(/touch-icon-144.png) (/touch-icon.png) (/touch-icon.png) (/touch-icon-144.png) (/touch-icon-144.png) (/opensearch.xml) (Lobsters) (/favicon.ico) (https://lobste.rs/s/rfkmw3/what_happened_fight_for_internet) What happened to the fight for the internet? | Lobsters (/assets/application-104ae466.css) (/assets/system-system-fd030c9d.css) (/assets/tom-select-00e8031d.css) (/assets/TomSelect_remove_button-4d5c34b9.css)  (/) (Lobsters (Current traffic: 20%))  (/active) Active (/recent) Recent (/comments) Comments (/search) Search (/login) Login   (/login) Login   (/login) 159  (https://dustycloud.org/blog/what-happened-to-the-fight-for-the-internet/) What happened to the fight for the internet?  (Privacy) (/t/privacy) privacy  (/domains/dustycloud.org) dustycloud.org authored by (/~dustyweb) ()  (/~dustyweb) dustyweb (2026-06-30 19:17:06) 37 hours ago |  caches (https://web.archive.org/web/3/https%3A%2F%2Fdustycloud.org%2Fblog%2Fwhat-happened-to-the-fight-for-the-internet%2F) Archive.org  (https://ghostarchive.org/search?term=https%3A%2F%2Fdustycloud.org%2Fblog%2Fwhat-happened-to-the-fight-for-the-internet%2F) Ghostarchive    |  100
              comments         (a2_QtADM8wt9ag9yQYhxql6BemCB2rFLQrFBVbjbK3S9Q3m5uEOcIQajM7mVwjlBJwhl1KoTfMSM_OQEpALrpg) (rfkmw3) (post) (You must be logged in to leave a comment.)  (Post) Preview          (104) (/login) 104   (/~ec) ()  (/~ec) ec (/c/p70xwg) (2026-06-30 21:28:30) 35 hours ago      To be honest, as a nerd and former minor activist during the net neutrality era (meaning only: I donated and wrote my congressperson), I am feeling significantly down about the internet. It’s not a nice place for my kids to explore. It’s not even a nice place for me to explore (present company excluded). I have come to believe that my prior beliefs about free expression being the building block of a great society were simply naive. The internet of 2026 is a broken place. I don’t think that the proposed age verification legislation is good, but I know that what we have is not cutting it. I don’t necessarily support banning social media and dating websites, but those things are not a positive force in modern society. So I’m a little more prone to listening when people argue for constraints. I think if I was king for a day, I would probably go after the economic models. Give the people their daily internet, but remove the economic incentives around controlling attention. Ban individually targeted advertising but allow contextual advertising based on the interests of a prototypical person interested in an article or post or video. That would eliminate the value of generic attention and refocus businesses on contextual attention. It would also tend to fix privacy issues inherent in modern ad tech.     (61) (/login) 61   (/~spenc) ()  (/~spenc) spenc (/c/4uh26h) (2026-06-30 21:33:36) 35 hours ago      With you 100%. Ban targeted ads, algorithmic feeds, and jail the CEOs. Feels like a snowballs chance in hell that’ll ever happen though. Don’t have it in my heart to even hope     (7) (/login) 7   (/~peter-leonov) ()  (/~peter-leonov) peter-leonov (/c/shgjku) (2026-07-01 01:56:59) 31 hours ago      With you 99%. Before algorithmic feeds and co. the internet was virtually unusabe. Remember "web portals" we had to scroll through to find anything relevant and good? Remember personal curated lists of "good websites" that then degraded to "good pages". My favorite was "send me your RSS reader list, I'll even pay you!". Google with its Page Rank was a revelation at the tome and it's the first feed algorithm that started all this. As again and always, it's not the tool hurting us, it's how it's held. I'd suggest starting with opening the algorithms, then openly comparing and analyzing them, and then try enforcing some healthy standards. Also, as with any addiction therapy, we have to offer something else to replace the infinite scrolling. I wonder what that could be, though.     (67) (/login) 67   (/~kolja) ()  (/~kolja) kolja (/c/asyupa) (2026-07-01 03:58:15) 29 hours ago      Before algorithmic feeds and co. the internet was virtually unusabe.  I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. You didn't get content shoved down your throat, sure, but there was so much there. So many niches, and most importantly, no big corps sucking up all the attention, so that these niches could thrive and exist on their own.     (11) (/login) 11   (/~spicycode) ()  (/~spicycode) spicycode (/c/klpi90) (2026-07-01 12:31:12) 20 hours ago      Before the feeds it was (for me) more usable, and it encouraged community building.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~peter-leonov) ()  (/~peter-leonov) peter-leonov (/c/t1gcm9) (2026-07-01 15:07:34) 18 hours ago      Ok. I see it's a sensitive topic and I respect that. What stops you now from using the internet the old way? The blogs are still being written. Personal pages exist. Cosy communities, like Lobste.rs are thriving (with some blips, but still). We're chatting right now, like in the good old days. Yes, the internet has grown like 1000 times. Everyone is here now. That made it different. The rest is only the consequences.     (9) (/login) 9   (/~orib) ()  (/~orib) orib (/c/jdeghy) (2026-07-01 18:16:13) 14 hours ago      I do use the internet the old way. But this old way of using the internet is systematically getting exterminated, from legal walls to allowing people to post, scrapers creating unsustainable traffic volume, increased technical barriers to complying with the latest web standards, and everything else going on.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~spc476) ()  (/~spc476) spc476 (/c/ngofeh) (2026-07-01 18:21:16) 14 hours ago      What legal walls?  And as for web standards, (https://boston.conman.org) my blog HTML output hasn't changed since I stared in 1999.  It's still HTML 4.01 Transitional (because of a  few pages, and I should double check that).  Heck, it's still served up as a CGI program. I do agree with the scapers creating unsustainable traffic.     (6) (/login) 6   (/~orib) ()  (/~orib) orib (/c/9indbm) (2026-07-01 18:48:36) 14 hours ago      for example, you may have seen this: (https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help_with) https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help_with                (~) (/login) ~   (/~LenFalken) ()  (/~LenFalken) LenFalken (/c/8kh9vx) (2026-07-01 17:14:42) 15 hours ago      there was so much there. So many niches  Or were we all younger, less knowledgeable, and the world, larger? ...       (~) (/login) ~   (/~peter-leonov) ()  (/~peter-leonov) peter-leonov (/c/udkmjz) (2026-07-01 14:43:04) 18 hours ago      You didn't get content shoved down your throat  Wait a minute. Do we have to use those abusive platforms that shovel something? I'm still able to, say, watch only my direct subscriptions, but it's also my choice to follow recommended videos or not. I see other passionate comments to my reply and reflect that I might be in the wrong bubble 😅 Am I missing some big elephant looking bit here?     (~) (/login) ~   (/~fleebee) ()  (/~fleebee) fleebee edited (/c/22864v) (2026-07-02 03:39:43) 5 hours ago      I'm assuming you're referring to YouTube. It's not that you're forced to watch the algorithmic recommendations, but you're exposed to them at every turn: On the homepage, in the sidebar, after the video ends. Even the subscriptions page—which previously excellently showed videos in a chronological order—now has a "Most relevant" section where the algorithm tries to guess which of the videos I might like most. I don't want a machine to decide my viewing order. It's noise and distraction. It's tiring having to skim over so much filler content I don't care about. The saving grace is that there are browser extensions to rip out all of that. I'm sure this is a nonissue to many people, but to me it's difficult to use platforms with a billion attention-grabbing things on the screen at all times in a futile attempt to "engage" me. Unfortunately, that's where the web is increasingly heading towards.