Should the Government Have Regulated the Early Internet - or Our Future AI? (hedgehogreview.com) 42
In February tech journalist Nicholas Carr published Superbloom: How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart.
A University of Virginia academic journal says the book "appraises the past and present" of information technology while issuing "a warning about its future." And specifically Carr argues that the government ignored historic precedents by not regulating the early internet sometime in the 1990s. But as he goes on to remind us, the early 1990s were also when the triumphalism of America's Cold War victory, combined with the utopianism of Silicon Valley, convinced a generation of decision-makers that "an unfettered market seemed the best guarantor of growth and prosperity" and "defending the public interest now meant little more than expanding consumer choice." So rather than try to anticipate the dangers and excesses of commercialized digital media, Congress gave it free rein in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, as Carr explains,
"...erased the legal and ethical distinction between interpersonal communication and broadcast communications that had governed media in the twentieth century. When Google introduced its Gmail service in 2004, it announced, with an almost imperial air of entitlement, that it would scan the contents of all messages and use the resulting data for any purpose it wanted. Our new mailman would read all our mail."
As for the social-media platforms, Section 230 of the Act shields them from liability for all but the most egregiously illegal content posted by users, while explicitly encouraging them to censor any user-generated content they deem offensive, "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" (emphasis added). Needless to say, this bizarre abdication of responsibility has led to countless problems, including what one observer calls a "sociopathic rendition of human sociability." For Carr, this is old news, but he warns us once again that the compulsion "to inscribe ourselves moment by moment on the screen, to reimagine ourselves as streams of text and image...[fosters] a strange, needy sort of solipsism. We socialize more than ever, but we're also at a further remove from those we interact with."
Carr's book suggests "frictional design" to slow posting (and reposting) on social media might "encourage civil behavior" — but then decides it's too little, too late, because our current frictionless efficiency "has burrowed its way too deeply into society and the social mind."
Based on all of this, the article's author looks ahead to the next revolution — AI — and concludes "I do not think it wise to wait until these kindly bots are in place before deciding how effective they are. Better to roll them off the nearest cliff today..."
A University of Virginia academic journal says the book "appraises the past and present" of information technology while issuing "a warning about its future." And specifically Carr argues that the government ignored historic precedents by not regulating the early internet sometime in the 1990s. But as he goes on to remind us, the early 1990s were also when the triumphalism of America's Cold War victory, combined with the utopianism of Silicon Valley, convinced a generation of decision-makers that "an unfettered market seemed the best guarantor of growth and prosperity" and "defending the public interest now meant little more than expanding consumer choice." So rather than try to anticipate the dangers and excesses of commercialized digital media, Congress gave it free rein in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, as Carr explains,
"...erased the legal and ethical distinction between interpersonal communication and broadcast communications that had governed media in the twentieth century. When Google introduced its Gmail service in 2004, it announced, with an almost imperial air of entitlement, that it would scan the contents of all messages and use the resulting data for any purpose it wanted. Our new mailman would read all our mail."
As for the social-media platforms, Section 230 of the Act shields them from liability for all but the most egregiously illegal content posted by users, while explicitly encouraging them to censor any user-generated content they deem offensive, "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected" (emphasis added). Needless to say, this bizarre abdication of responsibility has led to countless problems, including what one observer calls a "sociopathic rendition of human sociability." For Carr, this is old news, but he warns us once again that the compulsion "to inscribe ourselves moment by moment on the screen, to reimagine ourselves as streams of text and image...[fosters] a strange, needy sort of solipsism. We socialize more than ever, but we're also at a further remove from those we interact with."
Carr's book suggests "frictional design" to slow posting (and reposting) on social media might "encourage civil behavior" — but then decides it's too little, too late, because our current frictionless efficiency "has burrowed its way too deeply into society and the social mind."
Based on all of this, the article's author looks ahead to the next revolution — AI — and concludes "I do not think it wise to wait until these kindly bots are in place before deciding how effective they are. Better to roll them off the nearest cliff today..."
But it WAS regulated...... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the CDA. Congress did try to regulate the relatively early commercial internet. They messed it up and the court struck down pretty much all parts of the law that actually did any regulating but left the legal shield standing.
The problem honestly wasn't a lack of regulation, in fact no CDA at all was likely needed. The problem is the stupid legal shield that let everyone do things like monetize outrage, which never would have flown had they tried such things in the editorial section of prin
Re: (Score:1)
Had congress just left well enough alone, and done nothing at all, allowed existing communications, publishing, libel laws etc in place, the web would have done just fine.
The CDA's section 230 really didn't change those things except in a way that was necessary to protect them from the CDA itself.
