@@467Thiundercatxt3cb and who should restrict the internet, given that it's impossible anyway due to the very nature of its original construction to be resilient to restrictions from nuclear attacks. We see how internet restrictions in Russia, China and North Korea, together with the right wing Murdoch press in the UK, allow authoritarian rulers to control the people of the country to be compliant to their abusive power and control, so what makes you think anyone with total control over the internet would be any different? Authoritarian humans gonna be crap towards others, and with great power comes even more repression towards others.
It brings out both the best and worst in humanity. To get deep about it, humanity is yin and yang - you can’t have light without dark, and vise versa. That’s why there will always be war and peace, love and hate... some things I love about the internet - the sharing of knowledge, easy access to information, art and positive communication with anyone around the world... then there’s social media hate, trolling, plus worse on the dark corners... pedophilia, animal torture etc. I think in the future it should be probably be more legally regulated, even though I’m all for free speech.
I'm 53 and still remember the very moment I heard about the internet. It was February 1995, I was 24 and on a tour of the TAFE library. The librarian conducting the tour had us stop by a single, stand-alone computer. She briefly pointed to it and said "And that's our internet computer." I thought to myself. "Internet? What's that?" I was already very familiar with computers. In 1985 my parents brought my older brother a Microbee personal computer. I learned to code in C+ that year. Then, when I completed a clerical traineeship in 1989 I had to learn on Microsoft PC's. Today, my brother is a computer programmer/systems analyst for the Australian Stock Exchange. His first born son followed in his footsteps and is a programmer for Qantas Australia. 1995 was also the year I got my first mobile phone. It wasn't much back then. Just a brick with a thin black strip for a screen with enough room for only neon green numbers and letters and nothing more. I remember there were five of us in the car, all taking turns on this new thing called a mobile phone. Memories are a wonderful thing.
Thx for sharing. I also distinctly recall the first time I bumped into the idea of the Internet in action. It was also 1995, I was 20, finishing out my Junior year in college at Chapman University in SoCal. My roommate at the time was an incredible introvert, prone to vanishing for extended periods of time. After a month or so of rooming together that Fall, I asked him where he was for 16+ hours every single day. His eyes lit up at the question. He said, "Did you know that our campus library has several computer connected to the Internet? I'm using a program called IRC [Internet Relay Chat] to type in real time with other people all over the world." I just stared at him in stunned disbelief. "You mean when you're not in class, you immediately head to the library, sit in a chair, look at a screen, and spend countless hours there typing words to people you've never met." A big smile crept across his face. "Yep!" His name was Kirk Villeneuve. Pretty cool dude. I should google him and see what he's up to these days.
"Threats to the Internet, such as companies or governments that interfere with or snoop on Internet traffic, compromise basic human network rights." - Tim Berners-Lee, 2010.
6 дней назад
So Taibbi and Co. exposed this....and what happened? Memory holed....
People had so much hope when the internet took off thinking it could unite humanity when in actuality all it did was unleash the hate. Social media really was a massive mistake.
I think like with anything, there's good and bad. In a way, it did unite us. We are able to connect with people all over. We know more about things like police brutality. When I was a kid, we heard about it, but there wasn't the spread of proof there is today. The Rodney King incident was such a big deal because you didn't see a lot of video proof of this kind of thing. On the flipside, it is easier to end up in an echo chamber, and to spread misinformation. It's liie any other new invention like TV. It comes with great improvements, but also new problems.
The real damage done by the internet was anti-intellectualism. People argue (they would call it "debate") endlessly based on intuition rather than knowledge and expertise. Arguments that were settled and well understood in the writings of academics and authorities resurface, simply because people who are unaware of those works stumble across an issue again, believe it to be new, and overestimate their ability to fully grasp the subject. There was a time where, when faced with an intellectual or political challenge, we'd reach for books, and we'd consult with experts, or at least educated and trained people in conventional media would act as a proxy. Now we yell at each other in the comments section. Politicians are now taking advantage of this to construct entire alternate realities, because in the absence of experts, they know people will now choose the reality that they intuitively feel or want to be true rather than the one that is objectively true.
@@cornishhh for any given subject there is a body written material and evidence, that's the product of research, experiments, studies and peer review. Captured knowledge. Experts understand and can refer to that body of materials. Laymen do not.
@@edonslow1456 I'd agree that that is the case for empirical science, but even that has to be open to challenge from reasoned argument. For more interpretive subjects, people become "Experts" by reading books by people who's opinions are fashionable at the time, and passing exams based on these writings. The exams are generally marked by people with the same fashionable opinions. Funding from commercial interests further distorts the process.
