The ones and zeroes do not lie like humans do. The Internet is a Prime example of how technology is infallible, right next to pogreshnosti person. So it is not surprising that the Internet, as it stands, is broken.
There is a perverted logic here: the web fulfills the promise of democratized media, where anyone with a keyboard and a connection can change the world, but it has also created a digital axiom emphasizing the worst of humanity: Godwin’s law, which States, “as an online discussion gets bigger, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1.”
How we got to this point where otherwise good people call other good people the worst person in the world; where a teenager who survived a mass school shooting referred to as the “crisis actor”; where “don’t read the comments” is another awkward conversation of parents with teenagers; where a foreign nation believe that Americans will be exposed to the “fake news” and thus able to affect the presidential election; where the technocratic elite few companies exert military pressure and influence on the Grand scale? This is a story about pride and greed; capitalism taken to the extreme; to provide mankind with a capital letter.
What started as a small community, the government and academic researchers have tried to create separate channels for information transfer evolved into a community of 3 billion people, often yelling at each other about things both banal and significant, but the economic benefits for companies that control access to enter and detuning.
New titans of technology have income that surpasses certain countries. For example, 2017, the revenues of Apple’s $229 billion, equivalent to the combined GDP of Cambodia ($20 billion) and Vietnam (205 billion us dollars). Google ($109 billion), Facebook ($40 billion) and Amazon ($177 billion) is also not doing too shabby.
And then there’s digital ad revenue equation: 88 only in the United States billion. The original sin of the Internet, press the button, led to the race-at the very bottom of philosophy, where the commercialization of information, in our never-ending thirst for Views, helped to create an environment that encourages the false, harmful and sensationalism over facts and reason and rational thinking.
The incentive for those gatekeepers to clean up their web not only economic, but clearly.
Facebook and Twitter, for example, last week jumped on the football for their recent efforts in transparency. It wasn’t dictated by the invisible hand of Adam Smith, but instead of watchful senators and congressmen want to stretch its regulatory muscles.
Of course, one of the paradoxes of the Internet is that Tim Berners-Lee, the Creator of the world wide web, had other intentions; he did not patent his invention and made it free to use. But sometimes, the argument goes, You pay for what you get.
But there is hope. High-tech companies to spread the word of optimism as a talisman, and a growing number of players who want to take up Internet technologies to a happy place. For example, instead of www-Protocol (good old http), which is the main language of the Internet, they have developed a peer-to-peer network, in which the blockchain can hold the key to creating safer, more transparent, more dare we say it, better than the network in its current form.
Adweek talked with a few pioneers in the beginning, researchers, thinkers and practitioners about their thoughts on the broken network.
Professor of computer science at Columbia University, one of the founders of the first online conferences Usenet
My opinion is that in a lot of different ways the Internet is an amplifier.
It was clear even in 1980 that people can be very intemperate online. One of the neo-Nazis the day Stormer was on Usenet and was very obviously a Nazi. But the phrase fire online trolling, it is Usenet and it was long before the commercialization of the Internet. You should talk to a psychologist about why people behave differently in the Internet for me is distancing. Easy to say something nasty about someone You don’t see that in front of You … You don’t see them as a person … you have intemperate behavior, so even online close to dawn, you began to see it.
CEO, Tetherless access (and a former member of the FCC technological Advisory Council), also known as broadband cowboy thanks to his efforts to expand broadband access
The problem: we have met the enemy and he is us.
People are on the Internet. We have developed a technology that allows communication in a way that mankind had never dreamed of, but we screw up because we can’t learn to trust each other.
You must have failure to learn and products, the Internet has become a failure, but the roots were sound and so these roots will be used to build a future. I’m not trying to say that we are doomed or anything—I’m saying that the commercial Internet is doomed. We can’t fix it, but there are new instances of the Internet that thrives there.
He was a pioneer, oined the term “hypertext” to refer to the text with references to other texts
In the early days of computer networking … almost all of them were so idealistic that they bring the truth and knowledge and accuracy in reporting, and now we are horrified with the opposite … exactly the same, no one knew that the American Republic will be a Civil war and crime in the streets. The consequences of complications which arise after the infrastructure.
For me, [peer] like a couple of hippies dancing in front of a German tank. Maybe it will take off, but Facebook and Google are well-entrenched and very, very, very big.
