In the case of the guy i know , i reckon it's a bit more complicated than getting away with deceit. He actually believes that he cares. But i guess we will have to disagree. For me social media does not give me a complete incite into the character of the person that i am interacting with. There is too much manipulation going on behind the scenes in order to get views and reactions. And yeah, you can say that it is a true representation of someone's character when they are being algorithmically pushed this way and that, but it doesn't give a balanced view of their character because of said manipulation.



I can dig that bro!

I'm bad at explaining in this case.

I believe humanity and it's behaviour is always a product of it's environment and experiences. There is no baseline definition of humanity that exists without the parameters of an environment that has shaped it.

Would it be accurate to state your position as follows: anything percieved as a byproduct of human interaction on the internet is a true representation of the aspect of humanity it represents?

One love

In way yes. Along the lines that we don't call a termite mound unnatural or artificial just because termites built it.

Anyhow, I feel like I've been way too greedy with space in this discussion so I'll move to the sidelines and keep observing.

Well, I'm stoking the fire a bit. I tend to agree. When talking about naturalism, I often highlight how if there's one considers a bird's nest "nature," then the automobile falls in the same category. As a species, we have a bad habit of holding ourselves outside of sets in which we are inherently a part of. We're not that special

One love

I'm going to sink my teeth into the juicy beet of this conversation. I'll start with some links

I only really use dmt-nexus, sharetheseeds, and youtube. That's just about it when regarding social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wZoVyxdFRg - Video essay by Errant Signal on youtube "TikTok: life on the algorithm". This is a great video essay on TikTok.

Check out YongYea on youtube for news reports on the video game industry, you'll find a lot of related content to the themes in this but the channel is more specifically focused on video games. There is so much to dig into for finding criticism because often YongYea will report on toxic working environments and business decisions and he'll cover the implications for users and consumers

A couple interesting highlights from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIjv0f_2UuY - Example 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bcO5RJ9tos - Example 2
The scope of YongYea's news channel is more specific to video games. I still recommend a lot of you to check out his channel and learn more about current events and issues in the industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g - "Line goes up: the problem with NFTs" a detailed video essay by Folding Ideas. It is indeed a little over 2 hours long as a little warning for TLDR'er.

The following links are from democracynow.org - I searched on their website under the two topics/catagories of: Privacy and Reproductive Rights. Each of these reports are specific instance of how the internet is a major risk to privacy and user's data.

- https://www.democracynow...protection_abortion_data
- https://www.democracynow...ng_abortion_pills_abroad
- https://www.democracynow...abortion_clinics_collect
- https://www.democracynow...l_privacy_post_roe_world
- https://www.democracynow...eptive_location_tracking
- https://www.democracynow...ech_privacy_surveillance
- https://www.democracynow...shida_tlaib_katie_porter
- https://www.democracynow...ersonal_data_of_children
- https://www.democracynow...0_000_social_sec_numbers
- https://www.democracynow...s_groups_sue_data_broker

Essentially the internet has diverse risks and consequences. It spreads radical white supremacy, outright misinformation about vaccines, and works anti-democratically. The internet spreads death threats and harassment from individuals looking to personally attack public figures and individuals for political gain.

I'd like to recommend that you all check out Dirty Work by Eyal Press for further reading. It's a great book on essential workers in the United States and in chapter 9 entitled "Dirty Tech" you can learn about how there are differences between essential tech workers and other lower-paid essential workers in other industries like Corrections and Slaughterhouses.

For one, the difference in social status separates the two types of workers into class and caste structures that hold less power and ability to hold your superiors accountable when examining people who work at slaughterhouses or correctional prisons vs. a computer scientist who has the ability to resign without it bankrupting them because they have more flexibility to execute that action.

I'm going to try to write a rough summary of the key points listed in chapter 9 and expound on the dangers of working as a clickworker who moderates content we would otherwise not want to see. I'll report back when I've actually worked on that

There are two basic worldviews that humans have in the current world. One is that humans are meant to live freely, the other is that the masses need to be controlled by elite groups ("experts" etc) as much as possible because they are inferior and will mess up if left to be autonomous. Both groups are dismayed by the state of the internet. One calls for a more open, democratic, collective, free internet. The other for more regulations and censorship.

There are no simple answers, the situation is complex. But people are not content with the state of things, the internet being one of them.

Interesting talks by Douglass Rushkoff

https://youtu.be/Is1YUQVYkvY

https://youtu.be/koE-ZQia15E

In my opinion it is a bit exaggerated as a distinction. I believe most people want a balance between control and freedom.
I, personally, believe that we humans are too many and too intelligent (but not enough) to live completely without regulation. The other animals seem to live in a more "moral" way also because they could never manage to engineer the atrocities that a human being can.

But I also understand the speech of those who wish total anarchy: over time there would be a self-regulation of the system. But right now I see it as an utopian thing. The only way would be to do a full reset...but remember that even the legal ban on killing is a limit to freedom, in theory. Other animals do it freely, and even for no reason.

We have preferred a system where a human being (unfortunately not in every part of the world) can more or less hope for a quiet life, he does not have to worry about being killed every day, he does not have to worry about numerous needs, because others think about it, offering the services (depending on the economic system it can be the state or the market).
So a minimum of regularization in my opinion is needed, but obviously with limits. The bare minimum must be regulated, without invading the life of the individual citizen too much.

Lastly, I don't think the choice of the leader is based on a question of superior or inferior. Someone simply has to do it, and therefore if you have to choose, surely it must be a person who can understand the needs of ordinary people. And to understand these needs a minimum of intelligence is needed...

