Brainstorm solutions to save the internet

Yea and Elvis was the devil for shaking his hips in that lewd manner too.....there is always something that is destroying "our children" (don't forget the melodramatic voice).

Besides, without the Net how could I have found Jammie???
 
GracieRuth said:
Really, the world was better off without the internet. It has proliferated misinformation and urban legends. It lets perverts, whackos, criminals, and paranoid conspiracists a way to meet and feel like they are "obviously normal after all." It finances the porn industry. It teaches kids poor spelling like "R U St8?" The negative effects of the web OUTWEIGH the benefits.
Click to expand...

misinformation and urban legends was a far greater problem before the internet, how would you know it was misinformation without the ability to check the facts with other people, now granted for local things you could check, but internationally? how would you know weather or not Mr evil fucking crackpot dictator was killing all his people because they where "terrorists" and not people rebelling because they want to live in a Democracy.

"perverts, whackos, criminals, and paranoid conspiracists" where around long before the internet, as was the porn industry.
 
i will do nothing
i think this is more hype than danger of losing the internet
the usa government needs to start minding it's own frikken business as far as i'm concerned, and that goes for everything not just the internet.
police your own people and leave the rest of us alone!
 
Apone said:
I was in kind of a bad mood when I wrote that and it was all pretty over-the-top, but it's still pretty hard for me to regard the internet as being the route to utopian society that you seem to think it is. To be honest, I'd be more likely to believe that it makes people more desensitized than anything. Oh yeah, also more distracted, paranoid, narcissistic, and entitled-- really, really entitled.

It's obviously really important to people, but it's not like people never used to communicate about important issues, or share and reinforce each other's perspectives, or plan revolts, or whatever. I can say for sure that people never used to consume as much porn, or download as much music, or be as distracted...

If the Internet really is somehow going to close the gap between rich and poor, then I think that's great
Click to expand...
 
Lobbying With False Claims

In an open letter sent to two Estonian ministers last year, AmCham makes a number of unfounded claims. They claim, for instance, that there is poor intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement in Estonia. However, Estonia
 
Porn may have been around before the Internet, but it wasn't even remotely as lurid or available. You couldn't just anonymously get it. I also think it provides more opportunities for people to reinforce each other's viewpoints-- which is why everyone is more polarized now, and more likely to believe in ridiculous narratives painting themselves as pure and righteous and just and those with whom they disagree as soulless and evil.

I'll agree that maybe before the Internet it wasn't considered inherently wrong to be wealthy... but it was always common knowledge that jobs were moving to the third world-- you don't need the Internet to tell you that, just look at the tags on your clothing. China, Bangladesh, etc. were much worse off before they started inheriting American jobs-- why is no one happy about that? If revolutions happen because people begin to realize that selfishness is wrong, why aren't people applauding this sort of thing instead of actively fighting against it?

I don't think anyone is against helping people in other countries or being aware-- it's mostly that the Internet hasn't really changed things in that regard. Before the Internet, there were still zines floating around the major cities-- the ideas still circulated in universities and among young people and such. People just had to be more creative.

The current information overdose is more paralyzing than motivating... and when it does motivate people to 'rise up', you get something like OWS which makes absolutely no sense and ends up being more about douchebag cops and random leftist concerns (basically everything from socialist revolution to gay/transgender rights to guys who want free tuition or to just get a video of themselves being beaten up by a cop) than actually coming to any sort of agreement on anything. And what's more-- I thought that the whole point of OWS (a mostly Internet-created protest) was to argue FOR a more centralized economy (tax the rich, right)... but that's the source of all evil now?

It seems like a lot of people here are convinced that eventually the Internet will make everyone inherently liberal, socialist, left, whatever... but mostly, it's just giving people more opportunities to disagree.
 
Apone said:
Porn may have been around before the Internet, but it wasn't even remotely as lurid or available. You couldn't just anonymously get it. I also think it provides more opportunities for people to reinforce each other's viewpoints-- which is why everyone is more polarized now, and more likely to believe in ridiculous narratives painting themselves as pure and righteous and just and those with whom they disagree as soulless and evil.

I'll agree that maybe before the Internet it wasn't considered inherently wrong to be wealthy... but it was always common knowledge that jobs were moving to the third world-- you don't need the Internet to tell you that, just look at the tags on your clothing. China, Bangladesh, etc. were much worse off before they started inheriting American jobs-- why is no one happy about that? If revolutions happen because people begin to realize that selfishness is wrong, why aren't people applauding this sort of thing instead of actively fighting against it?

