The Internet - drowning in its own waste?

[Guest]

Hi,

Yesterday I was looking for the lyrics of a song that I only half remembered.  Used Google and eventually found it.  But in the processes, I found many sites that had nothing to do with what I was looking for.  And using the find function of the browser, I often could not find even one (non trivial) word of my search string on the page I'd clicked to.

Today I felt like browsing on one of my favorite subjects, arms and armor.  I have a folder of favorites/bookmarks on that topic.  Of the twenty two items in that folder, five are dead links and four have moved since I linked them.  I have hundreds of pointers stored in 28 main folders, many with sub folders.  I dread to think how many of those are now dead.

Other than by outright lying, I can think of three good ways to keep a person ignorant: tell them nothing, tell them too much to assimilate, tell them the truth and then change it.  Seems that the Internet (and not just the web, consider over thirty seven thousand news groups with bunches added (and abandoned) weekly) is doing a pretty good job on two of the three ways.  Not to mention that a lot of the content *is* outright lies.

So, is the net still the "Information Superhighway" that will make us all informed beings, or is it an accident saturated, hopelessly gridlocked, tangle of paths leading to nowhere of interest?  I suspect that, without some sort of control, Sturgeon's law (squared) will apply.  But with most forms of control, it'll become just another spin factory.  The original solution, which happened by happenstance, of only letting people of a certain "class" (often CompSci 101 :) ) onto the net worked pretty well.  But there is no way to go back to the days before the September That Never Ended.

So, what do you think.  Will technology control the Frankenstein's monster that technology spawned?  Or will the Net join broadcast TV as a form without function, a signaless source of noise?

Me?  Well, I wouldn't be me if I didn't think it was going to hell on the express. :)  The advantage of being a pessimist: I've never been disappointed, often vindicated, and sometimes pleasantly surprised.

--Pete

Did you know that Google could be manipulated? Google is based on the number of hits;someone who wants to get his website at the beginning of the list can use several methods to do it;this kind of manipulation has already happened and will happen again,so don't blame it on the internet or google!
About dead links:websites live and die;no reason to be surprised about the issue;as you may not know,it can be very easy to manipulate Google;and there are tools which allow cheaters to put links which have nothing to do with key words
You should not complain about the internet;it is the last area of freedom;like the real world,you have to recognize right from wrong;if you can handle in real life,just do it on the internet...

[Griselda]

I tend to think of the internet (well, specifically the WWW) as either a place for discussion within some sort of internet community, or as a place for easy, quick information. I use it all the time to look up little bits of information. For example, if I have a question about a basketball player while I'm watching a game, I can head to the computer and look it up. If I want some general information on a random topic, I can usually find that without too much trouble. I think it works similarly to the encyclopedia set we had when I was growing up- little bits of information on lots of topics, Of course, the internet is much more pop-culture oriented than the encyclopedias were, and I'm sure I learn less browsing the internet randomly than I did flipping through the encyclopedia.

But, I *don't* look to the internet for accurate and in-depth information on a complex topic. That's what the library is for, and I'm lucky enough to have a community and a University library that are both about 5 minutes away.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, I hope English isn't your first language, because if it is, you have no languages at all.

Second, yes, I know Google can be manipulated. However 'so don't blame it on the internet or google is asinine. The subject for discussion is whether the Internet is going to hell. If any part of it is, then that contributes to all of it. Whether it is doing so because of neglect or because of malice or because of some other reason is of secondary importance, a support for an argument rather than an argument in itself (at least on this topic). And I was not "blaming" anything on anything, simply pointing out some specific observations, which added to a bulk of similar observations led me to a viewpoint I wanted to share and to discuss.

Third, "You should not complain about the internet" is also a stupid statement. It is the attitude of an ignorant youth who wishes only to see perfection, be it good or bad. A thoughtful and rational adult see both the good things and the bad things in everything, weighs the one against the other and decides if overall something is good or bad *for himself*. And, while he doesn't always fully support his opinions (for to do so would take too much effort), he at least knows that they *are* opinions and *can* support them with rational arguments when challenged.

