The internet was born as a network to exchange data and to simplify collaboration between (mostly scientific) institutions. It's interesting that since companies decided to play on that ground it became a lot less collaborative between institutions because people decided to build walled gardens.

There are definitely good technical reasons for such a setup, but the lack of interest in "lets make our data available for others" shows that those are not the driving factors in that game.

@sheogorath Even worse: "let's make the internet 'internal' and make all the traffic transparent, by punishing those who make it not" seems to gain traction.

@sheogorath I refer to the governments: North Korea, China, Russia, Australia. Somebody else?

@amiloradovsky Well, that works in both directions. When we really want to look into that even the European GDPR does that by requiring an office within the EU in order to be able to enforce laws.

I guess we simply miss the international ability to properly protect own citizens rights on the internet which causes those drastic steps.

At the end of the day it boils down to the question: how much power should law enforcement have? (For and against me)

@sheogorath A lot of people seem to find the idea of being able to strip anybody to the bones, just like IRL, very plausible, no matter what.

@sheogorath It was only a matter of time when capitalism took over the internet. Though I wonder if this may be a misconception due to the segregation of networks. Enterprise networks are highly segregated from "the internet" but there are a lot of cases when an intranet is set up between companies, explicitly for the purpose of collaboration.

@brandon I don't know if that's a problem of capitalism, because I think there are market systems which would have the same effect but not being explicit capitalism. And also company networks aren't that much the topic here.

The connections setup between companies are only a little bit of collaboration. What I'm talking about is that back in the beginning, people published their entire research on the internet. This would be equivalent to companies publishing their "corporate secrets".

@sheogorath Well considering today's landscape a lot of the time a company's data can be considered capital, especially when it comes to customer's online behavioral data. Basically a competition of who can be the biggest data hoarder. I feel that reflects, at the very least, capitalistic tendencies.

@emsenn do you feel inclined to weigh in on this? I feel like you would be more knowledgeable with this

@brandon @emsenn

I definitely agree on that. And for the current setup of the internet capitalism is definitely one of the major driving factors. I just think that there is something that capitalism but also other forms of economy have in common that causes this problem, and that's the requirement of keeping data secret in order to be successful.

@sheogorath @emsenn Could be the concept of intellectual property? But why do people care about intellectual property then? Partly money, but I'd say a big driving factor after money would be the famous idiom, coined probably in prehistoric times that went a little something like, "first!" πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ But...first means more money?

Fuck, everything for me keeps coming back to money hoarding :/


I think the concept of intellectual property is older than money. It's about having an advantage. Which is nowadays achieved by money, but can also be done by "having the better weapon technology".


@sheogorath I equate the idea of money with the idea of capital, aka something that holds value that can be exchanged for something else of perceived equal value.

So if my weapons are "better" they "hold more value" and can therefore be exchanged for more valuable capital.

@brandon one of the most key factors of capitalism is the motivation in order to go for deals and I think there were times where personal involvement, maybe upon multiple generations were often a more important fact than the ability to get more profit out of a deal.

Especially when looking at smaller groups I wouldn't say that A keeping something secret from B but sharing it with C is a very capitalistic choice.

@sheogorath Tangent but that last part CAN be a capitalistic choice if you consider that A could be AMD, B Intel and C NVIDIA

AMD shares GPU architecture secrets with Intel in order to gain a capital advantage over NVIDIA

They're not "smaller groups" but this does scale down.

And going for "deals" has more to do with consumerism than capitalism

@brandon I think viewing the Internet as a tool for universities to collaborate about public research and not the military to exchange secret intelligence is anachronistic and the other points disregard that all information comes from private sources; people's heads and labour, so collaboration-by-default has very little basis in our history and current (and most desired) social infrastructure(s). @sheogorath


I don't know if I want to agree with that. The internet was born when ARPANET and NORSAR where connected. And the latter wasn't connected to military as far as I know.

So I would say that the internet is something that was founded with public research in mind.


Sign in to participate in the conversation
Sheogorath's Microblog

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!