Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
It has, however, also become a thing that allows powerful people to manipulate much less powerful people, for their own ends.
It has, however, also become a thing that allows powerful people to manipulate much less powerful people, for their own ends.
You likely see the internet through the lens of a university educator and scientist, just as the US military saw Arpanet as a defence tool.
The thing is no one person or entity gets to define the internet
Just like books which can also contain religion, superstition, political ideology, conspiracy theory, crackpot ideas, dangerous fantasies etc etc. It’s just a communications medium. Humans do some really ugly and stupid shit. Blame them, not the tools.
One thing I thought we’d learned after Thatcherism and Reaganism was that you can’t trust ‘the market’ to regulate itself. I’m not sure why you think the internet is somehow different.Just like books which can also contain religion, superstition, political ideology, conspiracy theory, crackpot ideas, dangerous fantasies etc etc. It’s just a communications medium. Humans do some really ugly and stupid shit. Blame them, not the tools.
However given that some parts and practices are harmful - e.g. telling lies to the gullable about vaxxing, climate change, 'good investments', etc - we do need to face the fact that some regulation and thence comeback may be needed for some behaviours and actions.
I can easily produce pages I think/hope are educational and beneficial, just as you can run this Forum in a well-managed way. That's fine. But its NOT the same as facilitating the expolitation of others by misinforming, intimidating, exploiting, spreading lies about them, or stealing their money. All of which happens, sometimes faciliated by billion-dollar companies as a 'side effect' of their assuming they are entitled to regard themselves as beyond the law and have no responsibility.
This is why democratic societies make laws for the benefit of the population. Or at least they *should* benefit, not the wealthly tax-dodgers who get the money from anti-social behaviour on the net.
One thing I thought we’d learned after Thatcherism and Reaganism was that you can’t trust ‘the market’ to regulate itself. I’m not sure why you think the internet is somehow different.
You miss my point. They both advocated free market policies. The market was supposed to be inherently self-regulating. They very much didn’t define the operating scope of the market, quite the opposite. Things like the Big Bang policies to free up the market and unshackle its potential. That went well.I’d argue both were corrupt right-wing ideologues, not representative of a free market at all. I’d certainly trust neither to define the operating scope of the internet any more than I would Priti Patel, Jeremy Corbyn, or Vladimir Putin! Best keep all of them well away from it IMHO.
They both advocated free market policies. The market was supposed to be inherently self-regulating.
Just like books which can also contain religion, superstition, political ideology, conspiracy theory, crackpot ideas, dangerous fantasies etc etc...
It’s quite amusing to see those who get all het up about the Government seeking to appoint the likes of Dacre to head Ofcom wanting that same Government to regulate the internet (as if such regulation was in any case enforceable without draconian laws as apply in China and other dictatorial states).One thing I thought we’d learned after Thatcherism and Reaganism was that you can’t trust ‘the market’ to regulate itself. I’m not sure why you think the internet is somehow different.
Not really. The government doesn’t regulate anything. It makes the rules and sets others to do the regulating. This would be no different. Whereas appointing Dacre would be a step towards the government actually doing the regulating, by proxy.It’s quite amusing to see those who get all het up about the Government seeking to appoint the likes of Dacre to head Ofcom wanting that same Government to regulate the internet (as if such regulation was in any case enforceable without draconian laws as apply in China and other dictatorial states).
I think that’s a rather simplistic and naive viewpoint, with all due respect. And not entirely consistent. You have a business which provides a platform for free speech on the internet, but you reserve the right to decide who gets to say what. On what grounds? If people have a right to say stuff, you expect others to give them a way to exercise that right. Isn’t that a bit of a cop out?