To say "you have to recognize right from wrong" is also foolish. If I wish to become educated about a subject, then it is because I am ignorant about it. If I am ignorant about it, I do not have the background to select right from wrong -- or sense from non-sense. So only if I surf exclusively on sites that cover material I am already familiar with can I follow your "advice". Of course, by doing so, I do not gain any knowledge, just a reenforcement of my previous notions and prejudices. Perhaps that is the greatest failing of the Internet -- unlike even the TV news (Fox excluded), one can spend all one's time on the Internet and never be exposed to a new idea or bothersome concept.

--Pete

[Moldran]

Kandrathe, I really feel I must respond to your post, because some of the things you suggest are exactly the ones that make me very very afraid of the net's future.

Enforceable rules and a worldwide network of Internet enforcement agencies.

This would be the end of freedom, I think this may be the death of the net. The one thing we definately do NOT need is ANYTHING like a worldwide "Internet enforcement agency" (the name sends shivers down my spine).

A new packet protocol that requires encryption, and tightly embeds the packet senders credentials. While I'm an advocate of anonymous speech, I'm a bigger proponent of free speech. Free speech adds the responsibility of the content to the speaker.

I can see where you are coming from, but *please* remember that not everyone who adds content to the net lives in a country that grants as much civil freedoms as your one! In many parts of the world, accountability means the end of free speech.
If you and your communication partner agree to do so, you can already use encryption easily, btw.

What the Internet needs now is accountability of content back to the originator. I want to be able to track spammers and virus authors directly and in order to do that I need to give up being anonymous.

The price is too high, much too high. I definately prefer living with the current amount of spam and viruses over forcing everyone to give up all anonymity.

2] We need a clear physical divide between information and trash.

Why ? Why do we need that ? I think it is fine as it is.
And much more importantly: Who is to decide what is information and what is trash ?

If it is done by IP address, then I would suggest that as a first step the internic adopt a 5th octet IP address standard with the current Internet being zero. Then, I would start to assign the fifth address by information provider category. Or, it could be done by domain name, but in either case someone needs to enforce that there is a difference between the information offerings of a library, or wikipedia and a porn site.

The Chinese government seems to love that idea. I am pretty sure that their definition of what is 'information' and what is 'trash' differs from your one quite alot, though.
Apart from the social implications, I think your idea is also technically unrealistic. If I am not mistaken, you would have to change all network layer routers to be able to route the new protocol. This would take forever. Look at the current state of IPv6 support.

If we can constrain all the adult content a particular physical address, government information to another, commerce organized by industries, university research to others, etc. Then at least each community can be policed using its own community standards or watchdogs

And if government XY does not want its inhabitants to have access to any kind of information that falls into a certain category, all they have to do is block the appropriate address range. Neat.

3] Another obstacle to the Internet being an "Information Superhighway" is copyright. Because there is little control or accountability anyone who publishes anything on the web in effect offers their work to the public domain.

Huh ? Why that ? There is alot of material on the net that definately is very far away from being public domain.

Without worldwide agreements on copyright protection, there will be less of the quality content by professionals and more of the musings of amateurs.

There are worldwide agreements on copyright protection already!
From my experience, alot of the net's quality content is offered by 'amateurs', while 'professionals' tend to be responsible for most of the crap.

[Jim]

Hi

Pete this one is for you :D

Uniform Guide

Uniform Guide
This section is a pictorial uniform guide which may help in identifying different troop types, accessories carried, shapes of shabraques, uniform details and other useful information..

HäT Industrie is a designer of 1/72 and 1/32 scale soft plastic military miniatures. We strive to produce authentic figures of various historical armies suitable for the collector, wargamer or hobbyist.

Their uniforms are carefully researched and they look just like miniatures of their real life counterparts. The 1/72 scale sets are compatible with the 1/72, 1/76 and HO/OO scale sets currently available in the market, and the 1/32 scale figure sets are compatible with 1/32, 1/35 scale and other 54mm figure sets currently in the market. Look for and ask for us at your local hobby shop!

