Ask HN: Is the Wild West Internet dead? Should it be?

[Ardit20]

I think the agenda, or "schooling" as some call it, is being slowly pushed by interested parties to regulate the internet. I think the elite is being lobbied to "school" the public in resisting less a more clean, comfortable, orderly, internet.

Personally I see some value in such arguments. There is a reason why we have laws and rules and the internet has perhaps become too mainstream, too important, to be allowed to have so much freedom. Society would perhaps be served better if certain things were more regulated, if web pages can be more trusted and have more authority.

Even if some regulation is not imposed, some of what I might call more complete reflection of society in the internet is already beginning to be established. Big players have established themselves and most probably do engage in cut throat swim or die attacks and defence on their smaller competitors thus slowly creating an oligarchy as is evident in many fields. Thus stifling freedom as is evident in many industries.

Yet I also have this romantic view of the internet, sort of a place bright and dark which counteracts cultural, conventional, societal, "restrictions" by providing the platform and means of overcoming them. Information is no longer hidden under pay walls, no longer does one need to be rich to read of so much history, ancient philosophy, or other books. No longer is knowledge the prerogative of those born in a wealthy family. Nor does one need to be near a library and be charged constantly for being overdue. Yet this seems to slowly be changing. The "schooling" seems to be working. The public seems to be less resistant to pay walls as they were a while ago. The spirit of "pirates", their pioneering efforts to allow information to be free by making it clear that restricting it in this platform is not possible because of the many ways that technology allows us to subvert such restrictions seems to slowly be waning.

Have we therefore seen the best of the internet, or will be able to enjoy the best of it for only a little more time?

Is the internet as we know being killed? And if so, is that desirable?

[michael_dorfman]

I think that the internet, as you imagine it, is being killed-- but that says more about you, than about the internet.

Your romantic view of the internet is exactly that: a romanticization. It's not the way things are, nor even the way they once were.

I don't want to be too harsh, but it's really hard for me to read things like "no longer does one need to be rich to read of so much history, ancient philosophy, or other books. No longer is knowledge the prerogative of those born in a wealthy family. Nor does one need to be near a library and be charged constantly for being overdue."

Overdue charges? That's your complaint?

Information wants to be free, yes; but it also wants to be expensive. Don't forget that part.

I'm not less resistant to paywalls than I was was a while ago; I've spent my whole life paying for information, in the form of books, newspapers, classes, etc. And even that information which I've gotten "for free", via broadcast television or public libraries, I've paid for via advertising or taxes. And if I haven't paid for it, someone else has.

And, by the way, you ought to make up your mind: are you against regulation, or against the freedom that is allowing bigger players to eat up smaller ones and create oligarchies?

[Ardit20 → michael_dorfman]

Well, the reason I asked is to start a debate as to whether regulation is desirable or otherwise. I tried to emphasise that a one sides argument is being put forward which is slowly trying to lessen the resistance to regulating the internet. Thus there is no debate and we know that "schooling" works.

I don't like oligarchies for the same reason that I do not like monopolies. There are big players on line, but I do not think there are oligarchies. I think instead we are slowly moving towards that direction.

I don't know how old you are, but I do not like paying ten pounds or twenty when I leave university. And that is while the internet is present. That might not be a great amount, but I sure could have used it in much better ways as a student.

Also, if you are like 14, you live on pocket money, so being charged is not cool.

Besides, my point is much larger. You might have your textbooks and the like in America and your parents might be willing to buy you any book you like and as many as you like, but, someone, somewhere else or even in America might not.

For example, why do I have to pay for a research paper or an article journal when it is their job to produce the research or write the journal?

Also, why should I pay for Faust when it was written more than a century ago, or Dante's Comedy and the writers are dead?

Why should a poor kid be penalised just because he was born in a poor family by not being able to watch a film, or read classes, or books, or music.

In the real life we know why, but should that apply to the internet too? Are these things really expensive overall, or is instead information expensive because some would like to make millions, some billions, accumulate an obscene amount of wealth at the expense of all others.