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/hgf8fk) (2026-07-02 04:35:34) 4 hours ago      I only get the ones after a video ends because I have disabled my viewing history and, usually those are from the same channel I just watched.             (37) (/login) 37   (/~chris-evelyn) ()  (/~chris-evelyn) chris-evelyn (/c/mkscsa) (2026-07-01 02:07:58) 31 hours ago      I don't know. I got most of my link recommendations from forums, IRC or other communities. Going massively viral was way harder back then, but I don't really consider this a negative.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~peter-leonov) ()  (/~peter-leonov) peter-leonov (/c/h8r3lp) (2026-07-01 02:43:11) 30 hours ago      Same. And it was one more little profession. One other point is that a big group of people that spend time individually lurking for information, on average, spread and react to information slower than a group that have some tools / centrality. This is why I so much respect independent journalists. If we agree on that, then by induction a good faithful journalist with a bit of automation would be roughly the feed. Add some predictable filters on top and – bam! – we've closed the loop. A good journalist is a term of trust. This is what's gone for sure.         (29) (/login) 29   (/~mort) ()  (/~mort) mort (/c/isgnik) (2026-07-01 09:41:34) 23 hours ago      Page rank and Google search is not an algorithmic feed, it's a search engine. The difference is hugely important. A search engine is an algorithm where I say, "I want this", and the algorithm does its best to give me what I ask for. An algorithmic feed says, "hey you want this". Do not conflate the two.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~peter-leonov) ()  (/~peter-leonov) peter-leonov (/c/mswcdm) (2026-07-01 14:52:54) 18 hours ago      Page rank and Google search is not an algorithmic feed, it's a search engine.  I see you here. Let me try explain this bit. Before google we had internet portals and forums (also chats sometimes). On those sites you'd get trusted, hand picked lists of links. If you're lurning for long enough, you effectively crawl all the internet worth reading on your favorite topic. This is it. If we set aside direct dial-up world, as we're talking Internet here. When Google first introduced the Page Rank the hand picked static nature of those lists went away. Google introduced an algorithm to control what gets to the first page which we couldn't control. And it was very good, at first and for some long time. All the rest we see today is, in a sense, the result of that SEO made it hard to trust googling. But then those other platforms got popular and introduced their algorithms. So, with the so called Web 2.0, where we generate content and interact with it, the bright new world is that to stay on top of the ever changing internet we need tools. And tools play us. But we need them nevertheless.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~spc476) ()  (/~spc476) spc476 (/c/ckwv2w) (2026-07-01 18:35:43) 14 hours ago      Before Google there were also search engines.  I recall about a dozen, maybe more (Magellan, Infoseek, Lycos, Yahoo, Webcrawler, Alta Vista, Excite and HotBot among others).  It was Page Rank that made the early Google magical and would easily bring you what you were searching for.  Before PageRank, the pages returned for a given search were just in some order that had the terms on them.  PageRank would find the pages that pages would link to with said terms.           (10) (/login) 10   (/~jmc) ()  (/~jmc) jmc (/c/bl4swg) (2026-07-01 09:58:31) 23 hours ago      Virtually unusable? Nah, it was different, but in many ways better. The old Internet (as I remember it) felt smaller and more personal, but you would still find places to congregate with your fellow nerds. I learned so much from participating in online forums, and I discovered so many unexpectedly cool things with StumbleUpon. The new Internet is easier to access, but it lost its magic along the way.       (10) (/login) 10   (/~jorsk) ()  (/~jorsk) jorsk edited (/c/d1jicl) (2026-07-01 11:36:37) 21 hours ago      Before algorithmic feeds and co. the internet was virtually unusabe.  I'm sorry, this isn't very civil but I feel deeply compelled to register my dismay at this viewpoint. What the fuck?      (7) (/login) 7   (/~bitshift) ()  (/~bitshift) bitshift (/c/lgtx8v) (2026-07-01 14:39:21) 18 hours ago      A slightly more civil take: I was so surprised that their experience of the Internet is so radically different from mine, I thought their "unusable" assessment was sarcastic at first.         (~) (/login) ~   (/~repl) ()  (/~repl) repl (/c/jno6fi) (2026-07-02 07:44:44) 1 hour ago      Before algorithmic feeds and co. the internet was virtually unusabe.  For me, before algorithmic feeds, the internet was more usable. Remember "web portals" we had to scroll through to find anything relevant and good?  For me, that was a feature, not a bug.           (28) (/login) 28   (/~bediger4000) ()  (/~bediger4000) bediger4000 (/c/vssqyk) (2026-06-30 21:55:56) 35 hours ago      I have come to believe that my prior beliefs about free expression being the building block of a great society were simply naive.  You too? I'm not sure what I believe about freedom of expression any more, other than absolute free speech is not really possible, and that bad people use the phrase to ruin communities.     (29) (/login) 29   (/~wrs) ()  (/~wrs) wrs (/c/7mbfhk) (2026-06-30 22:03:52) 35 hours ago      When making conclusions based on the current state of things, I think it's important to separate the effects of freedom of expression from the effects of algorithmic amplification of outrageous speech. Of course, we don't have another planet to use as a control group, so who knows for sure.     (7) (/login) 7   (/~bediger4000) ()  (/~bediger4000) bediger4000 (/c/jjfp77) (2026-07-01 09:30:59) 23 hours ago      At least some of the experience leading me to a position of doubt is with Usenet. My experience with Usenet lasted from 1990 to about 2003, well before "AI" and algorithmic feeds. The folks advocating absolute freedom of speech were causing problems then. Strict moderation seemed to be helpful in avoiding heat death by spam/ads, and some outright censorship seems to be needed to keep idiots at bay. I acknowledge problems with this position.     (9) (/login) 9   (/~wrs) ()  (/~wrs) wrs (/c/niok10) (2026-07-01 10:44:07) 22 hours ago      I was there too! But I think this is just a data point on the opposite side of the curve. Freedom of speech means you get to say what you want; it doesn’t mean I have to read everything that gets said. A system that discourages fake outrage and nonsense from spreading (which at scale probably involves an algorithm of some sort as well as human moderators) seems to be necessary to prevent the noise from overwhelming the signal.           (6) (/login) 6   (/~bitshift) ()  (/~bitshift) bitshift edited (/c/jllqci) (2026-07-01 15:31:24) 17 hours ago      I still believe free speech/press is essential, and that we'd be in a world of hurt here in America right now (and probably even earlier!) if we hadn't made it the very first thing we added to our Constitution. absolute free speech is not really possible  I agree! You can't yell "Fire!" in a theater. You can't defame. You can't lie to take someone's property. You can't blackmail. You can't credibly threaten or incite violence. People still do those things and more, but doing so is breaking the law. I could get behind those restrictions in 1999, and I can still get behind them today. We don't need new restrictions so much as we need uniform enforcement. I don't have a policy answer for how to do this, but changing incentives is a huge lever for changing behavior in a rights-friendly way. When I go to ChatGPT, there's teeny-tiny text at the bottom saying, "By using it, [I] agree to [their] Terms & Privacy Policy." Contrast with the full-screen modal my bank shows me every time I use Zelle, informing me of three different ways fraud can happen, and am I really sure I'm not sending money to a scammer? Not saying the world would magically get better if ChatGPT had a similar sized popup warning about hallucinations and the importance of critical thinking—just saying that the devs at my bank are obviously under radically different incentives, and maybe we should do that other places as well.         (20) (/login) 20   (/~ayushnix) ()  (/~ayushnix) ayushnix (/c/bd8cwe) (2026-07-01 00:35:44) 32 hours ago      I don’t think that the proposed age verification legislation is good, but I know that what we have is not cutting it.  I see age-verification laws as simply corporations trying to shift the blame of their fuck ups to parents and the children themselves and to reduce their expenses on moderation and safety. "An LLM drove a kid to take his own life? Well, that's too bad, the kid shouldn't have been using it in the first place, it's the kid's/parents' fault that kid used it." This is the future we're looking at with age-verification, age-attestation, or even "optional" fields in operating systems for birth dates. Instead of prosecuting and holding the corporation in question responsible for their psychological malware, the parents and kids will be blamed.       (9) (/login) 9   (/~Lilian) ()  (/~Lilian) Lilian edited (/c/62qhi2) (2026-07-01 01:13:46) 31 hours ago      If you ban dating sites, and I ever broke up with my boyfriend, I would essentially have to quit dating forever. I and everyone I know enjoy them and they make this type of socialization far easier than anything else can.     (20) (/login) 20   (/~ec) ()  (/~ec) ec (/c/yoaeol) (2026-07-01 02:34:30) 30 hours ago      I mean I said I don’t want to ban them (not that anyone is really asking me). I’m happy for you, but those good experiences don’t mean that they’re net good. I’m not trying to be mean, but I find it hilariously funny that you believe your ability to find suitable mates depends on virtual interfaces provided by modern venture capitalism? There were solutions (often meatspace ones) to this problem before websites were invented.     (12) (/login) 12   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/4l9wur) (2026-07-01 03:47:20) 29 hours ago      There were solutions (often meatspace ones) to this problem before websites were invented.  When I was still dating (and refusing to do so online), I noticed these solutions are becoming less and less because there are dating websites. Similarly, activity on sites like Meetup had already been steadily declining because people organize on Facebook etc. Nowadays if you don't have a Facebook account you're very much out of the loop. Hell, I've even had trouble selling second hand stuff on what used to be the dominant platform in my country because everyone is now using Facebook for this.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~dzwdz) ()  (/~dzwdz) dzwdz (/c/9thzc0) (2026-07-01 04:44:30) 28 hours ago      I don't think the concept of dating sites is at all tied to venture capitalism. Most modern dating sites are going to be VC-backed, because that's how our current society works, but the basic idea of wanting to meet people online seems perfectly reasonable to me. While I've never used dating sites myself, in general I do find it easier and more pleasant to interact with people online than irl. I also just don't really like going out (for social reasons) that much? The internet is great for talking to people, and if it didn't exist then I'd probably just don't talk to people as much, despite all the "other solutions" being there.         (6) (/login) 6   (/~spenc) ()  (/~spenc) spenc (/c/gcpvnv) (2026-07-01 02:04:31) 31 hours ago      Oops, missed that in the parent comment. Yeah dating sites are over-hated imo., I've had mostly good experiences at least. Met some cool people I wouldn't have otherwise, one of which I'm dating now :)         (6) (/login) 6   (/~scanner_brightly) ()  (/~scanner_brightly) scanner_brightly edited (/c/r6o0aq) (2026-07-01 00:05:02) 33 hours ago      To be honest, as a nerd and former minor activist during the net neutrality era  I too was a minor activist. I cursed the name Ajit Pai and felt a wave of dread wash over me when the FCC struck down net neutrality. Then something funny happened: nothing. The legacy of net neutrality is: despite how fired up we all got, it turned out not to matter at all. People aren't exactly universally happy with their ISPs, but the predicted nightmare scenario of being charged tiered access fees for classes of web sites are not something we are dealing with. There's a lot to be cynical about with the way the Internet is headed, but I think this episode shows at least some fights for the Internet are misguided. What else are we wrong about?     (21) (/login) 21   (/~DustyFuzzy) ()  (/~DustyFuzzy) DustyFuzzy (/c/dcc63h) (2026-07-01 06:35:55) 26 hours ago      I cursed the name Ajit Pai and felt a wave of dread wash over me when the FCC struck down net neutrality. Then something funny happened: nothing.  Well, actually, a lot happened. Some states like California introduced their own net neutrality regulation, and there's been a lot of court cases going both ways. In 2024 the FCC reinstated net neutrality, but again, lots of court cases ended up halting it. It was struck down federally in 2025 thanks to Chevron deference no longer being a thing, but there's still a lot of minefields across states that make it risky for any ISP to implement preferential treatments without having to do it on a state-by-state basis, and that's just not worth it monetarily.       (10) (/login) 10   (/~singpolyma) ()  (/~singpolyma) singpolyma (/c/sw5ln3) (2026-07-01 10:20:05) 22 hours ago      Uh. I'm definitely seeing things like zero rating WhatsApp access on flights and even some mobile providers. Exactly the sort of thing that was feared     (~) (/login) ~   (/~phaer) ()  (/~phaer) phaer (/c/w9zmd2) (2026-07-01 12:18:29) 20 hours ago      Great example! I would add that the fact that we are not seeing an awful lot of it, can be seen as an indicator of success for the campaigns.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~Johz) ()  (/~Johz) Johz (/c/jmdo4c) (2026-07-02 05:01:29) 4 hours ago      At least in the UK, this sort of thing has been around for years (less to do with flights, and more "this mobile tariff gives you free WhatsApp calls!").  But it never really went anywhere, and it's very uncommon to see it around any more, just because it turns out people want to use the internet for a whole bunch of stuff, and as an ISP you can't always predict what that stuff will be. In fairness, the UK has much better competition between providers and ISPs than the US seems to, but I do wonder if the fight for NN would have been better spent on fighting for a government that was willing to build out infrastructure, or open up competitive markets more.         (~) (/login) ~   (/~adrien) ()  (/~adrien) adrien (/c/ig5nhd) (2026-07-01 06:40:03) 26 hours ago      I don't think it didn't matter. Many many people learnt a lot when that happened. Companies found out that customers had strong opinions about net neutrality and could leave. In many families, there's at least one person who may guide others about tech choices, including with "change ISP". In free market think, companies act depending on customers and therefore, it's important that customers are educated (both in general and about the companies' actions). All the learning that occured has certainly had an impact on these companies. The regulation may be gone but companies have learnt they shouldn't fuck up things too much to avoid bad publicity. Also, don't forget that a lot of the things that were forbidden with net neutrality rules were not just hypothetical: they were in place before and didn't vanish on their own.         (~) (/login) ~   (/~adamshaylor) ()  (/~adamshaylor) adamshaylor edited (/c/k1cyps) (2026-07-01 07:15:58) 25 hours ago      It’s not a nice place to host anymore, either. The EU and partner organizations host a lot of important climate data and are beseiged by inconsiderately written scrapers. Meanwhile, there’s (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-receives-western-weather-data-that-some-fear-could-aide-attack-planning-2022-03-22/) a growing call to ban users in countries that casually invade their neighbors , some even looking at their erstwhile allies to the west. All of this is trending toward authentication walls, which, if the trend continues, might one day require users to prove their residency. There is a kind of tidy logic to the principle of a free and open Internet, but it’s gotten really hard to defend it.         (/~taybin) ()  (/~taybin) taybin (/c/w4qlqc) (2026-06-30 22:00:12) 35 hours ago      [Comment removed by author]           (50) (/login) 50   (/~singpolyma) ()  (/~singpolyma) singpolyma (/c/kbtlb7) (2026-06-30 20:47:35) 36 hours ago      It feels like people are tired.  Yes. It feels like I spent most of my adult life fighting to stop things only to slow them down. And at the expense of actually improving anything. And to end up in a world where former allies now fight over newfound differences. Tired is the word alright.       (31) (/login) 31   (/~xjix) ()  (/~xjix) xjix edited (/c/gojnbg) (2026-07-01 01:40:31) 31 hours ago      SWEs are largely not organized, unionized, or politically active. We didn't do anything substantial to gain political power that would allow us to maintain an open internet though public policy. We kinda just hoped that the benevolent politicians in DC would just decide to do the right thing. The "other half" joined a TESCREAL cult I'm guessing and don't really care about the open internet.       (21) (/login) 21   (/~eugeny) ()  (/~eugeny) eugeny (/c/0uvgch) (2026-07-01 03:01:26) 30 hours ago      The internet you fought for no longer exists. It has been turned into an advertisement surface, and just like every other media, what made it good will be reduced to a small indie scene, never to reach the mainstream again.     (7) (/login) 7   (/~duncan_bayne) ()  (/~duncan_bayne) duncan_bayne (/c/txsxw9) (2026-07-01 03:15:03) 29 hours ago      Came here to post this. And also to say ... okay? Maybe that's for the better.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~tombh) ()  (/~tombh) tombh (/c/tj2djh) (2026-07-02 01:08:09) 8 hours ago      But I wonder if this small indie scene isn't roughly the same size as the entire internet back when it was cool?     (~) (/login) ~   (/~smb) ()  (/~smb) smb (/c/lxgo9w) (2026-07-02 01:26:33) 7 hours ago      After exploring around a bit I was pretty amazed at how many cool little sites I found just by browsing some webrings           (19) (/login) 19   (/~marginalia) ()  (/~marginalia) marginalia edited (/c/h8jd9z) (2026-07-01 01:44:28) 31 hours ago      A lot of disillusionment happened.  Growing up campaigning for things you care about, seeing politicians left and right promise one thing and do the opposite, seeing bills being resurrected over and over again until everyone is so tired that they pass, that really chips away at your faith in democracy.  You begin to view it as something so corrupt that the campaigning doesn't matter, they'll just find some way to pass it anyway.  That's what they always do.  So you're mad about this for a while, but you can only be mad at something for so long until your anger dulls and you become apathetic instead.       (18) (/login) 18   (/~aspensmonster) ()  (/~aspensmonster) aspensmonster (/c/lpysze) (2026-06-30 19:37:09) 37 hours ago      Net neutrality, SOPA... these battles for internet freedom had massive buy-in across the internet. 2012's Wikipedia blackout was especially memorable. It wasn't just the tech engineers of the world in that fight; family and friends who had never thought about the technical underpinnings of the internet were asking me questions, saying they were worried that we were going to lose our digital rights and asking what could be done.  The big players that put up a stink last time have largely succumbed to the surveillance capitalism business model. They now stand to benefit immensely from the latest crop of SOPA-likes.       (26) (/login) 26   (/~conartist6) ()  (/~conartist6) conartist6 (/c/vrrmjw) (2026-06-30 20:34:03) 36 hours ago      AI happened to it. The idea of a community of people safeguarding the internet is largely dead. The people still exist, they just don't ever talk to each other anymore. Now that they mostly talk to AI, they're even unlearning the language of community and solidarity that built the internet. We all fucking gave up on helping each other do better, be better, and so yeah without that the energy is at flatline. Without community there's simply no hope and no reason for hope     (9) (/login) 9   (/~thombles) ()  (/~thombles) thombles (/c/w8on2u) (2026-06-30 23:07:51) 34 hours ago      AI happened to it a different way too. (And I guess I'm the target of your ire.) For a while, the internet as a town square for public discussion and expression felt like a concept worth protecting, imperfect as it was. Now that I officially can't tell apart people and bots, I have less enthusiasm for browsing or giving attention to material of unknown provenance, and even less enthusiasm for using/promoting social tools where talking to unauthenticated randos is the point. Much of the real human internet is going to close off and splinter into small groups, and with the state of discourse today, when you actually look at the things people are saying to each other, maybe it's for the best.     (9) (/login) 9   (/~conartist6) ()  (/~conartist6) conartist6 (/c/qxobx4) (2026-06-30 23:35:42) 33 hours ago      I have become much less agreeable online ever since being agreeable made you sound robotic. Being angry or rude are still the most distinctly human things, so I think if you want to look at what humanity is about you have to look at where those emotions come from and what they do. In any case, I don't mean to direct my ire at an individual. I have both deep cynicism about what the tech industry has become and hope that with everything we've learned we know how to plant the seeds of a new thing. I am working on planting those seeds, I just wish the work felt less lonely     (~) (/login) ~   (/~lake) ()  (/~lake) lake edited (/c/7qbcis) (2026-07-01 08:08:19) 25 hours ago      I have become much less agreeable online ever since being agreeable made you sound robotic. Being angry or rude are still the most distinctly human things  Ironically, LLMs are perfectly capable of sounding angry, rude, and offensive if you configure them to be that way. They also still sound like LLMs (especially when you know they are), but in a heated online discussion many people likely wouldn't be able to tell.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~conartist6) ()  (/~conartist6) conartist6 (/c/9bxqah) (2026-07-01 08:10:36) 25 hours ago      Well, when people start configuring them that way in an attempt to "not sound like a bot", I'll change again. Style is a fluid thing. I have it, they copy it.               (13) (/login) 13   (/~spenc) ()  (/~spenc) spenc edited (/c/hn7tox) (2026-06-30 21:38:30) 35 hours ago      Yeah. Seeing that the single announced platform of the Dem’s Project 2029 was age restricting the web was pretty deflating. Bipartisan. Feels inevitable. The Republicans want it because it stops people from seeing ideas they don’t like and helps big business and the Democrats want it because it stops people from seeing ideas they don’t like and helps big business. I don’t want it to pass but I do get the vibe of ‘ugh the web sucks anyways just let it die’       (10) (/login) 10   (/~mordae) ()  (/~mordae) mordae edited (/c/3cnugi) (2026-07-01 02:23:54) 30 hours ago      Well, last time when someone proposed to DDoS lawmaker websites in protest, many people joined to help. If you propose so nowadays, you are being inappropriate. The problem is that the culture of obedience has ingrained so much in most of you, as we grew older, that you cannot even imagine standing together anymore. What are you willing to risk to be free? Yeah, I thought so. I am saying: let's unionize. Not in the "proper" lawful, neutered way. Just form an illegal sector union and stand by each other. Reject remote attestation and attacks on encryption to get us started. The very means that enable us to organize unfettered.Then demand sector unions to be legal across the globe. Let us just say no: if you attempt to neuter encryption or demand remote attestation, we strike. If you pass such laws, we will tear your systems a new one. These are our red lines. We will not comply. Would you dare to stand up? Because once these happen the fight is going to be even harder. Who else is going to so this but us, IT adjacent professionals? When, if not now?     (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/odtx8n) (2026-07-01 03:52:30) 29 hours ago      The problem is that the culture of obedience has ingrained so much in most of you, as we grew older, that you cannot even imagine standing together anymore.  I've heard it said that the restrictions in freedom during the pandemic were a test, which we collectively failed. I think you nailed it regarding the reason things are now progressing without much pushback.     (10) (/login) 10   (/~dulaku) ()  (/~dulaku) dulaku (/c/3c46xv) (2026-07-01 13:17:35) 19 hours ago      It's interesting because I had the opposite take - we failed because we treated the restrictions like political oppression instead of as a useful source of coordination for responses to the pandemic we should all have been enthusiastic about anyway.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/wylzlh) (2026-07-02 02:18:45) 6 hours ago      I see where you're coming from. Nevertheless, most healthy people got covid at some point and it didn't really make them very sick ("long covid" symptoms notwithstanding - they didn't know about that at the time), but the measures affected everyone equally. The governments were flailing, trying to keep the virus from spreading as fast. But they didn't really succeed with that, either. So the measures feel extra onerous. Anyway, we're getting more off-topic here and I find these discussions often attract conspiracy theorists so I'll leave it at that.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/dyugcf) (2026-07-02 04:43:37) 4 hours ago      But they didn't really succeed with that, either.  How do you know? Is there a control group that had no actual Covid restrictions and at the same time acted irresponsibly by not restricting activities voluntarily ? I'd like to see a link to that, if you know of it.           (7) (/login) 7   (/~mordae) ()  (/~mordae) mordae edited (/c/lqzlpg) (2026-07-01 12:33:36) 20 hours ago      Actually, for most IT professionals it was the first time we were allowed to actually taste fully remote work and we found out it's actually pretty good deal. For many that was a time of restored dignity and they have suffered through the mandatory return to office. Remember than many craftsmen used to traditionally work from home. Many still do. There is something very much human in the ability to adjust one's working conditions to their preference. To own the very physical space where work happens. If you do not understand, try to remember the last time you had to use the official channels to get a replacement chair in the office. Or a second screen before they became a norm. You feel it viscerally at that point. This is not your workplace.      (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/bdwk19) (2026-07-01 13:19:34) 19 hours ago      I was referring mostly to the blind obedience to things like wearing face masks and curfew etc.     (17) (/login) 17   (/~lonjil) ()  (/~lonjil) lonjil (/c/otmwwb) (2026-07-01 14:09:34) 19 hours ago      Choosing, to do, something useful,,, is blind obedience,, if a public health expert recommends it?     (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/8g2r6n) (2026-07-02 02:01:08) 7 hours ago      I don't know how it was where you are, but here it was somewhat mandated. You wouldn't be allowed in places without a mask, and the curfew was also enforced by the cops. In my country, hearings are underway with the people who were in charge back then. Those already have turned out that some of the measures had no legal basis, and some of those (e.g. detaining elderly people in caring homes so they could not go outside) were silently enforced without being publicly announced, probably because they knew full well they were illegally robbing people of essential liberties.             (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/lesqax) (2026-07-02 04:52:52) 4 hours ago      This is such a wild conspiracy theory take that it's crazy to me that a person with a modicum of critical reasoning can say it with their whole chest. Government(s) prerogative to impose force majeure in the face of external elements is not something anyone contests: wars, natural disasters, etc. Imposing restrictions in the face of a global pandemic is plausible to me as a good faith measure based on incomplete facts in a situation quickly developing. Also a test by whom? The people that made those decisions belong to different governments, are present in that government for a restricted number of years, so there's no continuity there to speak of. I fail to see how a cabal of shadow rulers would influence the world order in order to test us.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/gecguf) (2026-07-02 05:27:08) 3 hours ago      While I'm sure there are people who believe this literally, I take it more metaphorically. The pandemic clearly showed how meekly most people follow orders from above.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/5uxq2u) (2026-07-02 05:30:21) 3 hours ago      To me it shows that reasonable people listen to reason.             (~) (/login) ~   (/~pkubaj) ()  (/~pkubaj) pkubaj (/c/8nvith) (2026-07-01 03:48:47) 29 hours ago      It's also possible that people going against those restrictions just found a way around them. I mean, we all know that there's DRM everywhere. But there's also GOG (although some GOG games have DRM, but 99% doesn't) and there are torrents. Same with operating systems - there is Windows, but currently Linux support is getting better for everything and actually Linux marketshare went up a lot in recent years.         (10) (/login) 10   (/~gnunicorn) ()  (/~gnunicorn) gnunicorn (/c/xdqj9a) (2026-07-01 03:08:47) 30 hours ago      Points were already made on AI, social media giants and unionizing - which I all agree on. It was also said before that it feels like the internet has changed and "isn't ours anymore". But I think we have to look deeper at ourselves and our communities and recognize that we have been naive and been played all along. Big tech, a big supporter of these movements in the past, was never on our side. It was just convenient to them and because a lot of us and our friends are employed and we'll paid by them, we have the urge to defend them as friends. But they never were. Now it shows clear as day: they are fighting amongst each other but not on our side (and I'd argue they never have but that isn't the point). And we must recognize that this reflexive 'shutting down of political discussion' isn't just stupid it also means that we have very little actual discussion about the politics of our doing and our world ourselves. Little experience in organizing, discussing and finding useful, practical compromise because we could just sit on our maximalist position from the comfort of our gaming chair at the high end laptop. Not having to deal with the messiness that is the real