[--Pete]

Hi,

On the one hand it would be nice to have total freedom on the net, much like it was until less than ten years ago. On the other hand it would be nice to have a reasonable degree of worthwhile content (relative to the trash (which *was* the case, pretty much, as little as ten years ago)). Note: I am not saying that the majority of the content of the Internet ten years ago was useful, far from it. I'm simply saying that the useful content was a large enough subset that it could still be found without extensive time and effort devoted to the search.

Just another example of the adage, "Anarchy only works if everybody follows the rules." Of course, that presupposes that people are informed enough to know the rules in the first place and smart enough to understand them in the second. Both are bad suppositions when applied to the population as a whole. Which is why most forms of anarchy are doomed to failure.

So, the question is not "freedom or constraint?" It just isn't that black and white. The question is what is the best balance between freedom and constraint. While I find some of the measures proposed by kandrathe a bit (or more) draconian, I think the "freedom without responsibility" approach you champion to be unworkable and naive. Actions, even simple actions like posting to a forum, must have consequences. Removing those consequences is not "freedom", it is "license" (in its 'bad" meaning). We see that in the flame wars that dominate unmonitored fora. We see that in the dreck that gets sent to your e-mailbox (try turning off your spam filter). We see that in the griefing that dominates so much online play.

Since there is no known reliable way to install a sense of responsibility into people, there will always be those that abuse any system. In an attempt to keep that abuse down, people form some kind of enforcement group. In the "old" Internet, the rules were unwritten and enforcement was by peer pressure. That works in a society of (mostly) rational people (this site being a great example of that). But if the abusers become a big enough fraction of the total, then they get peer support as well. At that point some form of enforcement comes about, often along with codified laws. It amounts to vigilantism and will work for short periods in small communities (gold rush San Francisco, the old DSF). But that is neither a stable nor a desirable solution.

From my experience, alot of the net's quality content is offered by 'amateurs', while 'professionals' tend to be responsible for most of the crap.

I must admit I'm both befuddled and intrigued by this statement. Now, "amateur" has developed a bad connotation in the past century or so. The original meaning was one who devoted his time to a topic for the love of that topic. And amateurs of that type are often much more productive and informed than many "professionals" (which, after all, only means that they get paid for their work :) )

However, you seem to contrast "amateur" and "professional" and imply that they are somehow opposites. But the only strict sense that they are opposite is in the matter of pay. I'm not sure just what professionals have put up crap, or in what sense they have done so. I'm even wondering what types of content you are talking about. In the technical fields, most of the content by "amateurs" (most of whom fit the "lacking in experience and competence" definition of amateur) is total crap. The content by professionals is often excellent, especially that content contained in on-line refereed publications (which are getting to be more the norm because of reduced costs and more rapid dissemination).

Now, in many cases, the "unofficial" web sites for some topics (e.g., Good Eats) contains more information than the official web site(s). Partially that is because the unofficial sites often "infringe" on copyright matters (which the copyright holder ignores if it is garnering free publicity but opposes otherwise). Partially because the official sites are either dedicated to many other things (The whole Food Network in the case of Good Eats) or because it is the work of one or two persons who have many other tasks. After all, a "professional" will work the required hours, and possibly a little more, but an amateur, almost by definition, devotes his life to his love.

So, I'm still intrigued. I don't know if that was an off the cuff BS generalization or if you have some specifics in mind. I think I disagree, but am not sure enough about what you mean to know what I think about it ;)

--Pete

[Guest]

"First, I hope English isn't your first language, because if it is, you have no languages at all."
Indeed,this is not my native language;I am curious,while you bring the topic,if you only know your native language or if you know other languages...well,can you boast to know foreign languages to be allowed to criticize my english??
"Third, "You should not complain about the internet" is also a stupid statement. It is the attitude of an ignorant youth who wishes only to see perfection, be it good or bad"

'You should not complain about the internet' is not a stupid thought,it is only a view; you mix up truth with view
worst of all,you put me in the "ignorant youth" category without even knowing me...
Accept the views that don't fit yours instead of getting mad and flaming..
PS:not bad for someone who has no language at all <_<

[LochnarITB]

Nummy Tasty

[Munkay]

"You should not complain about the internet" is also a stupid statement.&nbsp; It is the attitude of an ignorant youth who wishes only to see perfection, be it good or bad.&nbsp; A thoughtful and rational adult see both the good things and the bad things in everything, weighs the one against the other and decides if overall something is good or bad *for himself*.&nbsp; And, while he doesn't always fully support his opinions (for to do so would take too much effort), he at least knows that they *are* opinions and *can* support them with rational arguments when challenged.

