What do you think the Internet will be like 10 years from now?

a reply to: Domo1

You have some great ideas.

I knew my post would be unpopular. I just think there's too much lack of responsibility for one's behavior hiding behind anonymity. So much anger and hate. It needs to evolve-so why is it wrong to take responsibility?

Additionally, not everything you think should be announced to the world-that's where we are sorely mistaken. We need more time for thought and moral, intelligent, informed discourse. I hate rules but we are really in a bad place right now with all the hidden personas dividing and hurting our society.

We need to change-not China change-whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for our actions, thoughts and deeds? I don't want censorship but I do want civility to return-the internet has destroyed what used to be consideration for differences not always being acted on.

a reply to: stormcell

Usenet, how that was the place to be back in the day...

then dejanews to search it outside of it..

now google groups.. the pain, oh the pain.

Man, you just lit up braincells I've long laid dormant. lol.. My first ISP in 95 didn't even have a proper dns server, so at first, I relied on remembering IPs.. and they would use the public dns servers I told them about. Kids those days.. and they were kids. It ran out of one of theirs fathers doctors clinics. we'd rock up there with bourbon and yarn on for hours.. they sold it eventually, and it became arachnet, I think. then branched off into indonesia. never did get too big. unlike iinet, started by a bloke in fremantle here, now is nation wide, was the bastion for personal information safety, till it got majority purchased by the low scum bag tpg. glad it wasnt dodo.

irc, usenet, and geocities were my old stomping grounds.

except dalnet.. dalnet can eat a bag of expletives.. dalvenjah, I hope you rot in your grave one day, you pervert accepting miscreant.......

originally posted by: Sapphire
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Am i going off topic?

That is not for me to say.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

ok

a reply to: audubon

I'd imagine the next step would be us needing to log in with real credentials just to get online. Something like having to designate the network you want to connect to, that network's password (if applicable), your real name, and your social security number in order to use the web in the first place. That would eliminate the need for honesty when logging onto specific sites. I'm not endorsing this idea, but I can see it going in this direction.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah, my mind immediately jumped to the surveillance/intelligence possibilities. I'd imagine that any govt department from local to federal would have access to the collected info, as well as foreign govts & companies.

Something that a lot of people don't really appreciate is the criminal speech aspect of this. In many countries, it's illegal to publicly criticize their royalty. Some govts label journalists that criticize them as "terrorists" because they claim the journalists are trying to incite domestic tensions. Some govts label specific organizations as terrorists or enemies, with anyone who they think sympathizes with that group being labeled a terrorist as well. And of course, many govts are fiercely anti-drugs, with some like Singapore having the death penalty for some drug possession convictions.

Now imagine if every citizen in the world had their online data tracked & logged. Visa application processes would probably include "web surfing checks" to see if you'd criticized their royals, visited sites or videos from banned groups, openly talked about a lifestyle that was illegal in their country, etc. Would India ban or even prosecute tourists who'd eaten beef outside of the country? Would Thailand ban or prosecute tourists who'd insulted their royals while online? Would Muslim majority countries like Saudi Arabia prosecute tourists who'd insulted Islam while online outside of their countries?

And this doesn't even touch on existing extradition treaties, which would present its own issues.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's quite a reality already for visitors to America. We can be asked to submit all passwords, show our social media accounts and allow access to our laptops and phones. Even writing that seems wrong. The USA ought to have been amongst the last countries on Earth to bring this in and instead it's the first.

It cuts into what you were saying about different values in different nations. What's cool in one place is lashes and prison in another. Sedition in one country, idle commentary in another. We could easily find ourselves blocked from entering certain countries due to some harmless comments or wikipedia search histories.

This is what Snowdon cautioned us about. Not specifically about PRISM and so on, but because of the integration between global media corporations and the political leanings of national security. It's funny, COINTELPRO used to be a very popular term on ATS and I haven't seen it for ages now. Refreshing people's memories of that sheds light on the dangers you mention. Murders, assassinations, smear campaigns, blackmail and all by the people in power using police and Feds. It's dystopic, but it can happen again if people aren't careful and balance ethics against expediency.

It's a great thread going on here.

The Dark Web will be the new mainstream web.

I wrote a thread about it awhile ago.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: bananashooter

Great minds think alike.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Yep, the underground sites would explode in both number and popularity. They would develop a way to become anonymous again so the party could continue.

I can't imagine what a sterile, lifeless place the official sanctioned internet would be with no more anonymity. I would bet a lot of people would just stop using it and move onto something else. Creative and thought provoking ideas would be stifled, especially if they challenged the status quo.

People would be further removed from reality and placed in safe zones, where they wouldn't be subjected to any dissenting opinions. Their fragile ego could be protected at all times, at least until they started to interact with people in real life outside of their echo chamber.

