I don’t think it’s possible to rewild the internet. Part of what made the early internet as it was, was the novelty of the technology. It was new to everyone as well as being largely unregulated, no one knew what it could do and everything was an experiment.
Now people have much different expectations, the internet is infrastructure and the services it can potentially offer are unrivaled. There is merit to a wild west free-for-all and we’ve seen the good and bad that produces. What many would argue today (imo) is that there’s infinitely more merit to having governmental services accessible from anywhere, from having moderated & reasoned discussion areas, and to have any and all bad actors suppressed in the ‘digital town hall’ we all love hanging out in.
I do think it is very much possible to rewild the internet. Like I said, rewilding isn’t inherently about centralization/decentralization but how it’s managed. You can, in fact, have a centralized “wild” platform, which is more feasible than returning to decentralization. A centralized “wild” platform under socialism would look similar to pre-Adpocalypse YouTube, except that the rules are decided upon democratically by creators and it would be much larger. This would ensure the robustness that did not exist with the original “wild” platform as well as no longer make the creators beholden to the profit motive that made the internet “tame.”
Would a sufficiently developed socialist government see this as desirable? Would pre-Adpocalypse youtube ‘gel’ well next to the socialist government’s social media, or online banking infrastructure? & is there anything actually all that vital about the content/culture produced around this time?
I would argue that yes, it would. This kind of content is a genuine form of self-expression. There is something actually all that vital about the content/culture produced at that time and that is that it is a true reflection of society when not forced to suck up to corporations.
I very much agree, the kind of content we had before the internet was overrun by corps was just regular people putting things online because they wanted to express themselves, or share some idea they had. This is the most genuine type of human expression, the basic urge to connect with others for no other reason than to just communicate. People weren’t trying to gain followers, monetize their content, or become influencers. I think that type of internet is far more compatible with socialist principles.
I don’t think it’s possible to rewild the internet. Part of what made the early internet as it was, was the novelty of the technology. It was new to everyone as well as being largely unregulated, no one knew what it could do and everything was an experiment.
Now people have much different expectations, the internet is infrastructure and the services it can potentially offer are unrivaled. There is merit to a wild west free-for-all and we’ve seen the good and bad that produces. What many would argue today (imo) is that there’s infinitely more merit to having governmental services accessible from anywhere, from having moderated & reasoned discussion areas, and to have any and all bad actors suppressed in the ‘digital town hall’ we all love hanging out in.
I do think it is very much possible to rewild the internet. Like I said, rewilding isn’t inherently about centralization/decentralization but how it’s managed. You can, in fact, have a centralized “wild” platform, which is more feasible than returning to decentralization. A centralized “wild” platform under socialism would look similar to pre-Adpocalypse YouTube, except that the rules are decided upon democratically by creators and it would be much larger. This would ensure the robustness that did not exist with the original “wild” platform as well as no longer make the creators beholden to the profit motive that made the internet “tame.”
Would a sufficiently developed socialist government see this as desirable? Would pre-Adpocalypse youtube ‘gel’ well next to the socialist government’s social media, or online banking infrastructure? & is there anything actually all that vital about the content/culture produced around this time?
I would argue that yes, it would. This kind of content is a genuine form of self-expression. There is something actually all that vital about the content/culture produced at that time and that is that it is a true reflection of society when not forced to suck up to corporations.
I very much agree, the kind of content we had before the internet was overrun by corps was just regular people putting things online because they wanted to express themselves, or share some idea they had. This is the most genuine type of human expression, the basic urge to connect with others for no other reason than to just communicate. People weren’t trying to gain followers, monetize their content, or become influencers. I think that type of internet is far more compatible with socialist principles.
Edit: wai the downvotes