It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media futurist: Time to replace the Internet

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Media futurist: Time to replace the Internet


www.rawstory.com

“From the development of a new non-hierarchical Internet to the implementation of alternative e-currencies, the prototyping of open source democracy to experiments in collective cultural expression, Contact will seek to initiate mechanisms that realize the true promise of the networking revolution,” he said.

Rushkoff told Raw Story last December that authorities already have the ability to quash cyber dissent. This is due to the Internet's original design as a top-down, authoritarian device witRushkoff told Raw Story last December that authorities already have the ability to quash cybe
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.time.com




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Douglas Rushkoff's vision is a decentralized, peer-to-peer Internet. What does this mean? Basically, in my interpretation, and I know someone will tell me that I'm off the mark, something that cannot be shut off from the top down. Like the Hydra, if you cut off its head, it grows new ones, which to a certain extent is true but not implemented today because we are at every level reliant on the telcom backbones.

I don't know exactly how we're going to get away from that other than maybe satellite? Remember this thread? Group plans to beam free Internet across the globe from space. Maybe that's the way, but it's still reliant on a top-down and centralized distribution scheme. Maybe multiple satellites with repeaters?

Peer-to-peer exists to a degree today, doesn't it? And it does seem to be giving certain industries a headache, so who knows―maybe this concept holds some merit, certainly more than the more centralized approach of cloud computing.

Anyway, to jump start the awareness and the creative process, Rushkoff' is holding a summit. Topics to be covered include:

    Can we build an alternative Internet that can't be turned off?
    Alternatives to top-down registries and corporate-controlled access
    New net-based currencies and transaction networks
    Net-enabled Local Activism and Job Creation
    Arts networking initiatives
    Decentralized social networking platforms
    Proxy voting to expert friends
    open source democracy
    "Filter Bubbles" and how to prevent them
    What Factors Facilitate Collective Intelligence?
    The Reclamation of Public Space

It's a start to addressing the concerns many of us here have.

And just for grins, see additional news link for Time Magazine's prediction in 2000. Here's an excerpt of their prediction.


Like the rest of infrastructure, the Internet will eventually seem to disappear by becoming ubiquitous. Most access will probably be via high-speed, low-power radio links. Most handheld, fixed and mobile appliances will be Internet enabled. This trend is already discernible in the form of Internet-enabled cell phones and personal digital assistants. Like the servants of centuries past, our household helpers will chatter with one another and with the outside help.

Anything to get us away from governments and corporations melding with and gobbling up our identities and controlling the information we give each other would be progress to me. Something to keep our eyes on and our brains to work on.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I can only disagree, at least for now, with the phone apps and digital assistants. The same people that use these are going to be the same ones that think the World Wide Web is all there is to the internet. Others may use them, but with due diligence.

People know they risk their privacy when they use these things, much in the sense of Facebook, Google, etc. At least, they should.

Peer to peer is more trusted, because you only hookup with trusted sources, or swap specific data packets and nothing more.

People are too concerned with loss of both privacy and personal data to submit to data sniffing apps and the like. Especially the people behind the scenes that run the "real" 'net.

Interesting that you bring this up now, in light of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because it discusses a lot of points you bring up.

I can see some changes in the future, but as I stated in the above thread, I think it will be more one step forward two steps back kind of thing. Back to old usages like BBS's and Fidonets, peer to peer packet swapping, etc.; but with new technology. Especially in the instance of an internet outtage.

Interesting discussion though!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Yeah, the whole "social networking" aspect of it doesn't sit right with me either. I couldn't even bring myself to address it in the OP because, to me, it's such a barrel of snakes.

But brainstorming and blue-sky ideas like this might trigger something truly better than what we have now, so I'd hate to see the discussion dismissed outright or surpressed.

If you want a real eye full? Read this: Google's Revolution Factory - Alliance of Youth Movements: Color Revolution 2.0

In 2008, the Alliance of Youth Movements held its inaugural summit in New York City. Attending this summit was a combination of State Department staff, Council on Foreign Relations members, former National Security staff, Department of Homeland Security advisers, and a myriad of representatives from American corporations and mass media organizations including AT&T, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and MTV.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around this. It's screaming at me from every level, and then I read this:

It is hard, considering these men's affiliations, to believe that the change they want to see is anything less than a generation that drinks more Pepsi, buys more consumerist junk, and believes the United States government every time they purvey their lies to us via their corporate owned media.