world, with real problems that real discussion, agreements and compromise. We have to recognize that a big part of why the internet, and with it the world, is in such a bad place is also because we were fighting for social media companies to not be legally responsible for what is poster on their sites. That was won with our help. And it has lead to the free rain and massive power google, Facebook, etc have today. I am not saying we could have seen this (though I believe earnings were raised at the time), nor that these companies are not at fault. But we have our share of responsibility here. Same for 4chan, 8chan and so forth. If we want to be on the defending line of free speech, but then this leads to fascist government take over citing QAnon, then we are loosing the very same free speech we were defending. And we lose support from those who notice the problem but don't see us providing any answers that fix those for them. They just turn away from the crazy people. Maximalism just isn't any realizable position and we need to start organizing around actually achievable campaigns that recognize the real problems (we helped cause!) and propose actual solutions that are debatable. Some examples have already been shared here: like point back at Big Tech and AI - though considering their marketing budgets I don't think we have much of a chance of being heard there - also with what has been going on at Wikipedia US, not sure they are an ally that stands with us there. Another strategy could be to make sure that exceptions are carved out, for self-hosting and decentralized community run services like the Ferdieverse or non-profits like Signal for e.g. . The EU in the past has been very willing to put these exceptions in for smaller shops on moderations and other policies, so there is a good chance we can get those in there, too. We have to learn from our mistakes and that starts with recognizing our own culpability in the problems. And that the solutions will be messy and not philosophically pleasing maximalist positions. We don't have to just right again.
We have to fight smarter.       (9) (/login) 9   (/~ecksdee) ()  (/~ecksdee) ecksdee edited (/c/mp55im) (2026-06-30 20:39:41) 36 hours ago      Large salaries, people that would've done something are trying to hold down high paying jobs.       (8) (/login) 8   (/~gerikson) ()  (/~gerikson) gerikson (/c/ii5eaq) (2026-07-01 03:11:27) 30 hours ago      Age happened. Younger people are looking at the internet formed by a certain generation (Gen X, basically) and are rejecting the values this generation espoused. Parents nowadays aren't clueless boomers whose kids are the first people who used computers, they grew up using computers themselves! They know the risks of the internet, because those risks have impacted them and others they know. Maybe the solutions proposed are bad, I don't know. But I do know that simply reiterating the values (free speech, government non-intervention) that ultimately created the surveillance capitalism nightmare we're all living under now isn't cutting it.     (7) (/login) 7   (/~spenc) ()  (/~spenc) spenc edited (/c/xkcaod) (2026-07-01 03:29:46) 29 hours ago      I think the solutions are bad and are lobbied heavily by big tech to enforce a monopoly and implemented first by Republicans, with key objectives being to suppress speech the government doesn’t like. (Ie. support for Palestine, Trans communities). Not a free speech crazy, but this is really really not a power we should give to this admin. & As much as I hate the evil companies ruining everything, we should go after them and their CEOs and buisiness models, not the good parts of the ‘net       (~) (/login) ~   (/~mordae) ()  (/~mordae) mordae (/c/ba8rzy) (2026-07-01 12:47:09) 20 hours ago      You are right that unfettered speech is not cutting it in the slightest. If anything, its pretty much the root cause of a lot of contemporary issues. Before FB there were online communities. And they tended to be well moderated or dissolve very quickly. When FB came with the promise to be the hangout spot for everybody, they gave up on moderation to cut costs. While it initially seemed to work, the mores begun to dissolve since nobody was stepping in. And other platforms founded on the same idea of unfettered public conversations soon followed the suite. And don't get me started on the phone app "ecosystems". Instead of providing curated experience that would expand with your competencies, slowly removing the side wheels (or maybe not for some elderly), users are thrown into an ancap dystopia and are let to fend for themselves from the day 1. Sometimes it seems that our societies have simply given up on socializing people.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/onkkgc) (2026-07-02 04:56:19) 4 hours ago      Frankly I think you're deluding yourself if you think that our children's generation doesn't see us as equally clueless as we were seeing boomers during the nineties and the early aughts. It might be for different things, some of which we probably have no idea they exist, but I'm certain it's still there. Just because we made the internet great, it does not mean we're not equally naive about different things that today's kids care about.         (8) (/login) 8   (/~maduggan) ()  (/~maduggan) maduggan (/c/4rswmy) (2026-07-01 03:52:58) 29 hours ago      I think what you are seeing is people tired of waiting for a "better Internet" to emerge. Governments and populations, for the most part, adopted a hands-off approach to the Internet. What happened was not a utopian ideal society but instead a ruthlessly capitalistic and amoral environment where zero social norms are respected or followed and natural moderation never occurred. I'm part of the Internet introduction generation who remembers life before and am now raising children in a post-network society. I am much better informed than my parents as to all the horrible and dangerous things that exist out there. I have worked in mobile gaming, I know very well how predatory and invasive those companies are. I simply know too much to go back to a universe where I think "a completely unregulated place for humans to interact with each other is a net positive". It's not, as it turns out there are way more horrible people than I realized and the internet empowers them, it doesn't stop them. I cannot keep my children off the Internet, there are simply too many things in our daily lives that require that access. I also cannot sit there and monitor every single thing they do, it's not practical as they grow older. The tools I have at my disposal are simply inadequate for the job I'm asking them to do. Even the best set up blockers and scanners and DNS settings and everything else are technical hurdles that children are excellent at overcoming. Ask any school IT department. So at this point I need government intervention to help me. The risks are too high and the dangers are very real. The problem is just too large for me to tackle on a one by one basis. We all waited for a solution to present itself but we as a community fundamentally failed to address the problem, instead repeating over and over this mantra of "you need to monitor your kids". Raising children has to be a priority for an entire society, they're quite literally the future of your community. We have a moral obligation to try and do what we can to prevent them from doing dangerous things until their brains are sufficiently grown to be able to accurately judge risk.