Brainstorm solutions to save the internet

[Apone]

However, I do think that there are people that have their agendas (that may/or not be well intentioned towards the community), are very well versed in public relations, can be ruthless in realising the vision, and have a lot to protect/lose.

I'm sure they're out there I'm just not convinced that they've colluded as a powerful collective bent on world domination. They have personal lives too, just like everyone else. I do think that businesses are always trying to expand, but that's sort of a given anyways, isn't it? And without the big players or big government, the markets wouldn't be stable enough to support the lifestyles we're all currently enjoying… so which one do you trust more?

But I dont think that money and stuff, can be lumped into the same category of necessities such as freedom and justice. Many things we can do with out, but with freedom and justice we need nothing else and somehow have everything we need anyway. The internet allows us to communicate and learn. Too much communication and learning can only be a good thing. I dont think its because of the internet that people are being more defiant and antagonistic. Its because of everything else, in their lives and their environment, and the internet is simply a medium they use as a voice.

Yeah, but everyone has their own sense of what freedom and justice are. Some people want to be free from their own mistakes, or free from their own responsibilities, or free from what they perceive to be a lesser place in the capitalist socioeconomic hierarchy… I'm honestly convinced that some people truly believe that they deserve to get paid simply because they are special and have good intentions. I'm not an expert but I have been to several third world countries and there's SUCH a massive gap between what satisfies them and what satisfies someone in the rich countries. I'm not saying you shouldn't demand more, but the problem is that no one wants to take any risks or do anything original-- they actively want to depend on rich people as parental figures who are obligated by virtue of their position to behave according to the wishes of their 'children', and spoil them with well-paying jobs and praise and everything they could ask for, much like their own parents did when they were growing up. It's the exact same dynamic!

I also think that the 'transparent' nature could be abused. People hacking others identities, masquerading as others, incriminating innocent people. There would have to be significant safe guards in place.

You would definitely have to worry more because information is much much more vulnerable than your physical person… because it can be altered without your knowledge. If someone physically attacks you there's a chance you can fight them off or escape somehow… but with information once it's out there it's always out there all the time where everyone can see it. It's one of the reasons I don't post clear pictures of myself online…

I think that this would definitely work better in more developed, democratised, liberal nation. It would not work at all in most of the majority world, and places with authoritarian governments. In many respects, it is the anonymity that allows people to speak out, be honest and communicate because they feel they are free from persecution. Being persecuted on the internet (I know that online bullying is very harmful and dangerous) can be damaging to psyche but not as tangibly destructive as being persecuted in the physical world. One can hide or disappear from the internet but that is a lot harder in the 'real' world.

I don't think that physical bullying IS any worse than online bullying-- the worst part about it isn't the physical aspect of it, it's the psychological effect. Most people can handle pain… if you get hurt or cut or even if you break your leg, most people don't cry over it. It's not the fact that you're being hurt it's the fact that someone is hurting you in order to feel more powerful… which is the same whether its online or in real life. And I think that anonymity makes people more likely to be bullies, because they know that no one is going to find out who is doing it.

And under authoritarian governments, maybe people would be more reluctant to speak out, but at the same time without anonymity then you'd be able to more easily notice who was disappearing, and communicate about what was happening… and then there's always the martyr factor. If you capture someone who is anonymous, then you're capturing a sneaky shadowy figure… if you capture someone who is not anonymous, you're capturing a real human being who was standing up for what they believe in.

I think that people enjoy communicating anonymously online so much because they finally have the freedom to say things that they would not normally necessarily have the ability to say. While it would be ideal and extremely healthy if individuals would have the strength to speak their minds and be themselves in the physical world, it is understandably difficult for most. Hopefully we'll all get there one day, but this is only possible in a truly open, democratic, transperant and advanced society that nutures self awareness, love and communication. Perhaps the current internet generation will be able to achieve this. It would be perfect to have congruence between one's online and physical world.

