The Future of the Internet

[CogentPhilosopher]

India is a democracy, therefore, the elected representatives of the people decide. No, we do not believe in freedom without restraints of responsibilities.

Did I claim that Hinduism is a religion of peace? We would certainly like to give it back the way we get it.

So the majority of people decide what everyone can see. Therefore the majority opinion is likely that to not be as questioned.

If the majority wants to ban people talking about ideas they do not like should that be allowed as well? Or do you just draw the line at the newer forms of communication?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Democracy has its own balances. If what a representative says is against the views of a section of society, then they will not vote for him or his party. Politicians are not fools. Their instinct for survival is legendary. Then there is a constitutional check - Judiciary. We can go only according to the Indian Constitution. Do you think that all Indians are jungle dwellers?

 

[Stevicus]

My belief is such novelties are predicated on the not unfounded presumption that all too many voters are as dumb as a sack of hammers. It's a sad state of affairs when folks are banking on this type of propaganda to further their cause(s).

I think a lot of this is the result of an overall dumbing down of standards, and the mainstream media have been doing this as well. I don't watch much TV anymore. A lot of TV shows and movies are just plain dumb, and it's almost as if they're insulting their audiences with such moronic garbage. Their newscasts are pretty much at the same low level.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I agree with your sentiments, it isn't a case of so-called "alternative facts", but rather a selective use of given facts to promote given narratives. It's all about spin.

There is no way to selectively choose numbers to say Trump had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama, the incident where I first heard the utterance of the phrase "alternative facts." I think it was from Spicer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Further to my post #22, some statistics about Indian National elections. They have been held regularly since 1951, except for a two-year brake when Indira Gandhi declared emergency. So, 66 years, 16 elections, the last in 2014..

814.5 million voters, 543 seat, 8,251 candidates, 464 political parties , 66.4% - 541 million voted, with 3.3 million Electronic Voting Machines (Indians vote only through EVMs) at 930,000 voting centers. Election needs about 5 million civilian employees and 5 million security personnel. The results are declared in one day with 989 counting centers. The total vote spend is USD 5 billion, with government expenditure at USD 577 million. Every voter by law must not be required to travel more than 500 meters to vote even in the remotest corners of the country. Election officials trek or ride elephants to reach these places . Auleyphu (Ladakh PC) had the highest polling booth, situated at a height of 15,300 ft.


Oh yes, we are proud of our record - world's biggest free and fair democratic election with universal franchise (more people than Europe and US put together).
Election Releases Page

 

[YmirGF]

There is no way to selectively choose numbers to say Trump had a larger inauguration crowd than Obama, the incident where I first heard the utterance of the phrase "alternative facts." I think it was from Spicer.

That is unfortunately a factor of spin. Spin, by its very nature is not factual, otherwise there is no reason to apply spin to a given thing. Then again, in an alternate universe perhaps he really did have larger crowds, LOL.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is unfortunately a factor of spin. Spin, by its very nature is not factual, otherwise there is no reason to apply spin to a given thing. Then again, in an alternate universe perhaps he really did have larger crowds, LOL.

I don't beat around the bush and use this "spin" term. 'Tis a factor of nothing more than a lie. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then again, in an alternate universe perhaps he really did have larger crowds, LOL.

Maybe in an alternate universe where he greets people with flowers, gives away tons of his money, and says things like "now, now, you shouldn't say that because it will hurt that person's feelings." LOL

 

[Jake1001]

Good topic, Quint....to me...a major upcoming theme is...the internet of everything. ....computers are our next major challenge. .how do we evolve along side them ??

Here's an article of direct interest to just about anyone using the internet: The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online

There is so much ground that is covered by this article it's hard to know where to begin, but if you are at all interested and concerned about these sorts of issues:

• How uncivil, trolling behavior is ruining the internet and public discourse
• How fake news on the internet is having rather disturbing real world consequences
• How the internet allows for advancement of extremist causes and is used as a weapon or tool of propoganda

Take a gander. It's a long read. As a bard, stories like this are particularly interesting to me because they are about... well... stories. Much of how we view reality and approach reality is impacted by the stories we tell. While a venue like the internet held much promise and many benefits, I remember quite some time ago noticing a problem with the signal to noise ratio. That is to say, there is so much garbage on the internet that it is difficult to find the useful portions of it. It doesn't help that it is plagued by advertisers and marketers vying for your attention and gathering your information to sell off to various bidders.

Four themes with the following subthemes are proposed in this article about what the future of the internet will look like:

1. Things will stay bad because to troll is human; anonymity abets anti-social behavior; inequities drive at least some of the inflammatory dialogue; and the growing scale and complexity of internet discourse makes this difficult to defeat
   1. Trolls have been with us since the dawn of time; there will always be some incivility
   2. Trolling and other destructive behaviors often result because people do not recognize or don’t care about the consequences flowing from their online actions
   3. Inequities drive at least some of the inflammatory dialogue
   4. The ever-expanding scale of internet discourse and its accelerating complexity make it difficult to deal with problematic content and contributors
2. Things will stay bad because tangible and intangible economic and political incentives support trolling. Participation = power and profits
   1. ‘Hate, anxiety, and anger drive participation,’ which equals profits and power, so online social platforms and mainstream media support and even promote uncivil acts
   2. Technology companies have little incentive to rein in uncivil discourse, and traditional news organizations – which used to shape discussions – have shrunk in importance
   3. Terrorists and other political actors are benefiting from the weaponization of online narratives by implementing human- and bot-based misinformation and persuasion tactics
3. Things will get better because technical and human solutions will arise as the online world splinters into segmented, controlled social zones with the help of artificial intelligence (AI)
   1. AI sentiment analysis and other tools will detect inappropriate behavior and many trolls will be caught in the filter; human oversight by moderators might catch others
   2. There will be partitioning, exclusion and division of online outlets, social platforms and open spaces
   3. Trolls and other actors will fight back, innovating around any barriers they face
4. Oversight and community moderation come with a cost. Some solutions could further change the nature of the internet because surveillance will rise; the state may regulate debate; and these changes will polarize people and limit access to information and free speech
   1. Surveillance will become even more prevalent
   2. Dealing with hostile behavior and addressing violence and hate speech will become the responsibility of the state instead of the platform or service providers
   3. Polarization will occur due to the compartmentalization of ideologies
   4. Increased monitoring, regulation and enforcement will shape content to such an extent that the public will not gain access to important information and possibly lose free speech

What do you think about these ideas? About the internet in general? Anything in the article you'd like to bring our attention to?