Shhh, they'll hear you and give you a crappy connection. NSA + ISP's = we're all screwed. Hey theadvancedapes what does "ownership" of the connection to the internet of "things" look like in the future?
I've always maintained that as long as we have our current political system - they will continue to misuse and abuse emerging ICT - this includes the entire Internet of Things (or the "Industrial Internet" as it was called in a recent TED talk). The continued invasion of our privacy, the control over our individual and collective lives, in my opinion, will be a primary pressure for our collective mobilization and establishment of a more decentralized political system.
How do you envision things will look between here and there? Also, won't this invasion of privacy make it difficult for people to coordinate efforts?The continued invasion of our privacy, the control over our individual and collective lives, in my opinion, will be a primary pressure for our collective mobilization and establishment of a more decentralized political system.
In a paper I wrote that was just accepted by the World Future Review I discuss my vision for the future of our political system in depth (I'll upload to hubski when it's been published - due to nature of the academic journal article process this is an inherently lengthy process). I do speculate about how the transition will happen but I don't pretend to know with a high degree of certainty. I am just sure that the transition will occur if socio-technological evolution holds. The big question is this: Will it be violent or not? Will it be gradual or not? Basically, will it be like the French and American Revolutions? (i.e. violent and relatively abrupt). There is really no way to know because it depends on too many social factors and players. A number of things could happen, which I know is not very helpful. The only guarantee is that socio-technological evolution is on our side, and not the industrial systems side, so however it occurs, we will win. Industrial political systems can temporarily abuse their power - in the process temporarily halting progress - but they cannot control the Internet or our collective action in its entirety. Dictatorships learned this throughout the Middle East and North Africa over the past few years. You can't stop all of us. The Internet is too decentralized and robust. More importantly, the Internet allows our actual collective opinion to emerge, which shifts the entire culture faster than most of us anticipate. We have already seen more of a popular opinion shift against spying and centralized organization in 2013 than probably the entirety of human history before 2013. This is only going to grow the more we become aware that our current information infrastructure does not align with our current political infrastructure. One of the most important things to discuss moving forward is the fact that our institutions are not embedded in the laws of physics. They have a beginning. And they will have an end. That beginning and that end are dependent on evolutionary functions. We can explain their emergence. And we can explain their collapse. Their existence is currently on shaky grounds.won't this invasion of privacy make it difficult for people to coordinate efforts?
I'd be interested to take a look at that paper, when you're free to post it. So, barring some kind of natural disaster, what kinds of things do you think could possibly derail or set back the socio-technological evolution? It certainly seems like it will continue to progress, especially as there is a great deal of money to be made from it, but that "if" really stood out to me. I remember in other posts that you have opined that perhaps government will someday be crowd sourced (am I remembering that correctly?). If this comes to be, how might it be organized such that mob mentality doesn't take over?I am just sure that the transition will occur if socio-technological evolution holds.
It's really hard to say. I don't want to sound like a determinist but it's hard to see what could stop advancing ICT. Many people say hyper-centralized government. And that is true. But if one government becomes hyper-centralized (say America) - then another government will just take over and outcompete them (say China or India or Brazil or Russia, the EU or someone else decades from now). It would take a global hyper-centralized government to stop advancing ICT and Global Brain models suggest such an entity is impossible because you need more distributed intelligence for such a stable entity (i.e., like a real brain), not less. Of course, a human-caused disaster or the improper implementation of ICT could delay socio-technological evolution. The length of the delay would depend on the severity of the human-caused disaster. You're right to pay attention to the "if". We need to make sure we guide ourselves intelligently through socio-technological evolution. Drones can be used to make sure that every single person can acquire any good they want for negligible cost in negligible time; or they could be used to kill children in the developing world. We can't decide what tech will emerge (i.e., no one necessarily had control over the Internet's emergence and no one will have control over whether or not robots come), but we do have a choice in terms of how we use the emergent tech. The basic outline for our idea of a future governing system was published in IEEE Explore. If you can't access that I can send a PDF - but not sure how to attach a PDF here. We need very specific control mechanisms in the next government system. It will not be 100% decentralized. Certain people will have more power and influence than others - just like today. But those people will be 100% accountable to people and the entire organization will be far more decentralized and fluid. For a sample of my thoughts on the transition we will experience, I just posted this.what kinds of things do you think could possibly derail or set back the socio-technological evolution?
but that "if" really stood out to me.
I remember in other posts that you have opined that perhaps government will someday be crowd sourced
Thanks for the thorough answer, I appreciate it! When I click on the link for IEEE Explore, I hit a pay wall. I'd certainly appreciate the opportunity to read it and I think others might be too. If you don't want to share it here, I can PM my e-mail. I do hope that more accountability will be present in future iterations of government, at the very least. It also occurs to me that a universal increase in accountability might also be desirable. I don't like my privacy being invaded any more than anyone else, or being observed by management, but if everyone could see what everyone else is doing in the workplace it might be pretty useful. Heh, at the very least, I think it would change the hiring process and supplant the need for the self-reported resume or CV.
Found an open access PDF version. For a lot of people I think this is already happening. Your Twitter/blog/personal website etc. all function in essence like a C.V. or resume. This isn't just theoretical for me - both of my current jobs were acquired by sending my website/blog/twitter. All emerging jobs on the Internet should function in this way. Other common features of emergent jobs include less hierarchy and increased individual autonomy (in regards to both the way you spend your time and where you have to be geographically).I think it would change the hiring process and supplant the need for the self-reported resume or CV.
