
In 1979, a chain email about science fiction spawned the modern internet? - danso
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/internet-social-media-sf-lovers-arpanet.html
======
F00Fbug
If you're going to talk about the historical significance of social computing,
I would imagine that Usenet would figure in the story somewhere. To jump from
email threads (that the authors incorrectly call forums) to modern social
networks leaves out quite a bit of the story! Usenet was a remarkable tool for
communication and community-building, as was Compuserve (already mentioned by
skookumchuck).

Usenet was deployed in 1980, only a year after the SF-LOVERS email chain
started.

------
fooblat
Pretty much every sentence in this article that uses the world "first" is
wrong. Community Memory[0] is arguably the first social network and it was
launched in 1973. For more information and depth on the origins of tcp/ip and
email, I suggest the book Where Wizards Stay Up Late[1].

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory)

1\.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Stay_Up_Late)

~~~
erikb
Not to say you are wrong, but why do you claim that your one source is more
right than the one source that is the article? Just saying that there's a book
that says otherwise shouldn't be proof. E.g., I bet I can even find a book
that says Trump is our savior, Jesus 2.0.

*edit: I knew this would get downvoted. Why discuss logically when you can downvote, right?

~~~
stephenhuey
I have that book, too. I’d trust it more too. Not saying untruths couldn’t
make it into the published works of yesteryear but there was a higher hurdle
to publishing physical books than publishing this online article.

------
skookumchuck
The article reads like it's the only network that existed. BBS software also
got its start in 1979. CompuServe also got started in 1979.

~~~
panic
Not to mention PLATO
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_\(computer_system\))),
which by the mid 70's had multiplayer games, emoticons, chatrooms, and more.

~~~
taborj
Just to add - the book "The Friendly Orange Glow" is an excellent, readable
history of PLATO. Absolutely fascinating, and one the other of this article
probably hasn't see, or else they wouldn't be putting so much stock in this
one email chain.

------
peter303
This article is not correct. I was using email in 1974 and experienced similar
issues.

------
megaman8
>> After an unsuccessful attempt to sell ARPANET to a commercial buyer (AT&T
could have literally owned the internet, but said No thanks), the government
split the system in two

Can you imagine what it would be like if AT&T bought the internet?

------
howard941
Failure to mention NJIT's EIES or The Source for that matter renders this
article's origin claims kinda questionable. Push reset, try again.

------
gcb0
wow. that last paragraph was a little heavy handed on forcing a completely new
topic and new facts wasn't it?

------
ghusbands
Link without (illegal) GDPR noise:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/internet-
social-media-sf-lovers-arpanet.html)

~~~
fake-name
Or just use a plugin that blocks jerberscript, and you can read it fine. So
does uMatrix (apparently the GDPR shit is an external JS resource!).

~~~
jraph
In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I
don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the
letter would not suffice.

To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text
article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to
customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content.

I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff.
Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's
time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be
followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't
want to. Leave me alone.

You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are
actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that
from several people these last weeks.

~~~
ptaipale
Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie
acknowledge silliness mandatory.

~~~
ben_w
That’s analogous to saying “don’t complain about the stalkers, complain about
the police for requiring stalkers to tell you they’re stalkers”.

~~~
ptaipale
Not really. We all know that sites give us cookies, it's the standard
behaviour in the net, and the constant nagging by all web sites "accept this"
and "accept that" and "continue as usual" has led to a situation where each
and every site gives a different warning, which we all then blindly accept,
because it is way too cumbersome to actually read pages of legalese when you
are arriving on a Web page that has some information you googled for.

I claim that the cookie-acknowledgement legislation does not add value and is
clearly counterproductive. We are taught to accept that "everyone is a
stalker" and "it's okay we do it, because you accepted it, didn't you read
that legal disclaimer, possibly in a language you do not understand".

~~~
ben_w
To my understanding, the legislation requires _informed_ consent not _mere_
assent.

So this would be like, what, pretending you’re a fan to get an autograph and
then revealing that the celebrity has just signed away all their rights? And
then asserting that that’s legally binding?

------
contentpls
[https://outline.com/xk5MMp](https://outline.com/xk5MMp)