May I quote you?

-Munk

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am curious,while you bring the topic,if you only know your native language or if you know other languages...well,can you boast to know foreign languages to be allowed to criticize my english??

Si, ti posso anche chiamare stupido in italiano che e' la mia lingua nativa. E, con un poco di lavoro, pure' in spagnolo. In piu, o' studiato anch tedesco e latino. Ti basta?

Now, I will make allowances for your limited English, but not for your limited intellect.

I did not say that "You should not complain about the internet" was a stupid thought -- I said it was a stupid statement, and I told you why. In the words of Samuel Johnson, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

I put your arguments (or rather, your lack of arguments) into the "ignorant youth" category. To do that, I do not need to know you, just your arguments. However, you are rapidly justifying putting you into the "can neither read not think" category.

Accept the views that don't fit yours instead of getting mad and flaming..

It is not just your views I have trouble with, it is you total inability to do more than state them with no support. It is your lack of logical reasoning that I find distressing. And your dogmatic approach. And I am not mad. Disgusted, yes.

Flame? Calling you "a total effing idiot" would have been a flame. I responded to each of your points in detail, and when I called your statements "asinine", "stupid" and "foolish", I actually supported each pronouncement. Something you have yet to do for any of your views or points.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

May I quote you?

Yes, freely. Even against any future arguments of mine :)

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thanks. I've bookmarked it under "Armory", though I'm not sure just where it really should go ;)

--Pete

[gekko]

Laws already exist governing the internet. The problem is that since these laws differ so greatly from country to country; and, since it can be so difficult to track down and punish offenders (particularly for "petty" offences), the enforcement and effects of these laws slips. While a universal set of regulations could help dramatically here, I can't conceive of how such a thing could happen. The fact is that what's considered vulgar, trashy, and illegal here is another man's idea of art and free speech.

I think we can all agree that the question is one of balance -- but then, that's true for everything in life. Do you have a set of rules that are balanced and could reasonably be accepted and applied? Do you have even an idea of roughly what form these rules would take?

Note that I'm not disagreeing with you -- I'm genuinely curious to know if you can see even a starting point for governing the beast. Personally, I hold out hope that small communities such as this one can and will continue to provide a "focal point" for the "quality" on the net, but don't expect much to improve overall.

gekko

[Guest]

edited

[--Pete]

Hi,

I tend to think of the internet (well, specifically the WWW) as either a place for discussion within some sort of internet community, . . .

Yes. But by and large, I find it to be most useful for discussions based on a game or hobby. Outside of those two (admittedly huge) areas, most of the discussion I've seen has been pretty hopeless, with the epitome of most people's arguments being either "well, you suck" or "so and so said so, so it must be true". And, most places (including the Lounge) have their established viewpoints and taboo topics which it is most difficult to discuss in any rational manner.

. . . or as a place for easy, quick information.

Ditto. But, having found the information, how do you establish its veracity? The example you gave is fine, since sport figures' stats, etc., are public knowledge and the howling of the aficionados would be heard from Maine to California if as much as a digit is wrong :) But how to judge a less "public" piece of information -- like the duration of various battles in the middle ages (something that was brought up on the old Diablo Suggestion forum and I've never been able to settle to my satisfaction. I contended that many major battles fought with muscle and sword lasted a full day (or more) and was told that those battles only went a few hours at maximum. The question was about the desirability of endurance as a characteristic. I have yet to find a good, conclusive answer, in spite of both Internet and library sources. Not that I haven't found answers, but that they contradict each other.)