I don't think anyone is against helping people in other countries or being aware-- it's mostly that the Internet hasn't really changed things in that regard. Before the Internet, there were still zines floating around the major cities-- the ideas still circulated in universities and among young people and such. People just had to be more creative.

The current information overdose is more paralyzing than motivating... and when it does motivate people to 'rise up', you get something like OWS which makes absolutely no sense and ends up being more about douchebag cops and random leftist concerns (basically everything from socialist revolution to gay/transgender rights to guys who want free tuition or to just get a video of themselves being beaten up by a cop) than actually coming to any sort of agreement on anything. And what's more-- I thought that the whole point of OWS (a mostly Internet-created protest) was to argue FOR a more centralized economy (tax the rich, right)... but that's the source of all evil now?

It seems like a lot of people here are convinced that eventually the Internet will make everyone inherently liberal, socialist, left, whatever... but mostly, it's just giving people more opportunities to disagree.
Click to expand...

For someone who hates the internet so much you seem quite keen to use it

There is absolutely no doubt that the internet is making people more aware of issues that they need to be aware of

Occupy Wallstreet is still functioning and is still doing what it was supposed to do which is create a focal point for resistance and to push these issues into the mainstream. It has been a fantastic success in doing that.

Concerning it being 'inherently wrong to have lots of money'.....thats not really the whole picture.

The whole picture is a process in the US and in Europe whereby certain families and groups have monopolised all the wealth and power. This is a great concern for anyone who believes in democracy.

If you want to know more about these groups but don't want to use the internet there is a book called 'Rule by Secrecy' by Jim Marrs who is an award winning reporter and a bestselling writer.

It is clearer now more than ever with the current economic manouverings that there is a power elite seeking to centralise power under their control

Before you try and dismiss this i strongly recommend you read the book i have recommended above

The issue we are all now faced with is whether or not we believe that we should hand over all property, wealth and power to this small group or whether we believe in democracy (ie that we should be allowed a say in the decision making process)

The internet is performing a very valuable function at this time which is that it is increasing awareness among people so that they can make informed choices and so that they know what is going on and are therefore empowered in that they become aware that they havea choice: to be a slave or to work towards purer democracy.

This isn't so much about good or evil so much as freedom v's slavery
 
Saving the internet, it's all about communism!

[video=youtube;U06jlgpMtQs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs[/video]

giggle.
 
Peppermint said:
Except, of course, that the lost sale doctrine does not add up. Based on the claims of losses made by American music and film associations in some court cases, the entire worldwide loss to piracy would amount to a figure far exceeding the size of the entire world economy. Obviously it is totally impossible that real losses to piracy are anywhere near such a figure; people just don't have that kind of money to spend on entertainment. The claim that a copied work is a lost sale is largely bogus; after all, the vast majority of copied works would never have been bought. There are, however, indications that copying has helped artists get exposure, the worst thing for any artist after all is obscurity.

http://news.err.ee/Opinion/6e70e765-a870-4193-94c5-26ab228f14ed

Of course it's bogus. The numbers of supposed lost money are entirely hypothetical, there is no guarantee that any of the pirated copies would have been legally bought.

Fuck greed.

U.S. is now trying to persuade European countries to tighten tighten their own anti-piracy laws. Although, I would suspect the more appropriate word is bully. Don't forget to keep your eyes on ACTA as well.
Click to expand...

It's definitely true that these companies aren't losing profits on everything that's downloaded, if they could even come up with an accurate number for that -- how likely is that not to be exaggerated? There's frankly a bunch of junk out there that people don't spend more than ten minutes looking at and would never have thought about buying. Also, for ease of use and speed, torrenting is often 10 times faster than using someone's server. It's far faster to download a cd than it is to rip it to your computer, and takes much less effort.





It gives customs the authority to seize anything at all that they suspect of infringing copy right and destroy them, no judges involved. Where'd due process go? Again, ACTA gives copyright holders ridiculous powers in enforcing their own copyrights and require ISP's to ban alleged piracy related domains.

According to French EP member Kader Arif, "The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure." He continued, "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said.

"For example, earlier this year German customs officials seized and held
a shipment of the generic drug Amoxicillin which was being shipped
through Germany to a least developed country. The drugs were held for
four weeks apparently because German customs officials were confused by
the alleged similarity of the generic name Amoxicillin with the
GlaxoSmithKlein brand Amoxil." (www.auilr.org/pdf/26/26.3.7.pdf)
Clearly, as has been shown many times in history, you cannot count on law enforcement and executive agencies to not abuse overly broad laws.