What's to stop you from confiding in your online friends? Just because you're not anonymous, it doesn't mean that you can't have private conversations online. On forums like these nobody has any real qualms about making their inner problems into a spectacle for everyone to chime in on, and usually the result is you get a few helpful responses, support, judgment, trolls, etc. Why not just find a good friend online and then confide in them privately? Why does absolutely everything have to be a public matter? I mean, isn't that what people are afraid of with all the monitoring and stuff?

 

[Quiet]

I'm sure they're out there I'm just not convinced that they've colluded as a powerful collective bent on world domination. They have personal lives too, just like everyone else. I do think that businesses are always trying to expand, but that's sort of a given anyways, isn't it? And without the big players or big government, the markets wouldn't be stable enough to support the lifestyles we're all currently enjoying… so which one do you trust more?

The only reason I think that these people exist is because I love history and world politics and have spent a lot of time studying our story. There is absolutely no doubt that these organisations of people exist. And yes they too have their own personal lives, their idiosyncratic motivations and intentions, as well as their own personal demons to deal with. But they also exert a great deal of influence on world politics, wars, our economy, religions, and cultures.

Our markets are not stable. I think that living in a market based society or in an 'economy' is completely anti-life. Regardless of what my personal beliefs and preferences are regarding living in an ecomony- it seems clear to me that the only reason the 'markets' are so unstable is because big businesses and the elite are using the 'markets' as their personal gambling game. The more I studied economy and global financial markets, the more I felt that these things had little to do with productivity, efficiency and fairness, and everything to do with gambling, power plays and exploitation.

I think that our current lifestyles are unsustainable, anti-life, unhealthy and inefficient. Personally I have no interest in maintaining or conserving our current paradigms and culture. I have no faith or reason to support big governments, big businesses or the 'markets'. I certainly have no wish that any person suffer through a revolution, but I also realise that the majority of the world is suffering right now so that a self deluded minority can feel comfortable and good about themselves.

Yeah, but everyone has their own sense of what freedom and justice are. Some people want to be free from their own mistakes, or free from their own responsibilities, or free from what they perceive to be a lesser place in the capitalist socioeconomic hierarchy… I'm honestly convinced that some people truly believe that they deserve to get paid simply because they are special and have good intentions. I'm not an expert but I have been to several third world countries and there's SUCH a massive gap between what satisfies them and what satisfies someone in the rich countries. I'm not saying you shouldn't demand more, but the problem is that no one wants to take any risks or do anything original-- they actively want to depend on rich people as parental figures who are obligated by virtue of their position to behave according to the wishes of their 'children', and spoil them with well-paying jobs and praise and everything they could ask for, much like their own parents did when they were growing up. It's the exact same dynamic!

I really dont understand what you are saying. Do you mean people that are dependant on social security?

Rich people are rich for a reason. Perhaps sometimes it is because of hard work and innovation, but most of the time its because of place of birth, family, societal connections, where they went to school, where they grew up, who they married, how cut throat they are prepared to be, how much they are prepared to exploit others. People can only be rich when others are poor. Basically someone exploits, and someone is being exploited. I have no respect or admiration for rich people, or for people that want to be rich. I love them and I feed sad for them because I think that they are trying desperately, and ignorantly to find a compensation for unconditional love. I think that the love of money is anti-life and leads to suffering.

I think that the reason people are so caught up in these pointless paradigms and feel so dissatisfied is because they live in a consumeristic culture. All these things are distractions, and have nothing to do with life, love, freedom and justice. Freedom is respecting the automomy, free will and wholeness of each individual- basically unpholding the UN declaration of human rights. Justice is fairness, transperancy, everyone (both poor and rich) being accountable to to the same laws and principles.

You would definitely have to worry more because information is much much more vulnerable than your physical person… because it can be altered without your knowledge. If someone physically attacks you there's a chance you can fight them off or escape somehow… but with information once it's out there it's always out there all the time where everyone can see it. It's one of the reasons I don't post clear pictures of myself online…
I don't think that physical bullying IS any worse than online bullying-- the worst part about it isn't the physical aspect of it, it's the psychological effect. Most people can handle pain… if you get hurt or cut or even if you break your leg, most people don't cry over it. It's not the fact that you're being hurt it's the fact that someone is hurting you in order to feel more powerful… which is the same whether its online or in real life. And I think that anonymity makes people more likely to be bullies, because they know that no one is going to find out who is doing it.

