I don't do this often, but this says what I have wanted to say about social implications of the internet, except it goes further, does it more eloquently and generally gives some really interesting food for thought.
I agree the internet is going to become more like real life, but I think like in the real world there will still be pockets of escapism for those who desire it.
I don't think the internet is going to go one way or the other; there will just be areas which are bad - eg. currently the bad areas could be considered to be the abuse of email and other public messaging services, the signal to noise ratio of decent information available on the net.. etc. Just as one area gets bad, people will find better ways to do things. Many solutions have been suggested for email, some more effective than others, but quite a few involve separating the 'haves' from the 'have-nots' again.
One thing the internet is helping to do is shake up monolithic and beaurocratic organisations like (typically) governments and monopolies in market sectors. The internet can reduce the time it takes for things to happen (for a number of reasons), and opens new ways for money to be exchanged, which puts pressure on companies and governments to keep up. This is a good thing.
Unfortunately, I think the Internet is replacing some monolithic bureaucracies with others, rather than eliminating them. There was a time when the Internet was basically run from Jon Postel's office — that time has passed.
Given time, I fear that Verisign, ICANN, IANA, PayPal, and all the rest will become as powerful as many governments. And as evil, belligerent, power-crazed and obstructive.
Are we really better off with them than with our current "RL" governments? Who can tell. What happens if there's a major test of will between the Internet powers and conventional government at some point? I'm not sure. While it's unlikely to be deadly (unless everything is on the net by then), we still might we'd picked a different planet before they're done.
Are we really better off with them than with our current "RL" governments?
A very interesting question. Currently, whenever these sorts companies have overstepped their marks they've (mostly) been lambasted back into line. Social pressure in the form of commerce and enterprise generally seem to be good at regulating them.
I'm not naive enough to think that will always be the case, but one other good thing is that no one "RL" government can control all aspects of the internet, no matter how hard it tries. This will eventually force (if the internet-running companies prove not to be good enough at self-regulation) some sort of joint committee of countries (NATO anyone?) to regulate the companies. This will undoubtedly be slow and bloated with politics and bureaucracy.
So where does that leave us? Well I suspect the internet will manage itself quite effectively - take the smaller case of CDDB which when it tried to start getting people to pay for the information they had collected for free it backfired and people rebelled and set up freedb in its place. This can and will happen again to any internet-based organisation that gets too big for its boots. It might be more tricky for some parts, but PayPal and the like can and will crumble if people decide to use viable alternatives. Patents are too slow to keep up with the internet world, and by the time a successful patent holder has sued the original application is no longer in place.
I do believe the whole way we do business is going to receive a large shake-up as more and more business is conducted online. Business models will need to change - for example companies will find it difficult to charge for proprietary technology that doesn't cover a niche market; instead I believe the emerging strategy of quality open-source products being adopted for free with varying levels of support being paid for by contract.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 10:01 am (UTC)I don't think the internet is going to go one way or the other; there will just be areas which are bad - eg. currently the bad areas could be considered to be the abuse of email and other public messaging services, the signal to noise ratio of decent information available on the net.. etc. Just as one area gets bad, people will find better ways to do things. Many solutions have been suggested for email, some more effective than others, but quite a few involve separating the 'haves' from the 'have-nots' again.
One thing the internet is helping to do is shake up monolithic and beaurocratic organisations like (typically) governments and monopolies in market sectors. The internet can reduce the time it takes for things to happen (for a number of reasons), and opens new ways for money to be exchanged, which puts pressure on companies and governments to keep up. This is a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 04:56 pm (UTC)Given time, I fear that Verisign, ICANN, IANA, PayPal, and all the rest will become as powerful as many governments. And as evil, belligerent, power-crazed and obstructive.
Are we really better off with them than with our current "RL" governments? Who can tell. What happens if there's a major test of will between the Internet powers and conventional government at some point? I'm not sure. While it's unlikely to be deadly (unless everything is on the net by then), we still might we'd picked a different planet before they're done.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 01:19 pm (UTC)A very interesting question. Currently, whenever these sorts companies have overstepped their marks they've (mostly) been lambasted back into line. Social pressure in the form of commerce and enterprise generally seem to be good at regulating them.
I'm not naive enough to think that will always be the case, but one other good thing is that no one "RL" government can control all aspects of the internet, no matter how hard it tries. This will eventually force (if the internet-running companies prove not to be good enough at self-regulation) some sort of joint committee of countries (NATO anyone?) to regulate the companies. This will undoubtedly be slow and bloated with politics and bureaucracy.
So where does that leave us? Well I suspect the internet will manage itself quite effectively - take the smaller case of CDDB which when it tried to start getting people to pay for the information they had collected for free it backfired and people rebelled and set up freedb in its place. This can and will happen again to any internet-based organisation that gets too big for its boots. It might be more tricky for some parts, but PayPal and the like can and will crumble if people decide to use viable alternatives. Patents are too slow to keep up with the internet world, and by the time a successful patent holder has sued the original application is no longer in place.
I do believe the whole way we do business is going to receive a large shake-up as more and more business is conducted online. Business models will need to change - for example companies will find it difficult to charge for proprietary technology that doesn't cover a niche market; instead I believe the emerging strategy of quality open-source products being adopted for free with varying levels of support being paid for by contract.