While the activists attending the Movements.org summit adhere to the philosophies of "left-leaning" liberalism, the very men behind the summit, funding it, and prodding the agenda of these activists are America's mega-corporate combine. These are the very big-businesses that have violated human rights worldwide, destroyed the environment, sell shoddy, overseas manufactured goods produced by workers living in slave conditions, and pursue an agenda of greed and perpetual expansion at any cost. The hypocrisy is astounding unless of course you understand that their nefarious, self-serving agenda could only be accomplished under the guise of genuine concern for humanity, buried under mountains of feel-good rhetoric, and helped along by an army of exploited, naive youth.

Ugh. Trust no one, believe nothing. How do you recognize the lesser evil?
edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Libertygal
 


But brainstorming and blue-sky ideas like this might trigger something truly better than what we have now, so I'd hate to see the discussion dismissed outright or surpressed.


Well, i am certainly not dismissing anything, as he stated in the article, he saw a go-back to the Fidonet as well. There was an interesting comment below the article in the OP about DNS servers, and the death of Fidonet. I think if this can be overcome in some way, it certainly lends credence to some of his ideas. Unfortunately, I can only see smallish, perhaps towns/cities perhaps - but certainly not moving back to world wide again. Obviously, if someone knows a friend in another country, then perhaps they would data-share.



I can't even begin to wrap my brain around this. It's screaming at me from every level, and then I read this:

It is hard, considering these men's affiliations, to believe that the change they want to see is anything less than a generation that drinks more Pepsi, buys more consumerist junk, and believes the United States government every time they purvey their lies to us via their corporate owned media.

While the activists attending the Movements.org summit adhere to the philosophies of "left-leaning" liberalism, the very men behind the summit, funding it, and prodding the agenda of these activists are America's mega-corporate combine. These are the very big-businesses that have violated human rights worldwide, destroyed the environment, sell shoddy, overseas manufactured goods produced by workers living in slave conditions, and pursue an agenda of greed and perpetual expansion at any cost. The hypocrisy is astounding unless of course you understand that their nefarious, self-serving agenda could only be accomplished under the guise of genuine concern for humanity, buried under mountains of feel-good rhetoric, and helped along by an army of exploited, naive youth.

Ugh. Trust no one, believe nothing. How do you recognize the lesser evil?
edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


Because back in the days of BBS's and Fidonets, we actually met each other face to face. We knew each other as friends, knew who the trusted people were, joined usergroups, such as SysOp groups, etc. Introduction of someone new into the group was usually by invite only. If someone called your BBS and registered, you either gave them the number, or one of your friends did, and you knew when the phone rang, who it was.

It was not until the advent of WWW that people tossed aside the closeness and partnering, and basically let "anyone" in. The WWW is less personal, and far more distant that some would have you believe. The WWW has always, IMO, to have been treated at an arms length away, something to view from afar, because honestly, after you remove all the flashing lights and pretty pictures, you have no *clue* who is on the other side of that terminal, and what they want to know about you, nor, how far they are willing to go.

Interestingly enough, Glenn Beck touched on this on Friday, on O'Reilly.








edit on 19-2-2011 by Libertygal because: guess!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
The authors concepts are somewhat goofy and irrational. What he fails to address is that an infrastructure is needed and that is a lot of work, time and money. Internet service to your home or smartphone requires considerable overhead. Does this mean last mile gets replaced? Who pays for that ? P2P for routing sounds improbable given the large number of addresses (not to even consider IPv6) and the sheer magnitude of what is actually involved. Protocols would need to be re-vamped in major ways. Not saying this won't happen but I think the current model is here to stay, at least for our lifetime. If the advancement of IPV6 is any indicator (other than academic achievements) this showcases the roadblocks being faced.

Another issue this author misses is that many countries are now going down the path of metered Internet access. Moving to an edge or decentralized solution counters this initiative. Big companies want their cut and you will pay.

