This doesn’t seem like an open question to me.

You are of course absolutely right that there has been remarkable technical progress. I also completely agree with you that there have been wonderful developments in terms of the accessibility of knowledge, for example. Nevertheless, I still don’t think that the internet has, on the whole, lived up to its full potential. What brings me to this assessment is that instead of having an equalizing effect, I think the Internet has created global monopolies that are now managed by just a few, all the more powerful companies (Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, etc.). I don’t mean that all companies are bad or that it’s not legitimate to make money on the Internet, but that a few companies have become so powerful that they basically no longer allow any competition in their industries. In my opinion, this is a consequence of capitalist market logic (an unregulated market will always produce monopolies) - and this logic is in turn reinforced by the network effects of the Internet (once a platform is the biggest, it will become bigger and bigger because it has the most utility). So I come to the conclusion that the internet has become more of a dystopia: I think it has even increased the centralization of economic power and thus inequality in our capitalist system. This is not to say that I don’t see the good sides. But I think that technological developments should not be viewed separately from the logic in which they are embedded. And this is where I see the problem: the Internet is no longer a free medium with equal opportunities for everyone who can make use of it, but an (easier-to-use) platform economy, at least in the parts that are used by the masses. I don’t have a godfather solution for this, just as I don’t have one for effective measures to combat climate change. However, I think that nothing can change significantly in either case as long as the logic of excessive profit maximization continues to dominate. Or to put it another way: I fear that all the efforts of committed individuals will not succeed if we simply carry on as before - if it were otherwise, the utopia of the early Internet would have been realized long ago. That is of course a pessimistic view, but unfortunately I think it is also a realistic one. Nevertheless, I don’t want to say that it’s not sensible and worthy of all honors if everyone tries to do their part. After all that’s why I’m here on Lemmy and not on Reddit.

Sorry, it was really just a shower thought. I was thinking of two things: 1. the hopes that were placed in the Internet have, in my opinion, not materialized at all. Of course, there are many positive effects, but on the whole, the Internet has by no means lived up to its potential. 2. we are now faced with a situation where large corporations control most of the internet used by the general public. This brings with it responsibilities that I don’t believe these corporations are living up to in any way. Hence the analogy with climate change: a change for the better would probably be possible, but there can be no solution as long as those who are largely responsible do not accept their responsibility. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this will never happen.

Major parts of today’s internet are controlled by extremely powerful corporations - that’s just a fact. Private individuals and even committed activists have very little to no influence on how these corporations shape their part of the internet. Hence the analogy with climate change: this problem, which threatens the whole of humanity, could probably also be solved, or at least be tackled in a meaningful way. However, a solution is only possible if those corporations that are largely responsible live up to their responsibilities. Of course, this is not to say that private individuals should give up all hope and not try everything they can. Look at it this way: every post or comment on Lemmy is the equivalent of a properly disposed plastic bottle - just a drop in the ocean, but a drop nonetheless. What I was getting at overall is that you can certainly make a contribution, but this small contribution will be of little use as long as those who are actually responsible do not live up to their responsibility, because only these players could turn the tide for the better; but unfortunately they don’t; quite the opposite, I think. Nevertheless, every contribution to improving the situation is important. So please don’t let my pessimism get you down.

That would be great. Perhaps there is a lack of funding to make this possible. Or the EFF, as an NGO, simply does not want to become a provider itself in order to ensure that it remains neutral.

Exactly.

For example, efforts in the areas of data protection, freedom of information, combating misinformation, improving working conditions in the online sector, creating fair digital remuneration models and so on and so forth. Pretty much things that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, NOYB and many other such organizations are committed to.

As far a I know the porn industry has actualy driven innovation in various web-technologies including streaming, e-commerce, VR…and now probably AI, I guess.

I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.

I’m not at all sure either - it’s just a feeling. Perhaps those who make up the world to suit their fixed oppions have become more adept at using the media available to them and thus appear more influential than they actually are. It’s just that I simply can’t understand how people can cling to the most absurd claims and even aggressively propagate them when it’s actually easier than ever to check facts today. That’s just mind-boggeling to me.

Patreon has pretty much already taken that spot.

Do you really believe that?

In Europe, legislation is like this because it was enforced by institutions (meaning the state(s)). This is an achievement of a still halfway functional democracy. The source is myself, a European. However, I can also tell you that things like the GDPR don’t actually matter in practice. I am also the source, who has implemented both tracking and corresponding opt-in solutions for several companies - nobody gives a fuck; neither the companies nor the institutions. It is actually more expensive to comply with the legislation: There are no adequate penalties whatsoever. If you hear in America that meta/facebook had to pay a substancial fine, you can assume that meta/facebook has gained that many times over from the infringement. Greed rules the world, I’m afraid. That’s the reason for my pessimism and also one of the reasons why I think the merits of neoliberalism are a fairy tale.

Thanks so much for that link! I have the impression that the point has been reached where there are enough users to abandon all open standards, which were certainly necessary to achieve a relevant user count in the first place. Now the so-called platform economy has become a reality. That was inevitable, I guess. All major social networks have been working towards this for a long time.

That is true. Artists today probably have more opportunities to sell their work. I hope it stays that way, or rather I hope that they can continue to earn at least decent wages. I try to support this with my limited means, even though I am not a creator myself.

All probably true, but all the technological progress has done little to change the fact that we continue to destroy the world we live in with our eyes open. This is my point: technology is generally not used for the good of humanity, but for monetary gain. If we wanted to, the world could be a better place, but we don’t use our resources that way - they are not managed by the general public, but by people who don’t have the good of humanity in mind. I think the Internet is a good example of this: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the www protocol, didn’t earn a cent from a patent or something like that - he was just interested in scientific exchange at the time. In my opinion, that’s a true hero, not Steve Jobs (he was a great businessman tho).

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I honestly didn’t realize anyone was making fun of me (the joke is on me I guess, I just don’t get it). I don’t have a problem with the current times tho. But I know the content business. I don’t call it that because I have no appreciation for art, writing or other creative arts, but because that’s the term used in business. And from this environment I also know that profits are unfortunately placed above good content, which is why creative people, aka content creators, are not paid appropriately imo. I have also recognized this spirit, which I do not approve of at all, in many Lemmy posts. Only in disguise, so to speak: namely with people who think that intellectual property only helps large corporations like Disney. In my experience, that’s not the case at all. People make a living from their creative work and patreon donations are simply not enough - at least not for a regular and secure income. What I was getting at with my comment is that it doesn’t make sense imo to complain about a content creator signing marketing contracts - that has always been part of this business, even in the days of print media.

That’s the spirit. I hope this did not discouraged you in any way. This post was never intended to bring you down, but rather to raise some awareness to how beautiful the internet could be…Yes, I’m making this up. Tbh it was just a literal showerthought - I did not think this would discouraged anyone. I’m very sorry!

I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it’s the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.

I’m talking about modern print media of course, cmon. Also Printing does not date back thousands of years - it was invented (in the west) by gutenberg in the 15th century. What are you saying?