0
10

[–] Prophet_60091_ 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

The author kinda touched on this in the article when he mentioned how the internet changed after mass adoption, but the enemy is us.

Growing up I wanted to "do something that mattered, something that would help change the world for the better". I always conceptualized this as helping people overcome some oppressive external force.

It wasnt until later that I started to swallow the black pill and realize that there is no external force, people are the enemy. Things are the way they are today because thats what people enabled to happen.If you were to restart society it would end up exactly the same again because of people.

Instead of being a hero and rescuing people from some oppressive force, you're a downed pilot deep, deep behind enemy lines with no hope of escape.

Throughout history there have been instances of a core group of passionate peoole creating something and then enabling the general populace to benefit from it. The US Constitution, the radio, the internet, whatever, what always happens is that the general population doesn't care about the principals of the creators, they just care about using whatever it is in whatever way is most enjoyable and convenient for them. Creators are tye minority of the human population. Most people are content to survive and passively consume.

What other outcone can we expect when the nature of people is thus?

0
1

[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's funny. There is sort of a vicious cycle I've watched happen with the internet since the early days. Services like Google have made access to any information we desire, at any given moment, so fast and effective that we have all taken it for granted. We've grown used to the speed and ease of access, so much so that millisecond timelines added to a page loading frustrate us.

As the internet has aged, it has grown. It is simply to large today to navigate solo. Gone are the days of linking to other sites from individual webstie's page links. I haven't browsed the web like that in years and years. We depend on compiler services now.

So as the internet has grown, so have we become conditioned to demand everything we want to be immediately accessible.

Therefore people have come to depend on 'others' to do the searching and determine what is relevant for them. There are very few people anymore who scan the web in the old way, in the ways 'researchers' do. We depend on compilations of content like Reddit and Voat because we are biased to assume that what's popular is what's relevant. So despite the relative freedom of the web, we still start to consume its media like we did with the television.

What we've discovered is people don't truly want freedom. Freedom means extra work. Freedom means responsibility. Critically analyzing and thinking. No. We'd rather be told what's important to know. It's easier.

It gives people a false sense of safety and a grip on the world. Too much freedom has proven to be too stressful for most human beings. The ruling class now has the web. It was always going to all along. Until the next paradigm shift occurs and people think, "Yep, this is it. This is the moment. Freedom forever." And it too will go the same way as the internet has, until the next paradigm shift after that. So on and so forth.

I mean look at the dissemination of printed materials. People used to treat the ability to freely print and distribute reading materials as a nation-changing phenomenon. All of that free thought poured out in written content so anyone could have access to the minds of any number of the world's genius thinkers from all ages. Did access to books radically change us as a people. Did it do away with ruling structures and hierarchies? No. Because creators and radicals will always be outnumbered in an overwhelming way by the sheep, and the sheep don't want freedom. Freedom is a burden in its own way.

I'd argue that in a relative sense, people today (in the West) are freer than any people that has ever lived on this planet. And what does that look like? We're eating ourselves alive. The sad reality is that 99% of the people on the planet need to be controlled, and without even realizing it, most of them want it as well. Choice can be a monster of arbitrariness, and meaning totally relative, enough to drive people mad, unless the group is there assuring them what they're doing does have meaning. The flock calms them as they see the others moving in the same direction.

0
1

[–] ZYX321 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Reality TV is successful. That's how you know people are doomed.

0
1

[–] RollinDaGrassTyson 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Reality TV is successful. That's how you know people are doomed.

1
-1

[–] SlyDrool 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

The enemy is satan, not humans

0
5

[–] EffingPhacker 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Terrific article, what we really need today is a universal platform for uncensored speech... something like Usenet. Unfortunately since usenet depended on ISP dedicated servers, when the megacorps took over all the ISPs 10-15 years ago, they simply phased out advertising usenet as a feature and eventually got rid of the usenet servers and it died off.

What we need is a decentralized usenet, run on a blockchain with a limited storage time (2 months say) such that the blockchain doesn't grow too large and anyone can be a part of it.

0
1

[–] Salbuchi_2019 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Fortunately there are some nice projects about it.

I've been "shilling" Akasha but it's still too slow and it shows. It's running on Ethereum's test net and IPFS, I guess once it moves to the real Ethereum network it will be faster.

0
1

[–] Adminstrater 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I was just thinking about this problem.

One of the best features of the block chain concept is the inability to change the past. Which means things can't be censored, covered-up, or edited without records of revision.

There is much to consider, though, since it would be easy to sabotage any type of freedom of speech block chain, and take advantage of an anatomized network if built with the intention of good faith of the users.

0
2

[–] Ionsurfer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The internet is a large place, it takes too long for one to find information without using a search tool, or a information feeder such a Facebook. I remember the old days when the best way to find cool sites was to just follow the links on the website. I found a lot of cool sites following this process. But as I got older, I found this was not the best use of my time. It’s why I started using DIG, and when that fell to oblivion, Reddit, and when I could take it no more, I moved to VOAT. I enjoy, the freedom of speech even if it’s filled with derogatory, and hate filled statements. At least I know it’s not restricted.

0
1

[–] 2012ronpaul2012 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ditto.

0
0

[–] Merlynn 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
0

[–] vastrightwing 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's people. People are passive and lazy. They don't think and always opt for the easy way. Corporations take advantage of this inherent property and engineer platforms that cater to this. FakeBook and Tinder are only two examples. No thought, only passive swiping and liking.

4
0

[–] fillsimmons 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Good article, but only lack is real solution for challenge

8
2

[–] Mumbleberry 8 points 2 points (+10|-8) ago 

Suck monkey dick, pajeet.