But, I *don't* look to the internet for accurate and in-depth information on a complex topic. That's what the library is for, and I'm lucky enough to have a community and a University library that are both about 5 minutes away.

Fair enough. However, I do not. I do have a community branch about that far away. I could use it to order information from the main branch or even the inter-library association (who's name escapes me). Assuming that the information arrived before I lost interest in a topic, the odds are that any smattering of books I ordered would not have enough information, or it would be too detailed, or at too high or low a level. Library searches are best done in open stacks, after finding out the general call number(s) of the topic of interest. Then browsing through a number of books, checking their indices, flipping through them for an estimation of the level the book is written at and the ability of the author to replace Somanex finally yields to one or two tomes worth reading. But for me to do so requires a minimum investment of an hour and a half of travel time plus the expense of downtown parking.

Besides, curiosity is an itch. And it does no good to promise oneself that you'll scratch the itch when you get a chance. It must be scratched immediately or it will pass, and with it the chance to experience the pleasure of learning something new. My library is seldom open in the wee hours of the night when curiosity seems to strike with the greatest fierceness :)

Perhaps all this technology has shortened my already short attention span. I cannot conceive of the people who, centuries ago, would order a book and wait, sometimes for years, for it to be delivered (sometimes, for it to be copied before it could be delivered). However, I suspect they had a much greater appreciation for their knowledge than we do now.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Do you have a set of rules that are balanced and could reasonably be accepted and applied? Do you have even an idea of roughly what form these rules would take?

Good questions. We need to determine what the rules are meant to accomplish.

Are they to protect people from "offensive" material? Even the definition of what is "offensive" varies a lot from culture to culture and from person to person. Each person needs to determine what they do not wish to view for themselves. Restricting what is put on the net is not the solution, but requiring that there be a header that contains a list of potentially objectionable content might be.

Are they to protect people from inaccurate information or outright lies? This might even be more difficult. Someone trying to scam you or convert you will probably not say so up front. But a code that some agency or other (and here is a real problem with great potential for abuse) has found this site to be factually correct (independent of the spin) would be nice. But even "facts" are often in dispute. For instance, I find Consumer Reports an invaluable guide, not because I always agree with their findings, but because they tell you what their findings are based on. If a factor they consider insignificant is important to me, I can adjust their result to meet my desires. That is because they give all the information they use to get to their results. If all they gave was their final recommendation, I would find it a lot less useful.

Are they to keep junk and nonsense off the net? Then they are wrong, for the junk has as much right to be there as the "useful" stuff. Besides, one man's junk is another man's collectibles. However, intentionally spoofing search engines to either waste people's time or to generate more hits for one's site should be discouraged through some form of punishment. And a specially hot place in hell should be reserved for the inventor of the pop up :)

Just as most of Europe and North America live under a large set of laws and regulations and yet can maintain a large amount of personal freedom and anonymity, so too should it be possible on the net. Just as the laws, by and large, restrict some actions to "protect" society, so should it be on the net. However, since in most cases on the net, it is neither life, limb, nor property that's at stake, a fair degree of latitude should be given and errors made in the direction of freedom rather than the converse.

I hold out hope that small communities such as this one can and will continue to provide a "focal point" for the "quality" on the net

Perhaps the imagery needs to be changed. Change "net" to "sea", as in "sea of sewage". Then we can speak of the occasional "island" that, until the waves wear it down, rises above the sea. ;)

--Pete

[Guest]

edited

[Moldran]

So, the question is not "freedom or constraint?" It just isn't that black and white. The question is what is the best balance between freedom and constraint

Agreed. At present, I do think that the internet works *really great* with the little amount of constraint we have, and I am, at present, not willing to give up any of my freedom (and, in that case probably more important: the freedom of others) in that regard.
What I argue against are measures that considerably restraint the freedom of all in order to fight the abuse of a few, especially when there are possibilities around to deal with the abuse without restricting the freedom of those who act in a responsible manner.