But, there are arguments for regulation too, so to finally answer your question I have not made up my mind because I do not think you can generalise so I thought it would be great to have a debate, but maybe that is for another time, or maybe we'll never have it because it will be too late.

[michael_dorfman → Ardit20]

I don't know how old you are, but I do not like paying ten pounds or twenty when I leave university. And that is while the internet is present. That might not be a great amount, but I sure could have used it in much better ways as a student.

I'm in my late 40s, and I don't like paying for food. I don't expect others to feed me, though.

For example, why do I have to pay for a research paper or an article journal when it is their job to produce the research or write the journal?

Think about this for a moment. I'll wait for the other shoe to drop.

Who pays them to do "their job" to produce the research or write the journal article? There you go.

Also, why should I pay for Faust when it was written more than a century ago, or Dante's Comedy and the writers are dead?

Because the paper and printing still take labor. If you want an electronic copy, they're freely available (out of copyright) at no charge. Of course, you can get the dead trees edition at the public library, but you've already stated your opposition to those....

[Ardit20 → michael_dorfman]

Well you did expect others to feed you when you were 14.

The students pay for them in the manner of university fees and too the public at large in the manner of taxation, yet still they hide them behind pay walls.

In regards to this point I think you have missed my question. I was asking why should someone pay for Faust on the internet, in the context of course of regulation and the like.

[michael_dorfman → Ardit20]

The students who pay for the academic journals, in the manner of university fees, etc., get free access to said journals through their university library. You seem to be arguing, if I understand you correctly, that the academic journals ought to be free to all-- which destroys their business model. I have close relatives who have edited academic journals, and I can assure you, there is an enormous amount of work involved.

Regarding "Faust", do you know of anyone who has attempted to put "Faust" behind a paywall? I doubt it; if they did, they'd have little success, as "Faust" is in the public domain (except for recent translations, naturally).

The question you should be asking yourself is: if all content is going to be free, who is going to pay for the production of content?

At the moment, your argument seems to be that content should be free because you don't want to pay for it. While, as you indicated in your comment above, this attitude may be commonplace in 14 year olds, but is not the basis for a sustainable society.

[kaens]

I'm of the opinion that as far as information being free goes, it's not going to go away. It's possible that it will for the vast majority of people -- but the vast majority of people aren't using the internet as an educational tool.

The people who understand and implement the things that make the internet work are, by and large, people who want information to be free.

I'm of the opinion that we're in the middle of something akin to the 2nd industrial revolution, and that we'll have quite the upheaval in the way people provide for themselves assuming that we don't end ourselves (in fact, we've already seen quite a bit of change in the possibilities for providing for oneself, especially in the "Western world".

I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of resistance to the coming ubiquitous nature of the availability of information, but frankly that's more of a cultural issue (and a power issue, but that's another topic) than not, and will die out given time. Hopefully quickly.

The current barrier to getting useful information on the internet is the willingness to seek and search and think critically. This has always been the barrier to getting useful information on the internet, and since we can't assume that everyone is going to put valid information out there (not to mention that we can't assume that people are actually willing to teach themselves), we need to assume that this will always be the barrier to getting good information on the internet.

I don't think that the newfound ability of the common person to educate themselves about damn near anything is going away, or getting any harder. I don't think that any sort of actual attempts at regulation of the internet will be successful -- although I do think that we shouldn't ignore them.

Anyhow, I'm stopping now. I'm not quite awake yet.

[mikecane]

This should have been a blog post somewhere with some concrete examples of what you mean. There is always an impulse to orderliness in human affairs and the Net is no exception to that. I'm sure the rulers hate things like Wikileaks, but that's the price they pay for trying to hide things the public should know. I'm sure some sites hate 4chan, but that's the price of freedom. It's all or nothing. Companies can try to throttle bandwidth, they can place caps, they can throw in filters, the can block IP addresses. But the Internet mimics nature, not corporate orderliness, and nature always wins. I'll bet on the net every time.