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~sjamaan) ()  (/~sjamaan) sjamaan (/c/puhnt9) (2026-07-01 04:21:14) 28 hours ago      The "old" internet from before mega companies centralizing everything was a very different place. Back then, I was rabidly positive about things like net neutrality and the right to encrypt and keeping the government out of it. But now, with young kids, I worry a lot about how much worse things can get. Social media and smartphones are downright toxic. You can keep your kids from using them, but you'd be "that one weird parent" in school while everyone around you allows their kids to use this stuff. It wouldn't even work, because those other kids would share what they do online with your kids and pressure them to join their social media. And that will be extremely hard to say no to when they're in puberty. So yes, I think it makes a lot of sense for governments to push back and curb the reach of these companies. I'm not enthusiastic about age verification, but short of completely banning social media companies (and how do you define it such that there won't be new ones working around the definition?), I don't know of a good solution. Finally, I'm also tired of fighting, just like many around here. I have too many other things to worry about and even if one fight is won, other proposals just keeps coming back over and over in a slightly new guise (like chat control). Nobody else seems to care, either. Internet is mainstream, the law needs to be changed to avoid it turning (even more) into a hellscape of lawlessness.         (7) (/login) 7   (/~vrypan) ()  (/~vrypan) vrypan (/c/daxxnb) (2026-07-01 02:21:34) 30 hours ago      The article is written from a US-centric perspective, for example "the fear of queer kids using the internet to discover" is not at the top of the public agenda outside US. But this stroke a nerve, and it's so to the point: The internet feels a lot less like an "our thing" than it used to.      (15) (/login) 15   (/~asymmetric) ()  (/~asymmetric) asymmetric (/c/m0bk65) (2026-07-01 06:19:11) 26 hours ago      The article is written from a US-centric perspective, for example "the fear of queer kids using the internet to discover" is not at the top of the public agenda outside US.  The UK comes to mind as a strong candidate.       (8) (/login) 8   (/~goldstein) ()  (/~goldstein) goldstein (/c/ep8pts) (2026-07-01 12:29:52) 20 hours ago      this was one of the main excuses when internet restrictions in Russia started. multiple countries are now passing laws against “LGBT propaganda among minors” — I wouldn’t say that it’s a US-specific excuse, or even that US is the country where this excuse is the most popular       (7) (/login) 7   (/~naiveai) ()  (/~naiveai) naiveai (/c/qrfp5j) (2026-07-01 09:50:22) 23 hours ago      The UK government, of any party, would go through literally any lengths at this point to bully queer people and especially queer kids. So I don't understand why you think this is US-centric.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~vrypan) ()  (/~vrypan) vrypan (/c/sd7hdo) (2026-07-01 10:01:31) 23 hours ago      I may be wrong. It's just that I've seen how sex education has become a central topic even in Trump's speeches, but I haven't noticed the UK PM (of course, I don't know who it is this week) or the French, German, Dutch, etc ones mentioning it. I can be wrong.           (6) (/login) 6   (/~Corbin) ()  (/~Corbin) Corbin (/c/qvdxie) (2026-07-01 22:53:44) 10 hours ago      I'm going to take an unfair sample of our opponents. Mark Zuckerberg genuinely believes himself to be the next (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus) Octavian ; in particular, this is the source of his political strategies and hairstyle. Elon Musk is named after the leader of Mars in a science-fiction story by Wernher von Braun, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mars:_A_Technical_Tale) Project Mars  . Peter Thiel genuinely believes that the Antichrist is returning based on his understanding of the work of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard) René Girard . (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachlan_Murdoch) Lachlan Murdoch and son of the lawnmower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison) David Ellison were raised by piles of money, a recipe which historically produces failprinces. Meanwhile, how are our historical enemies? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner) Ted Turner is dead. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti) Jack Valenti is dead and his office has been turned into a symbolic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)) revolving door . (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_McMahon) Vince McMahon is increasingly retired. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison) Larry Ellison is slowing down. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch) Rupert Murdoch was forced to retire. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)) Jack Thompson was disbarred. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige) David Miscavige and his church are in steep decline. Our oldest enemy, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse) Mickey Mouse , is partially in the public domain. I humbly submit to you that we have not changed much; rather, the oligarchs that we are fighting have become nastier, more megalomaniacal, and more ambitious. This is an ad-hoc thesis and there are plenty of folks that don't fit this pattern, like (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher) Ashton Kutcher : neither old nor young, neither a serious opponent nor unknown, neither defeated nor retired.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~gerikson) ()  (/~gerikson) gerikson (/c/1ccjvi) (2026-07-02 00:57:52) 8 hours ago      Source for Zuck wanting to be Augustus (the hairstyle is damning, I will admit)? If Octavian had diverted his legions from conquering his enemies into building something like the Metaverse (a baths complex the size of Sicily, perhaps) he would have lambasted as the stupidest person ever. Zuckerberg sets untold billions on fire and is fawned over by Joe Rogan.         (6) (/login) 6   (/~rr) ()  (/~rr) rr (/c/ayj8v7) (2026-07-01 08:55:44) 24 hours ago      It's becoming harder and harder to find ways to justify not taking that black pill and go full blown nihilism. I feel like post pandemic and after having a child this made things even harder for me to come to terms with. I feel so naive I joined the tech industry with hopes of somehow improving the world a little bit.       (5) (/login) 5   (/~FRIGN) ()  (/~FRIGN) FRIGN edited (/c/g6u9tn) (2026-07-01 14:24:44) 18 hours ago      Technical literacy is on a downward trend. Activism usually mostly happens in one's twenties. Most of those that know and care are simply aged out, working demanding jobs or building families. Nerd culture used to be much more alive. Those that should follow in the footsteps are either technically illiterate or tired. The younger gen Zs are very tired. No one really wants to build movements anymore. This is also noticeable in many other areas. Maybe the goal after all was to kill the young peoples' spirits and now the companies and other interest groups are reaping the benefits.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~gerikson) ()  (/~gerikson) gerikson (/c/zdydej) (2026-07-01 14:57:57) 18 hours ago      A typical generational thing is for kids to not listen to their parents. If you as a parent tell your kids that the stuff they're looking at on their phone (Tiktok, Snapchat) is bad and not what you did when you were young, I doubt you'll find many converts to your views.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~FRIGN) ()  (/~FRIGN) FRIGN (/c/2eaqfn) (2026-07-01 15:55:00) 17 hours ago      That is also a really good point! It may depend on where you live, but I am surprised, though, how aligned today's youth is with their parents' and 'established' political views.