So are you saying that you do feel uncomfortable sharing information unanonymous online because you feel that your information is vulnerable and at risk of exploitation? I agree. I feel foolish about it and am trying to break past my fear and insecurities but I do feel uncomfortable about uploading personal infromation. I refuse to have a facebook at this time in my life. Internet security will most likely be one of the most prominent issues for this current generation.

And yes the psychological aspect of bullying is the most damaging, either online or physically. But in many countries (the majority world)- physical bullying can be immediately and terrifying- being beaten, raped, imprisoned, having your families and friends hurt. It essentially can become a life/death situation.

And under authoritarian governments, maybe people would be more reluctant to speak out, but at the same time without anonymity then you'd be able to more easily notice who was disappearing, and communicate about what was happening… and then there's always the martyr factor. If you capture someone who is anonymous, then you're capturing a sneaky shadowy figure… if you capture someone who is not anonymous, you're capturing a real human being who was standing up for what they believe in

.

You could only notice if someone disappeared in a transperant democratic society. This would not be possible at all in an authoritarian society because the government would simply lie, and the people would have no recourse for action or justice. This would literally just be like Big brother, where people are spied on by an invisible force. There is no accountablity or security for the people in this situation.

What's to stop you from confiding in your online friends? Just because you're not anonymous, it doesn't mean that you can't have private conversations online. On forums like these nobody has any real qualms about making their inner problems into a spectacle for everyone to chime in on, and usually the result is you get a few helpful responses, support, judgment, trolls, etc. Why not just find a good friend online and then confide in them privately? Why does absolutely everything have to be a public matter? I mean, isn't that what people are afraid of with all the monitoring and stuff?

This is the ideal, where people are comfortable and safe enough to communicate both publicly and privately. Once again, I think this can only occur in a truly democratic, transperant and progressive society, and definately not a society with bills like Acta and Sopa. What some people want is a society where all companies can freely collect all your information, provide it to to the government and other companies, use that information however they see fit, incriminate you without explaining why, and taking away all illusions of privacy. This is just too much- it will leave people too vulnerable and open to exploitation. No government, organisation or corporation has the capacity to safely handle that kind of power. And they have no right. I see no justification, whatsoever. The internet was built by ordinary people and it belongs to ordinary people. The internet is ours

 

[Apone]

So are you saying that you do feel uncomfortable sharing information unanonymous online because you feel that your information is vulnerable and at risk of exploitation? I agree. I feel foolish about it and am trying to break past my fear and insecurities but I do feel uncomfortable about uploading personal infromation. I refuse to have a facebook at this time in my life. Internet security will most likely be one of the most prominent issues for this current generation.

I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to be uncomfortable about uploading personal information. I actually think not being uncomfortable with it is stupid, but kids do it all the time. They're not exactly targets for theft-- mostly just for someone perving on their photo or stalking/bullying/murdering them... all up until the point when they get incomes, then the thieves will pounce.

I imagine the need for positive reinforcement or to hear how pretty they are will be gone by then and they'll back off and stop going online so much, but you never know... there's already a huge difference between the generation that grew up online and the one that didn't, or who came online later in their lives... and it's not like growing up with TV where it's mostly a passive thing and you probably don't get enough channels to keep you entertained anyways... this is something where you're actively participating and very involved, where there's endless amounts of entertainment of varying quality available... and you're invested in it all every way except emotionally.

You could only notice if someone disappeared in a transperant democratic society. This would not be possible at all in an authoritarian society because the government would simply lie, and the people would have no recourse for action or justice. This would literally just be like Big brother, where people are spied on by an invisible force. There is no accountablity or security for the people in this situation.

Most of the really oppressive governments control their citizens through fear and intimidation, not lies... they don't have to lie, and if they do, everyone knows what's going on anyways... but still, if you are public enough and make enough noise, someone is definitely going to notice when you disappear. The biggest problem with that kind of thing would probably be more like trying to get everyone to play fair... because some people just aren't like that, or think they should be above it all because they're part of some 'greater good'.. that goes for the police and for the bullies/hackers/whatever.