Hiding the negotiations alone is grounds to be suspicious.

Obama signed it, and has no right to make laws in the US.

Getting people informed is a good place to start.

As to the value of the internet, it makes sharing information, doing research, and informing and educating people about anything much easier and faster, and possible where it may have been impossible. It has been invaluable for schools. It is invaluable to programmers and businesses. This list could go on.
 
Last edited:
InvisibleJim said:
Saving the internet, it's all about communism!

[video=youtube;U06jlgpMtQs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U06jlgpMtQs[/video]

giggle.
Click to expand...

At the moment its not a case of what its for it is a case of what its not for

People on the left and right of the political spectrum are both worried about the current developments because what is happening is a move towards neo-fuedalism, where a powerful group of people will centrally control the wests economy. That means we don't get a say, it means the death of democracy.

So keeping the internet open and the flow of information is important in raising awareness of what is happening.

You should read the book i mentioned Jim its called 'Rule by Secrecy' and it outlines who many of the power elite are and how they are connected.

Sadly it is not about true 'communism' at all; it is about 'fabian socialism' which is not true socialism...its more about corporate control which is fascism.
 
Anonymous will save the internet.
 
UK secret service to monitor everyones online activities

Great links peppermint!

I love the idea of a global mesh network; that's a fantastic example of 'dual power' where people just set up their own systems in the shell of the old (and dying) system

here's an article about how the British security agencies are pushing to have a law passed whereby they will be able store and access everyones personal online data including what sites you visit, your emails, what computer games you play, what music you listen to, films you watch, facebook, twitter, even phone calls and texts etc:

http://rt.com/news/uk-online-surveillance-plan-733/

[h=2]Big Brother aims to screen all online activity in UK[/h]
British security agencies are pushing for a law, which would allow vast amount of private data to be collected and stored, according to media reports. Big Brother will know who you call to, what sites you surf and how you play video games.

The government wants details about text messages, phone calls, email, visited websites, Facebook and Twitter exchanges and even online games chats, British media report.

According to the initiative called the Communications Capabilities Development Programme, the data will be stored for a year and will be available to the secret services.

The security scheme requires Internet providers, landline and mobile phone operators to police their clients in and effort to combat terrorism.
What is said in text messages and phone calls will not be recorded, but much other data, including geographical whereabouts or people involved will be.
The plan is said to have been prepared by the Home Office in collaboration with home security service MI5, the foreign intelligence service MI6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the body responsible for signals intelligence and information assurance for UK
 
I find it kind of ironic that a lot of the people who claim to be super-concerned about privacy and surveillance also have things like facebook accounts, where they freely give out every single detail of their life to anyone who will listen. It's actually a big part of why I stay farrrr away from that site.

If I was super interested in privacy, I'd probably stay offline altogether… because the Internet just isn't the place for it. If you've ever been to 4chan you'll realize that children are capable of finding out who you are and embarrassing you with the information... it just takes a little effort. I've met very few people in life who consider their privacy to be important, and younger kids seem to be the least concerned out of anyone. Heaps of people post pictures and videos of themselves online, and some even use their real first AND last names, post their e-mails and facebook, and then talk about things like their jobs, where they live, etc. There are also people who think that not being anonymous online is fine because people also see their faces when they walk down the street.

The only thing I can't stand is how much money the government is spending on these kinds of things. $2 billion? You could have done soooo much with that!
 
This isn't about individuals and their embarrassing dirty laundry. No sane government would be interested in your drunken party photos. The fact they are investing in surveillance tells you there are much greater issues at work. Like it or not, we are living in an information society, more and more of the world is being converted to that regime of operation, and it's only going to be expanding, given that, we need to make sure the technology we are using is safe and fair.
 
What sort of 'greater issues'?

Facebook isn't just drunken party photos, it's identities, histories, timelines, thought patterns, profiles… it can show people who you spend your time with, where you live, where you went to school, and where you've travelled to. How hard would it be for a professional to do up a psychological profile based on a facebook page?

I'm not saying that it's always going to doom you or that bad things are going to happen or even that the government cares, just that it's interesting how some people can be so concerned about not being spied on by the government while also actively exposing every possible aspect of their lives on facebook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top