Re: (Score:3)
My joke on the topic is to blame Al Gore. He kept telling them 'Don't worry about the money. I'll keep you funded." And therefore they didn't worry about the financial models and the Web has now evolved into a criminal enterprise dominated by the "best" criminals. Not every great fortune is based on a great crime. Sometimes there's some luck involved.
However I've actually come to a weird new theory. Perhaps triggered by Nozick, though he didn't write anything quite like this in the old book I read. Maybe th
Regulate the Intertubes? (Score:1)
Firstly, I can't imagine politicians getting a new technology right. They would probably have passed everything on to the military or the NSA (and I just checked, they date back to the Kennedy administration).
Secondly, other countries would also have had the technology. Regulating the internet would presumably have inhibited the founding of Yahoo, Google and a large number of other companies. The iPhone would never have been invented and my guess is that Apple would have foundered.
Re:Regulate the Intertubes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulating the internet would presumably have inhibited the founding of Yahoo, Google and a large number of other companies. The iPhone would never have been invented and my guess is that Apple would have foundered.
I also prefer very light regulation while new industries are being formed. No one knows what direction they will take or how much value they will create. I've seen studies estimating the Internet is responsible for 20% of the economic growth over the past 30 years, and AI has much more potential than the Internet had.
The problem comes from not regulating it and distributing its gains throughout society after the markets begin to mature. If AI became good enough to replace 50% of today's labor, the US could become a utopia. The government could step in and mandate a 20-hour work week and create wealth taxes to replace income taxes, all without lowering our standard of living.
But everyone is freaked out because no one thinks that will happen. We expect the trend that led the top 1% to go from owning 10% of the nation's wealth 75 years ago to 26% of the nation's wealth today to accelerate. We expect the nation's GDP to double while real median household income drops. No one is really fears AI taking our jobs, we are fearful that the new jobs which are created will be worse than the ones we have today. That shouldn't be what happens, but almost no one is optimistic about our chances.
alarmist BS trying to capitalize on current fears (Score:3, Insightful)
"So rather than try to anticipate the dangers and excesses of commercialized digital media, Congress gave it free rein..."
Like it does in other instances. The press is even constitutionally protected.
'..."an unfettered market seemed the best guarantor of growth and prosperity" and "defending the public interest now meant little more than expanding consumer choice." ...'
Yeah, basic capitalism, nothing new.
"...erased the legal and ethical distinction between interpersonal communication and broadcast communications that had governed media in the twentieth century. When Google introduced its Gmail service in 2004, it announced, with an almost imperial air of entitlement, that it would scan the contents of all messages and use the resulting data for any purpose it wanted. Our new mailman would read all our mail."
This lie would not have stood then and will not stand now. Google cannot read your mail, it can read messages sent through its service, just as all private companies can do. Your mail remains what it always was. Google can do what it does, that's why the constitution created the Post Office.
"...while explicitly encouraging them to censor ..."
Bullshit.
"Based on all of this, the article's author looks ahead to the next revolution — AI — and concludes "I do not think it wise to wait until these kindly bots are in place before deciding how effective they are. Better to roll them off the nearest cliff today...""
Sure, but I'm not interested in putting liars in charge. That's why we have a mess to begin with. This guy's a liar out to make a buck.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but you have one detail wrong. "that's why the constitution created the Post Office." The U.S. Constitution did not create the Post Office. Instead, it authorized (did not mandate) Congress to create a Post Office and Post Roads.
The differences between the terms "authorize," "appropriate," and "mandate" are likely to be put before SCOTUS in the near future for clarification, which I think is a good thing. Not sure how the rulings will come down, or the implications,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is such a thing as alarmism, and it's common enough, but there is one thing that genuinely scares me: gambling on smartphones. It just seems like a terrible idea to put something that addictive on a device that's within everyones' arm's reach 24x7.
At my gym I've seen a dramatic transformation over the past ten years with young men. Gambling is all they talk about now, when they're not taking up space on a bench you're waiting for while they stare glassy-eyed into their phone. I'm not a prude
Two words: Clipper Chip (Score:5, Informative)
As a "how bad could it go", consider government-sanctioned encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Obviously anti Murican (Score:2, Troll)
Obviously some freedom loving Youropean.
Raise the taruffs.
Broadcast (Score:5, Interesting)
erased the legal and ethical distinction between interpersonal communication and broadcast communications
It's interesting that they specifically brought up broadcasting as the contrast to interpersonal communications. The only reason there were regulations on broadcast mediums was that it was a limited resource. There were only so many radio stations and so many TV stations available, so you had to be operated as a "public good," whatever that meant to whomever was in charge at the time.
Newspapers did not have this level of regulation. If you viewed the early internet as personal newspaper publishing, the regulations were about on par.
Why the government would be interested in regulating the ethical ramifications of news print is beyond me, and runs immediately afoul of the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal ads in a newspaper was a limited resource and so newspapers regulated themselves and charged per word. It was an early form of frictional design.