I agree that it's probably better to have a free Internet, but I also do think that SOME of the dangers have to be addressed… and mostly, I'm not really against the idea of a free internet as much as I wish that people would stop playing with their damn cell phones when I'm trying to have a conversation, and that I personally would stop spending so much time online and get outside more, because I don't think that the Internet should play as much of a role in our lives as it currently does, and I don't disagree that both the experience and the substance of art has been devalued by it.

 

[Quiet]

[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] I cant stand it when people look at their phones when we are trying to have a conversation either. I demand engagement when having a conversation, otherwise its just a superficial string of words. Maybe thats why people like communicating on the internet so much! Because alteast then they arent being distracted by the internet! In fairness though, I think it is less because of the internet and technology, and mainly because I think they are being rude and not really listening and engaging.

Its does strike me as odd, that kids have this wealth of information these days from the internet and all other media, yet so many I meet know very little about plants, vegetables, animals, how to take care of themselves etc. Ironic because all that information is freely available on the internet. And yes- they need to get outside more- otherwise they are going to end up visually impaired and physically unfit.

I think as an older generation in a rapidly changing world (and yes I undertand from a historical persective the world is always rapidly changing) we have a responsibility to understand and manage how our children interact with their environment and how/why they use the internet. It would be a tremendous shame to finally get to a point in human evolution where we can freely share information about everything in the world but somehow forget and lose the joy of actually living in the physical world. The internet is most useful as a tool to enhance and better our lives, not the medium to live our lives through. Reality is still better than virtual (for now- god knows what kind of crazy cool star trek holodeck stuff they'll have in the future)

 

[muir]

I'm sure they're out there I'm just not convinced that they've colluded as a powerful collective bent on world domination. They have personal lives too, just like everyone else.

There is often documentation proving the conspiracies and sometimes there are even admissions by the conspirators themselves, its just that it is not published in the main stream media (but it becomes fun reading between the lines of the mainstream media when you get a handle on the big picture) and most people do not go to the effort to question the consensus reality that is forged by the perceptions peddled in the mainstream media

For example one of the main 'conspiracy theories' at the moment is that there is an east coast elite in the US who influence government and the CIA through think tanks such as the council on foreign relations and that they want to create a global government.

One of their attempts at creating global governance apparatus was the League of Nations followed by the UN. The Bolsheviks (eg Trotsky) were funded and supported by this elite (international bankers) who believed that they could do business with the Bolsheviks and looked forward to the Russian markets opening up to trade, but Stalin took power and blocked their efforts.

One of the most prominant 'conspirators' is David Rockefeller who is patriarch of the Rockefeller family, served as part of his familiy affiliated bank, the Chase bank, which owns a sizeable portion of the shares of the 'federal' reserve bank which controls the US money supply and sets its interest rates.

Here's what he said in his 2002 autobiography:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

So there you have it....right from the horses mouth, so to speak

There is a conspiracy and its not really a matter of opinion

 

[Apone]

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

I think he was talking about peace and trade replacing nationalism and war-- not world domination. I'm not sure what you're trying to say-- are you against trade?

 

[muir]

I think he was talking about peace and trade replacing nationalism and war-- not world domination. I'm not sure what you're trying to say-- are you against trade?

Uh huh and who will orchestrate the trade? The international bankers will control the trade through a centralised system which they are bringing about through the central banking system

Sure they're talking about peace.....much like a prison governer talks about keeping the peace in his prison

 

[Apone]

Uh huh and who will orchestrate the trade? The international bankers will control the trade through a centralised system which they are bringing about through the central banking system

Sure they're talking about peace.....much like a prison governer talks about keeping the peace in his prison

We're wayyyy off-topic here, but can you think of a practical way that trades can be orchestrated without involving people in power?

 

[Quiet]

Email from Avaaz

Email from Avaaz...