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~gerikson) ()  (/~gerikson) gerikson (/c/7uksug) (2026-07-02 01:19:27) 7 hours ago      I think it's complicated :) One thing to remark on, the OP refers to "the internet" in a specific way - the way things used to be in the past. If we call that ideal "internet activism", it suffers from the problem of ideological vagueness. There's no overarching narrative or even concrete example to point to. This means that trying to continue spreading that ideology mostly relies on vibes and memory. In the meantime, the public that this ideology is targetting is marinating in different ideologies and ideas, constantly being reinforced by the most pervasive media environment ever created. Your pure-HTML blog on your own domain with RSS has very little chance of making an impression there.             (5) (/login) 5   (/~orib) ()  (/~orib) orib (/c/g6s4r0) (2026-07-01 09:27:26) 23 hours ago      The people fighting for it conquered it and started to intensively mine it, exterminating any competition for resources.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~emoses) ()  (/~emoses) emoses (/c/sctsay) (2026-07-01 15:38:21) 17 hours ago      I think you can't underestimate the effect of all the other outrageous things we all need to be outraged about.  Fascism is on the rise all over the world, politics in the US is... waves vaguely .  Of all the things we need to be active about internet freedom, while important, is secondary to, say, the dismantling of democracy or government-sanctioned goon squads.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~spenc) ()  (/~spenc) spenc (/c/asbqnj) (2026-07-01 16:35:47) 16 hours ago      Agreed, this has moved from a top 10 issue for me to a top 200, mostly cuz there’s so many issues now :c         (~) (/login) ~   (/~josm) ()  (/~josm) josm (/c/ps4qng) (2026-07-01 16:16:51) 16 hours ago      Completely agreed on this post. It's actually very annoying people are more willing to just give their data away for convenience more and more now and refuse to lift a finger to fight for internet freedom.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~orion_moonclaw) ()  (/~orion_moonclaw) orion_moonclaw (/c/bhjgxj) (2026-07-01 03:46:07) 29 hours ago      Part of it I feel is that the internet is much more mainstream now, and regular people don't care about internet politics much, or aren't technical enough to even form coherent opinions on it. The other thing is that the mass slopification and enshittification of platforms has pushed people into hiding and damaged our ability to organize. I for one mostly just hang out with my close group of friends and in VR (since you know, the bots don't have arms yet, or convincing real-time voices). I also think that instead of just opposing things, we need to start seriously building what we need, and we need to push for more public funding of open source infrastructure. As long as all the media and social platforms are in the hands of billionaires they're going to do billionaire things with them, which happens to be building an authoritarian capitalist surveillance state.       (~) (/login) ~   (/~quad) ()  (/~quad) quad (/c/qmlnun) (2026-07-01 10:12:59) 22 hours ago      Assume any online platform with a userbase over a Dunbar's Number is toxic. Focus on private and small group chats.  "The Internet" these bills target are the worst parts of the internet: social media, streaming, porn, etc. Moreover, these bills won't fix anything, only alleviate a symptom. The problem is simple: The Internet is a Global Metropolis, not a Global Village  All the rest are corollaries from that. One example: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fucktard keeps being disproved. In a city, the Total Fucktards always amongst us are either ignored or arrested. On the Internet, productised sousveillance in the form of infinite algorithmic feeds amplifies and monetises them. Oh, and, by total coincidence, poisons minds and communities.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~abeyer) ()  (/~abeyer) abeyer (/c/7gkjdp) (2026-07-01 13:05:09) 20 hours ago      I don't fundamentally disagree with this premise, but I do think there's some additional nuance: First, this is largely driven by commodification/gamification of attention. To the degree that platforms stay away from models of clout and renting out users' eyeballs, they tend to scale farther. And I think the actual number is considerably larger than Dunbar's Number... it really starts to set in not when one individual doesn't have direct relationships with every other, but rather when there are largely disjoint communities that have minimal shared users with direct relationships occupying a single broadcast platform.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~quad) ()  (/~quad) quad (/c/e41adz) (2026-07-01 14:09:24) 19 hours ago      First, this is largely driven by commodification/gamification of attention. To the degree that platforms stay away from models of clout and renting out users' eyeballs, they tend to scale farther.  Humans self-organise. The only way to avoid models of clout is enforced anonymity. And even then… we still get QAnons and human flesh search engines. And I think the actual number is considerably larger than Dunbar's Number...[…]  I intentionally wrote “assume.” But, I feel like you might be overlooking the multifaceted nature of individuals. That is, even a community aligned around… hmm, say, computing… even such a community will have habitual line steppers who drive out objectively good actors. Any more than a handful of people will result in factions and asymmetries. Or more simply: (https://xkcd.com/173/) https://xkcd.com/173/ and (https://xkcd.com/2235/) https://xkcd.com/2235/ rule 7.         (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/s3keiq) (2026-07-02 05:03:48) 4 hours ago      I once made a back of the napkin "calculation" of what an equivalent to Dunbar's number would be in an online community. The answer was: (https://metalhead.club/@mariusor/110202238510804247) 1416 .     (~) (/login) ~   (/~quad) ()  (/~quad) quad (/c/1mdoc4) (2026-07-02 05:38:17) 3 hours ago      Did that white paper ever get published? I’m curious how that number was derived.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/of0j2z) (2026-07-02 06:34:34) 2 hours ago      Hahaha, no, that was a joke. I don't remember the specific arithmetic, but I think I derived the number from wanting to get a certain freshness to my feed on social media. A new thing every 2 minutes or so: not too much to get overwhelming, but not too little as to get stale. I guess a good starting point for different people would be: how often do you want to open the social media page, and how much time you want to spend on it divided by how quick you read/explore a hypothetical individual media item. Then I extrapolated from the 90-9-1 rule for user participation, though I don't remember specifically what time intervals I assigned to the 90%, 9% and 1% buckets to get to this number. If you go with the definition from Wikipedia the 90 basically never post, so they're just dead weight. So, using some arbitrary numbers, the calculation would be something like 9% post twice a day, and 1% 20 times a day: 9*2+20 = 38/day from 10 people. 720 posts per day that I want to see (every 2 minutes for 24h) / 38 = 18.9 * 10 people = 189 people in the 9 and 1% buckets. Add them to the 90% bucket which is ten times larger and you get 2079, which is quite far from the original number, but relatively in the same order of magnitude. (I might have accounted for a person not needing 24h of continuous social feed in my original calculation, which would explain the decrease. Or it might have been completely different buckets, who knows?) Have fun computing your own. :)     (~) (/login) ~   (/~quad) ()  (/~quad) quad (/c/g3y55a) (2026-07-02 06:43:02) 2 hours ago      Optimising for new thing every X minutes is what got us into this situation.     (~) (/login) ~   (/~mariusor) ()  (/~mariusor) mariusor (/c/4vpebq) (2026-07-02 07:38:31) 1 hour ago      Optimising for new thing every X minutes  ... for everyone, at all times... is what got us into this situation.  I'm only doing calculations for curating my own feed. :P                     (/about) About (/tags) Tags (/filters) Filter (/moderations) Moderation Log