like Frontier and Verizon to build suburban and rural FTTH they should be held accountable when they just take the money and <i>don&#x27;t actually build the service promised</i>.<p>Maybe people in their ordinary homes in ordinary neighborhoods should have better options than degraded DSL from the local &quot;phone&quot; company on 30 year old copper POTS lines or the near monopoly local Comcast DOCSIS3 coax cable service, squeezing every last dollar of ROI out of that legacy coax plant.<p>bias&#x2F;point of view: I do network engineering for a small&#x2F;mid-size ISP that directly competes with the telecom dinosaurs.
评论 #31784325 未加载
评论 #31784362 未加载
评论 #31784586 未加载
istillwritecodealmost 3 years ago
I wish I could post a screenshot of this site, because it proves beyond all measure why the commercial web sucks. Two modals for &quot;sign up for our mailing list&quot; and &quot;accept all cookies&quot;. Fuck you very much. Why would I read your opinion whining about the web when you contributed to the downfall of the web yourself?
评论 #31775112 未加载
评论 #31774159 未加载
评论 #31774986 未加载
评论 #31774286 未加载
评论 #31774319 未加载
评论 #31774652 未加载
评论 #31774522 未加载
评论 #31776782 未加载
评论 #31774465 未加载
评论 #31775409 未加载
评论 #31776764 未加载
kristopolousalmost 3 years ago
The &quot;bring the mainframe to the battlefield” is just false. As is the idea it was built to withstand nuclear attack. It&#x27;s uncited in the book, I&#x27;ve got a copy.<p>Anyone could just fraudulently send email as generalSmith@dod.mil in 1975 and you&#x27;d have no way of knowing if it was real.<p>And then it would traverse in a nondeterministic unencrypted way over any machine that claims it can get it there with no way of knowing whether it succeeded or whether the message received was the message sent.<p>It was built by academics for tasks like remote timesharing and it ran mostly on minicomputers, not even mainframes. All the early nodes were at academic institutions. Exactly 0 were on military bases.<p>The project goals, people involved, sites it was installed at, technologies built, all the founders, Cerf, Kahn, Taylor, Roberts, Linkletter - zero military people - 100% academics. None of this suggests military purpose<p>Look at the abysmal security the network had. Do you think email, rcp, ftp and telnet was designed for military use?<p>It was openly bridged to the Soviet research network through IIASA, you know, cause that&#x27;s how cold war things happened - open door policy to the enemy<p>Or what about the routing protocols where a rogue network switch could just announce itself and then start soliciting for traffic to pass through it.<p>In 1997, a misbehaving router singlehandedly took down the net <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AS_7007_incident" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AS_7007_incident</a> any enemy could have easily done this.<p>Look at DNS host transfer up to about 2002 - you could just query for all records dumping your entire network topology, to just anyone - extremely valuable information for your enemies.<p>Look at finger and the original whois, an email and personnel lookup tool. You could use it to get people&#x27;s schedule, all the people who work under them, what they&#x27;re doing, how to contact them, where they last logged in at - do you know what I&#x27;d really like to have as your military enemy?<p>Heck let&#x27;s cite Wikipedia as if reality matters:<p>&quot;20th century WHOIS servers were highly permissive and would allow wild-card searches. A WHOIS query of a person&#x27;s last name would yield all individuals with that name. A query with a given keyword returned all registered domains containing that keyword. A query for a given administrative contact returned all domains the administrator was associated with.&quot;<p>Sending out spies, espionage, sabotage, all unnecessary if you&#x27;re enemy is using this technology. You could do it all from a terminal.<p>There&#x27;s zero security in any of these. The doors are unlocked and swinging open with a giant honking welcome sign blinking.<p>Edit: Apparently reality is unpopular. I&#x27;m committed to reality far more than being popular. My politics are on the far left btw, that&#x27;s why I demand such high standards from these people. They&#x27;re supposedly playing for my team. But let me tell you, they don&#x27;t seem to care either.