The founder of the market data, the Agency fair, and a former market researcher at Facebook and Google
I don’t join [Facebook] thinking that it was the best company in the world … but I was hoping studies and data that it can begin to appreciate the public good. But I found out within six months I was there it was not possible. I was wondering why they made the decisions for the prioritization of profit, perhaps they knew better or felt enormous pressure from shareholders. Maybe it was an accident. But I came to the conclusion that it was intentional. It is a kind of obsession # 1 and making as much money as possible to get people to spend as much time as possible. It’s a desire that can never be fed—to win it all, like someone who has a gambling addiction … I was very concerned about the company before I joined, and a little angry when I left … it is normal for a commercial company to ask “how we grow?”, but this growth at any price, as for people like me … if indeed your only God is profit, you can make decisions that are immoral … I think it’s unfortunate Facebook determined profit from social consequences.
Page ELISA Camahort
Consultant, author and former BlogHer co-founder and Executive Director
Ten years ago we were realizing that there was a problem with harassment and the behavior of a Troll on the Internet and there was a lot of discussion around 2007-2008 on the code of conduct in the network. We had guidelines for the community that were available and respected, but we do not believe that a single code of conduct for the Internet—different sites have different purposes and audience, but we believed that each site should have its own. From the beginning, with the platform and media companies are unwilling to invest in moderation and bodies, and I think that some of these platforms don’t want to be media companies, which are responsible for the content they publish. These are two major problems: lack of moderation of performance/activities and fundamental denial of the responsibility of people who are some of these platform companies.
Founder and Executive Director of the online SOS
In my experience at Morgan Stanley as an investor, providing support only harassment, it is clear to me why we’re here: it’s money. I would say an ad-centric business models and incentives of neverwinte.
By the way investors make money with social media platforms in the first place was an ad. People often point anyone who is developing a platform—we need people to be different, that’s true—and it … [which] stimulated the priorities of clicks on the ad metrics for the evaluation of the experience and, as a consequence, trust, confidentiality, welfare of the users … the monetization of the Internet and social media, why we’re here.
The General partner, bullpen capital and founder of early social network tribe
I don’t think [the Internet] is broken at all. This is an example of what happens when nobody reads the damn [User license agreements (Ulas)]. We could be on the phone ten years ago and the conversation would be identical. We need to have #the time of Metoo privacy.
Congress can do something, heaven help us. It really scares me the most.
If you watched the testimony of [the founder of Facebook mark Zuckerberg] as those congressmen, asking questions? These people write the laws? Do any of them even know what those words mean? That’s what scares me the most—to go back to 1998—they wanted to bring the [Microsoft co-founder bill] gates on antitrust charges and they broke the company. Gates was never the same—he became a philanthropist. Perhaps they want to make an example with Zuckerberg … Yes God help us if Congress does not act. I guarantee that they will make it worse.
Director of communications for Holo, community, of building a distributed cloud
We created the Internet where you can money, watching all the people—in fact, pursues them and sell all the knowledge on how to most effectively manipulate those who will pay more. I don’t think any of these advertisers are evil—they are trying to effectively sell their products, but the architecture is like the arms race. If you haven’t got to understand your consumer better than anyone else, you will lose.
Columnist of new York and author of the upcoming book sworn: the epic failure of the ad Business (and everything else)
Governments in Western Europe are outraged about the personal life, and now that the outrage is spreading in the US and you will see 20 percent of Americans have ad blockers on their mobile phones and 30% in Western Europe and 54% of people, according to Nielsen, skipping ads,” Auletta said. “Companies are forced to react to this … companies must listen to these voices or object and to move forward … the government does not speak with one voice, and many of the questions Congress has asked Mark Zuckerberg was stupid and semi-literate…
The network was started with the idea that it will be free. It was faith and wouldn’t it be great? … and that was the impetus in Google were the founders of Facebook was and then they said … well we have succeeded in building a large audience, but we never succeeded in making money and everyone had their plates, pressing them: “Larry, we need to bring in the gas” that occurred in 2001, and, “mark, how do we make money?” He brings in Sheryl Sandberg and Google bringing in Eric Schmidt. First, Eric Schmidt on Google, and then Sandberg on Facebook: … “what a great tool for advertising. It is a way to earn money and support our extension servers and to speed up the search results.” And it worked.
I say Facebook wants to replace the Internet. They want to have a place where you come and Google the same.
Click for more from this issue, this story first appeared in the 21 may 2018 issue of the magazine Adweek. Click here to sign up.