Nonsense (Score:1)
So rather than try to anticipate the dangers and excesses of commercialized digital media, Congress gave it free rein in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, as Carr explains,
"...erased the legal and ethical distinction between interpersonal communication and broadcast communications that had governed media in the twentieth century
This is just another attack on Section 230, maybe a little better disguised than most, but still not that well since it calls out the act that contains it.
What "governed" "media" in the early 20th century (which is what TFA is talking about really) was technological limitations. You could not have an unlimited number of broadcasters using radio technology, so we had to place limitations on who could broadcast. We didn't have to do that with USENET (which is where the paradigm the author is whining about cam
Much of it *is* regulated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
such as all the cookie prompt bullshit
Yes, this has basically destroyed the web. You can't navigate to any previously unvisited page without being met with popups. We are basically back to the web before popup blockers, but it somehow manages to be even worse.
Re: Much of it *is* regulated (Score:1)
AI Must Be Regulated (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like two almost unrelated questions. (Score:3)
I'm not a legal historian by any means; but my impression is that a lot of the relatively predictable concerns were examined (in some cases even with relatively limited fuss; because 'internet-native' corporations had not yet become incumbents with extensive lobbying resources and formidable legal and regulatory pressure; so a lot of 'tech' was also still unclear on exactly what it was expecting from 'the internet', beyond nobody wanting unpredictable and potentially unlimited amounts of liability flying around and sticking to anyone a 3rd party could use to shitpost; or easy data transmission being used to do all the piracy.
I assume that a hypothetical investigative reporter/forensic accountant/media studies futurist dream team could have seen some unpleasant developments developing earlier than people in fact did; but it was never an environment of just apathy and complacency. What seems to have mostly caught people out is the rise of internet-based companies as fully hegemonic operations with substantial ability to resist and coopt further attempts at regulation; along with some of the things-just-got-weird-with-smartphones that led to things like an entire generation of parents sliding smoothly and naturally from warning their children about the dangerous of internet strangers who might no be what they seem to just mainlining the dodgiest conspiracy facebook nonsense like it's an entire personality. I remember not seeing that one coming.
Re: (Score:3)
Few things have gone as wrong as the DMCA - it's abused and does not require due legal process.
Re: (Score:2)
"gone wrong" - Seems to me you have the wrong idea regarding what it was intended to do, and it does that just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The intention was to circumvent due process, which it has done and then it has become abused by people not owning the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
The intention was to circumvent due process
And smart people play by the same rules they do. Aaaar.
They did (Score:1)
You have been conditioned to think of regulation as a bad thing. That is so that you will demand the end of regulation leaving a power vacuum that rich and powerful men can fill.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have I read your comment. Word for word. ??? Do you just copy/paste this?
INTERNET has been around since the 1970s (Score:2)
This quoted article gets so many things wrong, from when the Internet stated, DMCA Section 230, and the reequirement to regulate eveything.
REGULATION:
"The government" (meaning the US Federal government?) "should have regulated" (because EVERYTHING MUST BE REGULATED) "the Internet in the 1990s" (the Internet was around in the 1970s, was used to connect NSF supercomputing centers to universities in the early 1980s, giving unfettered access to millions of people, commercialized in 1993 giving rise to AOL, Nets
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI, Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, which is rather ironic, considering the original purpose of the CDA was to censor the US Internet.
needs regulations from bots, not people (Score:2)
The problem is tracking (Score:2)
and the associated algorithms. Get rid of the tracking. Let the ad industry rebalance. The money stops going to the few.
Should the Gov have regulated the early Internet (Score:2)
NO!
- or Our Future AI?
NO!
Betteridge's law of headlines (Score:2)
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Digital border should have been established (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
Should the Government Have Regulated the Early Internet - or Our Future AI?
Yes they should, as long as We The People regulate the government.
Yes. (Score:2)
They should have. It should have been regulated. Most of you weren't born before the Web - I was on usenet, which *was* the Internet - late, in late 91. FAIR USE meant just that.
Then came Kantor and Siegel, "there's no communities here, it's only a marketing opportunity", and that's where it went wrong. No regulation led to the STUPID Internet bubble of 2000, which screwed a *lot* of us over. Since then... Ok, kiddies, reality check time: back in the day - like the sixties and seventies, when there were no
At early stages it's hard to know what to regulate (Score:2)
When the internet was born, who would have foreseen a need for net neutrality? Who would have thought we'd need public key encryption or multi-factor authentication? Who would have thought we'd need DMARK and SPF for email? Who would have thought everybody would have a powerful computer in their pocket, or in front of their face, ALL the time, and that this would cause an epidemic of depression?
In the early 60s, everything was open, you didn't even need to authenticate with SMS to send emails. Computers wer