While I find some of the measures proposed by kandrathe a bit (or more) draconian, I think the "freedom without responsibility" approach you champion to be unworkable and naive. Actions, even simple actions like posting to a forum, must have consequences. Removing those consequences is not "freedom", it is "license" (in its 'bad" meaning). We see that in the flame wars that dominate unmonitored fora. We see that in the dreck that gets sent to your e-mailbox (try turning off your spam filter). We see that in the griefing that dominates so much online play.

I do not champion such an approach. Nor did I say anywhere that actions, on the net or elsewhere, should not have consequences. I do think that certain actions should not have some special consequences, though. E.g. you should not go to prison for expressing certain opinions on a website.
What I do argue against is a certain way of trying to force responsibility upon people. Let's take moderated and unmoderated fora as a metaphor for a moment: I am not against moderated fora, in general, nor am I against unmoderated ones. What I do *not* want to see is some authority trying to force everyone to make all fora moderated, by juristic or technical means. I want the freedom to decide for myself which fora I want to read and which ones I don't want to read, be they moderated or not.
And yes, I do want others to enjoy the freedom to put up content that I, or my government, or some "internet enforcement agency", or whoever, considers crap.

I must admit I'm both befuddled and intrigued by this statement. Now, "amateur" has developed a bad connotation in the past century or so. The original meaning was one who devoted his time to a topic for the love of that topic. And amateurs of that type are often much more productive and informed than many "professionals" (which, after all, only means that they get paid for their work&nbsp; )

I am not 100% aware of the exact connotations the two terms have in English (which becomes especially problematic when there are terms in my native language that seem to be very equivalent at first glance). I looked up the terms in 3 different dictionaries and was going to discuss them here, but in stead, I will try to make clear what I meant to say, rather than what I may have said ;)
The intent of my statement was to strongly reject the idea that anything that 'amateurs' (= people who do not earn their living by doing XY) do is necessarily inferior to what 'professionals' (the opposite of amateurs) do. I read that idea out of Kandrathe's post. If he meant 'amateur' in the sense 'someone who does something, but is not good at it', and 'professional' in the sense 'someone who is really good at something', then my reply does not make any sense, of course.
What I meant to say is that motivations other than earning money often produce superior results. My reply was over-generalized, yes. I think it was over-generalized because Kandrathe's statement appeared to be even more over-generalized to me. I was a little offended by it, so I replied kind of harsh.

I'm not sure just what professionals have put up crap, or in what sense they have done so.

http://www.microsoft.com ;)

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think we are mostly in agreement. The impression I got from your first post was that you were in complete agreement with the (usually academic) liberal attitude that everything on the net should be (1) free and (2) totally unrestricted. Those arguing that are usually old farts like me that remember the way things were. Unlike me, they blame the decline in the net not on the influx of a huge population but on the "commercial and government interests" that are somehow stifling the free interchange of information. But apparently I was reading into your post much more than you intended -- sorry.

As to the "amateur/professional" issue, as I said in my last post, "amateur" has slid in meaning over the years, but has held onto its old meaning as well. From M-W online dictionary, it is apparent that "amateur" can mean anything from devotee (implying a great deal of skill and knowledge), through dilettante (implying someone who just plays around with a subject and has neither in depth knowledge nor much interest), to tyro (one who has little knowledge or experience). Kandrathe's statement, in context, indicates that he is using the term in it's third, almost pejorative, meaning. Your reply confused me since you were apparently using the first meaning.

Part of the confusion comes from the way you echoed the contrast between "amateur" and "professional" that kandrathe used. For the two to be contrasted that way, only the third meaning of "amateur" makes sense. In that case, "professional" becomes synonymous with "competent", the implication that if one is good enough to get paid for something, then one has more or less mastered that thing -- which of course is nonsense, but language is seldom rational. The only other way in which "amateur" and "professional" could be used in contrast that I can think of is principally in sports, where a professional is one who gets paid and an amateur does not. That distinction was much more important back when the Olympics were restricted to "amateurs".

Hope that helped. The bill for the English lesson is being forwarded to you by e-mail :)

--Pete

[[wcip]Angel]

May I be the first to point out the irony of this thread?

Thank you :)