@@cornishhh I'm talking more broadly about academia. My comment was referring to people making arguments for and against this without understanding the existing academic concepts. Even if you're bringing a challenge to established norms, you still need to understand what those norms are. To use an example, flat Earthers will make arguments without an understanding of any of the physics, or history that leads to the knowledge that the earth is round. That's an example from science, but it applies everywhere. Political and economic systems are well understood, yet we all debate them in the comments sections as if we're the experts. That's where you get "fashionable" ideas. In actual academia you get reasoned and evidenced debate. Trans issues for example, and ideas on gender you'll find are very different in academia to how they play out on the internet. The "debate" has already been happening for quite some time. Then there's a separate, emotive one that's being exploited on all sides of the political spectrum, in public.
Almost prescient comments from Tim that the internet would become homogenised "like Mcdonalds", and that there would be echo chambers of like-minded people. That early internet/web hope is virtually gone now.
Tim Berners Lee predicting 'group think' on the internet. He is seems to be a God in tech circles. As I did a basic computer module in college, and there were many in class in awe of the lecturer simply because she knew Tim well!
surely not RU-vid? no, surely not! only those _other_ social media sites _over there,_ not the one you're using, RU-vid, which also feeds on hatred and rage and does all the same other bad things. no! other users, other sites are the problem. not you and not here
Appalling sound quality (from the BBC!) - even with closed captions I found it impossible to listen to. Maybe there's text version I can read somewhere....
The clue is in the title, HARDtalk. The whole point of the show at the time was the interviewer, Tim Sebastian, asking tough, unfriendly and challenging questions and pushing the interviewees (who all knew the deal before they went into the interview).
There are two problems with the currant paradigm, who pays for the hardware and how do we transcend the innocence of 1960s counterculture and the subsequent ignorance of 1980s techno utopian ideology that has been so very very good at creating the network.. the problem we face today is how to maintain anonymity whilst also ensuring the person on the other end is real (hurry up Elon! ;p), if we can solve this without turning everything into 1984, we can start to build properly transparent democracies, which was the ultimate goal of the internet, to build a more open and potentially stable world, which in turn affords us more peace time on this planet to figure out a better sustainable energy solution before we go extinct.
That ending song is the same one used in the London Olympics 2012 opener at the beginning of the history of music segment. The segment eventually ended with Tim Berners-Lee's introduction as the inventor of the World Wide Web (the famous "THIS IS FOR EVERYONE"). Wow!
I call it the paper problem. Someone came up with the idea of paper and others decided what should go on the paper.... We, as pretty much all of living kind, have a responsibility....
‘Fast Food’ Monoculture… …shows how well he understood the ‘tool to build’. Further into the interview, nearly every word is a profound warning/prophecy Ps the solution is for us all to host our own personal sites, using open source technologies (eg messaging & video players), with standardised SEO terms so we can find & be found by, community. Major platforms can just fall out of use.
PHEW! Glad we dodged THAT bullet - eh?? I mean... Can you even IMAGINE what the world would have been like - had this dystopian future actually HAPPENED?!
I wonder if he regrets the paper analogy. "a horrendously complicated piece of paper"? So, not a piece of paper at all. He's not a bad person, and the internet would have happened eventually with or without him, but unfortunately the internet crosses borders (both physical and non-physical) in ways that legislation cannot contain.
Hypertext is basically text which links to other text. The internet is just a bunch of files with their own addresses and links to content at those addresses.
The concept of hypertext (text with links to other texts, as already explained) was "invented" before the internet (Ted Nelson came up with the term in 1965, Vannevar Bush described something similar already in 1945). Tim Berners-Lee developed the HTML language and the HTTP network protocol to implement a hypertext system. The H in both stands for "hypertext".
❤Agree with Tim,All Great Minds do things For Goodness of the Humans. ❤All Writers Like Arthur. C.Clark and Issac ASIMOV. ❤Our Brothers Who all NEED to Read 🧠❤and Listen to Their Messages For Humanity and Mother Earth and Harmony ❤
Through centralisation as he warned, the web was intended to be self-published, social media moguls and their algorithms recommending content you would not seek out yourself are the problem.
I agree with him, it was much better when there was only a couple of nation wide TV networks, radio stations and newspapers - that was way more easier to control. We need that kind of gate keeping on the Internet too. People should just trust the establishment telling them what to think, it is for their own good, after all.
Once we content became available on mobile devices, instead of laptops and computers with keyboards, it went from a useful reference and publication tool, to a digital tracking device habituating the masses into being surveilled in trade for 'free' constant consumption of entertainment. We are now tracked, owned, and rarely does anyone contribute anything more than a quick comment or a social media post, such as this comment.
@@georgesosthe buffering for video in 1998 was so horrendous, though that may have been more due to the erm other downloads of COMPLETELY LEGIT DATA I was doing and this missed it
Serious point actually, sadly scientists often do stuff like this as they are not great at assessing risk, consequence and unintended consequence as they exist in the bubble of their field. He has to take some of the responsibility
5:12 many Hypertexts has issues when You want to pass each of them to the Syntax Correction Mechanism. The answer to the Question: How deep these Commercial instruments and technologies could use and show off the name of the HTML. Does Doctype references to the technical documentation could be a good step, no?