BBS's were moderately successful but the number of users was minimal so sure you had a more personal experience. The statement made that P2P is trusted is very naive, its a haven for just about any piece of crap you want to put out on the 'net. You have no idea who you are connecting to.

brill
edit on 19-2-2011 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Didn't at all mean to imply that either you or I were dismissing it. I think some people might though. I read those comments about fidonet and DNS and chose not to relive that particular era this morning


Interesting video. Beck's not wrong about Google in some ways. They are in the thick of the social networking phenomenon with those groups (from that link I posted). However, I think his concern is a bit narrower than I'd like to see this discussion go. I don't want to throw the good away with the bad, you know? Or immediately dismiss something as outright evil, and then there's that lesser of the evils thing again. His "investigation "will see one side of it—leftist Soros bad guys. Note how tenuous and careful he was due to his "contracts: with Google. His equating it to Halliburton and Blackwater's a bit off the mark to in this discussion. And he didn't even talk about the real issues that I see here—the control of the internet. He alluded to things but wasn't willing to go there, probably because this all goes far deeper than we know, and he knows it too. Oh, and this was very public before he figured it out
Egomaniacs are so fun.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by brill
 



The statement made that P2P is trusted is very naive, its a haven for just about any piece of crap you want to put out on the 'net. You have no idea who you are connecting to.


You do if you choose to control it, and only connect to know sources, trusted sources. The problem is, people do allow any crap in. People can choose to be more particular if they wish.

Do you talk to just anyone on Skype? I don't. How about IM?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by brill
 

Good thoughts. A lot of countries never got off metered. Many started there and there are now factions trying to go back to that. I called the concept silly too when I read it, but mainly because I can't envision how it would be possible right now. I'd need to hear more. I also am more interested in the overall concept of not losing/getting to an internet that really is free—not blocked, censored, controlled, or run by commerce.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by brill
 



The statement made that P2P is trusted is very naive, its a haven for just about any piece of crap you want to put out on the 'net. You have no idea who you are connecting to.


You do if you choose to control it, and only connect to know sources, trusted sources. The problem is, people do allow any crap in. People can choose to be more particular if they wish.

Do you talk to just anyone on Skype? I don't. How about IM?


But controlling it defeats the purpose of P2P. The more people that participate the more P2P will flourish, that is its intent. What you are suggesting is more point to point almost and that is limited, naturally. The idea to share a framework via P2P would invite significant more abuse and distrust. Yes you can mitigate risk but how is that an advancement if validation is needed.

brill



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by brill
 

I also am more interested in the overall concept of not losing/getting to an internet that really is free—not blocked, censored, controlled, or run by commerce.


Until such time that private communications methods can be rolled out (long haul wireless maybe) this will be very difficult. Personal content and more of a grassroots campaign for sharing information and ideas could certainly work here, however, e-commerce needs big business and that is a driving force. I like what you proposing as well, information should be free and readily available but getting there is a steep hill.

brill



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by brill
 


A lot of the issues today seem to be stemming from 1.) commerce in the form of some large corporations can't wrap their collective mind around how to make more money off us without changing their old paradigms so they're frustrated and 2.) certain factions in the corpmoment (plutocracy. corporations and governments) wanting to control people so they don't see what's really going on because this causes them "grief."

We need to carefully pick and focus our battles, and this is one of the top priorities as far as I'm concerned.
edit on 2/19/2011 by ~Lucidity because: dang typos.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The signals intelligence portion of the army has had the technology for years to intercept, replace, or jam any sort of technology suggested in the article.

So while it is a good idea on one had, saying it will stop the government from pulling the plug on the internet is a fallacious argument. It might work until they know it's going on.... but they can then easily stop it.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

Ugh. Of course. It's probably going to continue to be, as it has been, a cat-and-mouse game for some time to come.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
I can only disagree, at least for now, with the phone apps and digital assistants. The same people that use these are going to be the same ones that think the World Wide Web is all there is to the internet. Others may use them, but with due diligence.

People know they risk their privacy when they use these things, much in the sense of Facebook, Google, etc. At least, they should.

Peer to peer is more trusted, because you only hookup with trusted sources, or swap specific data packets and nothing more.

People are too concerned with loss of both privacy and personal data to submit to data sniffing apps and the like. Especially the people behind the scenes that run the "real" 'net.

Interesting that you bring this up now, in light of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because it discusses a lot of points you bring up.

I can see some changes in the future, but as I stated in the above thread, I think it will be more one step forward two steps back kind of thing. Back to old usages like BBS's and Fidonets, peer to peer packet swapping, etc.; but with new technology. Especially in the instance of an internet outtage.

Interesting discussion though!



When they shut off the internet on you , you won't care about privacy....

Peer to peer based Internet without the one we have today is exactly what the free world requires



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join