I for one think the anonymous internet is a great thing. All of the filth, hate, thoughtless opinions, trolling and angst shouldn't be viewed as something to get rid of, but as something that teaches us about life itself.

a reply to: Sapphire

I would say that the internet in 10 years very much depends on how much we
allow the TPTB to shut it down to their liking.

Its everyones responsibility to ensure the Internet stays as free as possible.

Your the ones voting for the cretins that would take a way our internet freedoms.

a reply to: rigel4

Who are you referring to again when you said 'you're the ones'? Me?

Do you know the difference between America and Canada?

The future of the internet was given over to the UN. I believe this is a measure to ensure that state secrets don't get out onto the web. They can control the information in areas of the world to influence elections and morality. Also, in the future they will probably start using your information against people, for leverage and extortion. I can see a day where they will convict people of crimes, (fines or jail time) for violating some obscure law decades past. They will be able to shut down the flow of info out of an area for say a black project craft the crashes. Also people or prisoners will be living their lives and doing their time in virtual realities.

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Sapphire

Your the ones voting for the cretins that would take a way our internet freedoms.

To be fair fella, our own Theresa May and all her predecessors have favoured a locked down internet. None of us have had a decent chance to vote or oppose the direction we're going in with regards to internet, privacy or surveillance. Same for the Aussies and their nanny government putting a 'firewall' around their internet access with sites being blacklisted.

Also the bright minds behind all the NSA and GCHQ surveillance weren't voted in either. Their careers outlast Right/Left governments and they generally get things their way. FISA courts and deals over dinners.

One more point is politicians are usually ignorant on most subjects. They employ advisors who agree with them and act off that advice. Do you remember our Dr David Knutt? The 'drugs tsar' who was sacked for pointing out how horse-riding causes more injuries and fatalities than smoking weed and taking MDMA combined.

Ten years from now...I might be closing in on 28-30 thousand posts.

Seriously though, I have been mucking around the old web since 1993 in the old MUX and MOO rooms of the Telnet days. We carried a little notebook with addresses handwritten and charts of accounts to log into in order to route around backbone servers that might be down. We had lists of keywords to use when speaking with people in foreign countries to watch the lag time spike as NSA turned their attention. Echelon, Carnivore...those are only refined names of refined programs used back then.

Will Google go the way of AltaVista? Facebook the way of MySpace? Chrome the way of Netscape (or Mosaic for the real Net Vets)? It is possible that they are still around in ten years. But what will remain is that people will congregate in areas to talk, share ideas and either agree or disagree. Much of the success stories of the internet is centered around a digital representation of a pub, tea room or coffee house.

Ending neutrality will only serve for something new to come along to replace the over regulated and hamstrung changes to the current Net that was use today. Without the freedom to freely associate, people will find other avenues, even if it is the return of BBS boards (which were all long distance for me at the time) or Telnet sites.

In any manner, I am sure ATS will adapt and grow. We have been doing so quite a number years now. Which come to think of it was the failure of some of earlier mentioned products, they didn't adapt to the times. Which come to think of is why my HTML knowledge stops around 3.0 or so. Wasn't as easy to read source code to figure out how things were done with java applet calls here and there. But thanks to some uber geeks at the old BSG MUD, I know know far more about the background and mythology of the Battlestar Galatica universe than any otherwise sane person should. Well until they did the reboot a few years ago. I am sure that added stuff.

a reply to: Sapphire

This if the first time I have used a video in response to a post but I think this sums up what I feel the Internet will be like in the future and then in the future of the future and then the future of the futures future

a reply to: Ahabstar

Yes! but i must stop you at Netscape Altavista and Myspace. For obvious reasons lol.

ATS will adapt as it always has, and become greater than before,watching the transformation is amazing. Thank You

originally posted by: Sapphire
I was thinking about this a few days ago, how different will things look ten years from now?

There will be more than one internet.

There will be an internet for "adult content", not connected to the general internet.

There will be a separate internet for "machines" and "gadgets", home appliances, and "Internet of Things."

There will be a business internet, strictly for inter-business traffic.

There will be a separate military internet.

The power grid will be on a separate secure internet, along with certain sensitive governmental departments.

The current internet will become a "free-for-all" where anything goes, except "adult content" will be disallowed, but still tolerated to a small degree. This internet will remain the retail-to-business comm channel, where consumers and end users buy their products and services, and do their home banking.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

Yeah, that would do it.

She should have worn shades. That was messy.

a reply to: AMPTAH

From what i've read online there already is, that is, an alternative internet.

What we need is a police force with balls to stop it.

We don't need numerous Nets, just one. Anymore than that is a waste.