Wow! Unbelievable response to this, and after 44 hours the attack has abated. They could come back stronger, let's be ready --

Dear friends,

The Avaaz site is right now under massive attack by what an expert tells us is likely a government or large corporation. We're still standing, but the attack is threatening our continued campaigning. We urgently need a defence fund to increase our security -- let's show the attackers they can't silence us, and their attempts will only make us stronger:

Donate now
Right now, the Avaaz website is under massive attack. An expert is telling us that an attack this large is likely coming from a government or large corporation, with massive, simultaneous and sophisticated assaults from across the world to take down our site.

We were expecting this. Our people-powered campaigning has been fearless, and we've taken on the world's worst actors head-on, in ways that genuinely hurt them - from the Syrian and Chinese regimes to Rupert Murdoch, Big Oil and organized crime. The Syrian dictatorship called our campaigner 'the most dangerous man in the world', and a UK inquiry recently revealed emails between Murdoch's news corporation and top levels of government saying the Avaaz campaign against Murdoch was their biggest concern. Sometimes I lie awake at night wondering when these people are going to come after us.

And it's begun. We have urgent campaigns on oceans, forests and Syria we need to run, but the attack has been going on for 36 hours straight, threatening our ability to keep campaigning. Because of top-notch security, our site is still up, but it's not enough. We need to show these actors that when they attack Avaaz, they're messing with people. And people-power can't be intimidated or silenced, it only grows stronger. Click below to donate to an Avaaz defence fund to take our security to the next level, and show our attackers that whatever they throw at us only makes us stronger:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/massive_attack_on_avaaz_rb/?vl

National authorities have been alerted to the attack. But we urgently need the defence fund to help us:

rapidly build industrial-scale security so that no attack can stop us campaigning
hire top hackers and technologists to manage our systems, defend us and test our defences
increase the physical security of our most vulnerable staff in places like Lebanon and Russia
take a range of other actions to improve our technology and security

Avaaz is a lightning rod that channels voices from across the world, from incredibly brave Tibetan, Russian and Syrian demonstrators risking everything for their freedom, to Bolivian indigenous communities saving their forest from being chopped in half. These people face intense danger, and repelling this attack is just another front in their and our struggle for democracy.

Millions of us have campaigned to keep corporations and governments from censoring and controlling the web. Now one of them is trying to censor us. So far, we're still standing, and our amazing member-funded systems mean that we can run this appeal for support safely and securely. But our campaigning is under real threat. We need to act, and show that these tactics only make us stronger:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/massive_attack_on_avaaz_rb/?vl

Avaaz can stand up to governments and corporations only because all of our strength, legitimacy, and funding comes from people, and people alone. We don't accept money - any money - from governments, corporations, foundations, or even large individual donors. It's extremely rare among large civil society organizations today, but 100% of our money comes from small online donations, and we don't accept gifts over 5000 Euros from anyone. That's why we're independent, and that's why we're a threat to those who put power before people. Let's keep being a threat.

With hope and determination,

Ricken and the whole Avaaz team.

 

[muir]

We're wayyyy off-topic here, but can you think of a practical way that trades can be orchestrated without involving people in power?

Yeah something along the lines of a gift economy would be nice!

However i don't see that happening anytime soon so in the interim i think that improvements could be made by decentralisation.

I don't see anarcho-capitalism as the answer but i sympathise with their disgust of the current kleptocracy that is turning the clock back on society by steering it towards a state of neo-fuedalism

There needs to be more accountability and transparency and the big monopolies need to be broken up. There are many means to acheive these aims.

What we have seen emerge as a result of deregualtion are 'too big to fail' giants that are run by a cabal of east coast bankers. These guys influence government, media and the secret service and are working towards greater global reach. They want a centralised system that they will control.

There are problems with centralised control for example a tendency towards tyranny. Some might argue a better balance could be struck which balances wealth and power better between the capitalist class and the workers

I would argue that this is still not good enough. I think state capitalism is a failure, i think anarcho-capitalism would be a failure and i think its time to start looking at ways to allocate resources fairly and not through a profit motive. This involves participation by people in the running of their communities and in the wider global community.

 

[Peppermint]

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-snopa-employers-passwords-access-denied.html I finally bring some good news about this issue.