评论 #31785388 未加载
评论 #31787893 未加载
评论 #31785173 未加载
Apocryphonalmost 3 years ago
&gt; In his analysis of capitalist development, Karl Marx drew a distinction between the “formal” and “real” subsumption of labour by capital. In formal subsumption, an existing labour process remains intact, but is now performed on a capitalist basis. A peasant who used to grow his own food becomes a wage labourer on somebody else’s farm. The way he works the land stays the same. In real subsumption, by contrast, the labour process is revolutionised to meet the requirements of capital. Formerly, capital inherited a process; now, it remakes the process. Our agricultural worker becomes integrated into the industrialised apparatus of the modern factory farm. The way he works completely changes: his daily rhythms bear little resemblance to those of his peasant predecessors. And the new arrangement is more profitable for the farm’s owner, having been explicitly organised with that end in mind.<p>&gt; This is a useful lens for thinking about the evolution of the internet, and for understanding why the dot-coms didn’t succeed. The internet of the mid-to-late 1990s was under private ownership, but it had not yet been optimised for profit. It retained too much of its old shape as a system designed for researchers, and this shape wasn’t conducive to the new demands being placed on it. Formal subsumption had been achieved, in other words, but real subsumption remained elusive.<p>&gt; Accomplishing the latter would involve technical, social and economic developments that made it possible to construct new kinds of systems. These systems are the digital equivalents of the modern factory farm. They represent the long-sought solution to the problem that consumed and ultimately defeated the dot-com entrepreneurs: how to push privatisation up the stack. And eBay offered the first glimpse of what that solution looked like.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31784966" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=31784966</a>
评论 #31785338 未加载
gyre007almost 3 years ago
Strange, but if privatised internet has failed us, why is there a massive banner on top of the article?
评论 #31785141 未加载
评论 #31785123 未加载
评论 #31785180 未加载
Wolfenstein98kalmost 3 years ago
The best part about outlets like this is that you don&#x27;t need to open any articles to know what they&#x27;re criticising and what they&#x27;re advocating.
brigaalmost 3 years ago
With a name like Paris Marx you hardly need to question where this author&#x27;s bias lies. Right now with my smartphone (a device you can be sure would never have been invented on a government committee) I can stream any song released in the past 100 years, I can get detailed step-by-step instructions on how to drive to the other side of the continent, I have access to the biggest encyclopedias that have ever existed, I can learn any programming language for free, I can keep up to date 24&#x2F;7 with current events (even if the government doesn&#x27;t approve of the news outlets I&#x27;m looking at), I can make a living working remotely (with software developed by private companies), I can order literally any item and have it delivered straight to my door, the list goes on... Having worked as a software engineer, it&#x27;s a miracle that any of this works at all. Adding in 7 layers of government bureaucracy sounds like a good way to have the whole edifice come crumbling down, not to mention stifling any sort of innovation that might be left in tech.<p>I guess my point is, if there was every anything that has done more to liberate the average human being, it is the internet. I just don&#x27;t buy the argument that any of this would have happened without free market competition, or that the state of the internet not is somehow worse than it would be otherwise.
评论 #31774297 未加载
评论 #31774284 未加载
评论 #31774250 未加载
评论 #31776027 未加载
评论 #31774262 未加载
rank0almost 3 years ago
Nobody is going to run core internet infrastructure for free. The government can’t even handle our current infrastructure of roads, bridges, electrical grids, and utilities. How on earth is the government supposed to operate as an ISP? We need better regulation, not public ownership.<p>Or I guess we’ll just tack on another Trillion dollars to our annual deficit…infinite government expansion&#x2F;spending can solve every problem right?! &#x2F;s
评论 #31784647 未加载
评论 #31785040 未加载
评论 #31784698 未加载
评论 #31784679 未加载
评论 #31784688 未加载
评论 #31785192 未加载
评论 #31784890 未加载
评论 #31785342 未加载