Cool. Thanks again! Yeah, I that's certainly true. I was thinking of something maybe less self-reported. Employers are increasingly looking for real-life experience in things like leadership or problem solving and rely on applicants to sell themselves in person and through self-reportage. The problem with this of course, is that it can be hard to give a prospective employer a real sense of an applicant's capabilities and experience in this fashion. Maybe I'm just sick of tweaking my CV . . .
the court said that such restrictions are not needed in part because consumers have a choice in which ISP they use.
really? Where are all of these options? How varied are they? This sucks and has some pretty crappy implications.
And I'm so glad our courts feel comfortable using anecdotes instead of evidence to support their assertions. massive eye roll"But there is no evidence in the record suggesting that broadband providers are carving up territory or avoiding head-to-head competition,” the court writes. “At least anecdotally, the opposite seems to be true"
Ok. I want to just be really negative, but seeing as @minimum_wage already expressed everything I can think of, let's be productive. 1. How do we (denizens of the internet) oppose this in a mature, legal and vocal manner? 2. If 1 is not possible, who do we turn the pitchforks on first?
What can my congressman do about the appeals court? What can my senator do about the appeals court? If they're corrupt (Which they all are, they all accept money from corporate interests, other countries call it corruption, we call it lobbying) why does my email matter? Who in that office that matters cares? The intern with the senators cock in her mouth may want peace and an open internet, but as long as her job and future is dependent on that 'representative' of the American public, what can she do? Quick edit to include, these questions aren't sarcastic, I legitimately would like to know what a congressman is capable of doing to overturn an appeal like this. Does such a mechanism exist?
Heahgh mither congama! I waaa ew ooGAHUGH-UGH-GAHK-UGK-AGH a lahs fo me so naw mah neh neaharli-ee! pleeeeee!
I figured this would happen. I have trouble with the idea, though -- we're essentially talking about a private service choosing what exact services it provides. Nothing unusual about that. Can anyone share why they expect net neutrality from private corporations? Monopoly threat, like the article says? Or that the internet is a natural right? Would love to hear all different interpretations. EDIT: great points from everyone. More or less what I thought you all would say.
I think it depends if we consider ISPs to be utility companies (I do), and therefore providers of a public good. Power and water companies can't start throttling service where and when they want willy nilly. But on the other hand, we pay for power and water on a unit basis. And no one stands for paying for internet on a unit basis (c'mon, what is this, Canada?!).
I like that analogy. I'm not convinced the internet is a public good or that ISPs should be judged as utility companies, but at least I understand the argument a bit better now. "Net neutrality" is a dangerous term because it could imply something other than what it means. Would much prefer never to see it in a headline again.
I see the ability for us citizens to use the internet unfettered as important as their unfettered use of roads. IMO it is now a fundamental component of modern civil society. In that sense, I think 'Net Neutrality' is an appropriate term. I don't want to see my bandwidth determined by content. On a related note, IMHO the US needs to break out of the public/private debate, and concentrate more on the ends than the means. I strongly believe that it is a conveniently simplistic debate that has been co-opted and promoted by our bipolar political infrastructure. IMO we need to re-imagine both government and private entities, with a eye toward outcomes rather than ideological consistency. I worry that we argue about the wrong things, and let better futures pass us by.
I disagree. Moderates are not insignificant, but moderates often become disinterested in both of the two extremist parties. Although negative campaigns portraying the other party's extremism can counteract this. But I think extremism is more often rewarded in practice. For example, the rallying Fundamentalist Christian demographic in 2000, and the radically extremist Tea Party in 2010.
Because as a consumer, that's what I'm paying for—the internet. Not the part of the internet that paid their protection money. This isn't a problem if Capitalist Theory works the way it's supposed to. I can simply switch from Verizon to Sprint. Unfortunately, as you say, the problem is monopolist and anti-competitive practices. I can't simply switch my mobile carrier because I'm locked into a multi-year contract. I can't simply switch my landline provider because there are only two in my area and neither provides true internet. Like many economic policies, it comes down to impractical purist Capitalism. Pure Capitalism simply doesn't work. I can't think of any pure theory that does. Ideology must give way to pragmatism, and purist Capitalism must be tempered with the minimum necessary regulation to protect consumers against definitively sociopathic corporations. For Common Carriers, that means anti-discrimination laws. For ISPs, it means so-called "net neutrality."Can anyone share why they expect net neutrality from private corporations?
This is often true. In a stroke of extreme fortune I think I'll be eligible for Google Fiber within the next two years, but otherwise, limited options and multi-year contracts.Unfortunately, as you say, the problem is monopolist and anti-competitive practices. I can't simply switch my mobile carrier because I'm locked into a multi-year contract. I can't simply switch my landline provider because there are only two in my area and neither provides true internet.
Talking exclusively form the content point of view, I am sure this was a debate with the printed press at some point and addressed by journalistic integrity (maybe?). If the net follows other media experience we will have different internets for different audiences, thing that we already have (google search, facebook ad etc) because we really don't have a grip as users over anything that happens after we push the "on" button.
Well, exactly. If you have 'the power of the press' you can choose what you filter to your audience. The ISPs now have 'the power of the internet' and can choose what they broadcast. And already are.Talking exclusively form the content point of view, I am sure this was a debate with the printed press at some point and addressed by journalistic integrity (maybe?).