Obviously those are all speeches based on how (in my opinion) it should ideally be, then we all know very well that the choice of our leaders are not done so well...

Of course there should always be rules and regulations. But there is a limit to their scope to be healthy. And the limit is being pushed right now. Anyways it's all a natural part of the process of humanity.


Those appointed as the qualified regulation makers are a lot of times not as professed on the matters as they imagine themselves to be. Take the example of Bill Gates' project of blocking out the sun to "combat global warming." If anybody claims that we can understand all the ramifications to humanity and life on earth of darkening the entire atmosphere, I am sorry but to me they are in serious grandiose delusion.

I agree with you. Unfortunately it is also up to us (the population on which these laws operate) to make our voices heard. The problem is that there are few people who are attentive and aware of what happens in the society they live in, which depends on the fact (also) that they are not very interested in all that.


This happens also because a lot of money means power, and the greatest power lies in politics. So it is full of carrion with full pockets that come close to this sphere, even if they don't understand anything about it.

I think there are more than just these two.
And often, people want freedom for themselves, but censorship for others.

Actually, when i look at the current state of the world, i would say that the dominant worldview at this moment is that of "revenge". A lot of folks seem to feel that they've been done wrong somehow by another group of people that is very evil, and that now or somewhere in the near future, it's payback time.

I think revenge is the ideology of the 21 st century. Not peace, or love, or freedom. Not a cure for cancer, AIDS, or malaria. Not something beautiful, or something lasting. No, just ugly revenge. Pure and simple.

Maybe i'm being to pessimistic. I sure hope i am. But when i look at recent events, like the war in ukraine, the chinese exercises for their own little future war, or january 6th 2021, or when i see the alt-right mob, or the woke mob, then this seems to be the overarching narrative to me. They all want revenge. Wich they call "justice".

One way to look at it is that the value of the internet lies in the good stuff in it; the bad stuff has no effect on its value, because you can ignore it.

By analogy (sorry if it's overly reductionist), a bucket of feces with two gold rings sunk in it has more value (assuming you can separate the rings from the poo) than one gold ring in a nice, clean box, even if the latter would normally be valued more highly as a gift.
In the same way, the internet is better today than ever, even if the fraction of quality content within it is smaller than ever. As long as you can separate the good from the bad, that is.

The internet is a supersonic vehicle on the path of human growth.

Yes, many young people are attracted to content created to control, and perhaps it enslaves their minds to our dismay, but it's their choice (if you claim it's not, they're not being enslaved as they're slaves already). I believe in the Sovereign Individual and wouldn't feel comfortable telling people what to consume, as if implying their choices are wrong. The best thing I can do is exemplify what I value, believe or stand for.

Does freedom include the freedom to give up one's own freedom? If not, who gets to decide that this content or action leads to self-enslavement and that one doesn't?

A mind that hates the internet on the basis that it facilitates control, is itself a controlling mind.

People have their process to go through and if digging into a bucket of poo is what they need before they reach the gold rings, let them do it. Let them eat it and puke it out; it's their Purge.

We're a civilization in its infancy. We're having to learn how to deal with information, which until recently there was hardly any available and therefore we didn't have to. We're growing up, and that is painful. But think about it... maybe in 100, 200 or 1000 years, our consciousness will be more mature. We're be like 15 year olds, who can use a knife without cutting their fingers etc.

If we destroy the internet (if that's possible at all) we'll never mature and will be infants forever. We'll always be those funny, monkey-like creatures that can't navigate information, can't do their own research etc. and every time a network like the internet arises, flock to TikTok like platforms, because they've never had an opportunity to get past that stage.

Do we want to be infants forever, or do we want to go through the pain of growing up and come out the other side better, stronger, more resilient, more responsible for our actions and more conscious?

The internet is used by researchers to find cures for diseases etc. It's a great educational tool; it allows kids in an African village to access the libraries of the best universities in the world. It allows people to communicate across continents. It allows for this forum to exist, regardless of how many people disagree with its mission. How does that not help humanity?

Can you envision a humanity without it progressing? What direction would it progress in?

I find that bucket analogy a very good one.

Though ofcourse, if you'd ask an italian if he rather would have a clean box with one single gold ring, or a box filled with domino's hotdogpizza's and two rings of gold....i don't know what the answer would be.

A great post, thank you for saying this so eloquently.
I second everything, but it's almost so obvious that it doesn't usually occur to me to try to articulate it.

I started using the internet around 1992, thanks to my parents working at a university. A couple of years later I got a dial-up connection at home. Before that, I used BBSs with a 28 kbps modem.

The internet at the time was used by the academia and computer geeks. It was decentralized and that's how I got to know it.

Fast forward 30 years and almost everybody and their grandma has a smartphone with social media apps on it. They complain about censorship "on the internet" without realizing that what they're using is a small number of centralized social media platforms. The 'real', decentralized internet, is to them what the deep web is to me... something obscure, only used once in a while. But it's there, bigger than ever, waiting to be discovered.

I believe basically all technology is neutral in itself and it's the culture we build around the technology where our responsibility comes into play and where our efforts can make a change. This Nexus is a brilliant example of what it is possible to achieve through efforts of individuals, not just waiting for a systemic change from the big tech and corporate world at large.

I see this as a part of a bigger struggle. Paradoxically free markets have lead to centralized economy and increasingly centralized policy-making, to an extend where attempts to go counter the stream easily feel futile. This however not just a struggle in the outer world but also a struggle in our hearts. Will we give in and surrender our right to choose or will keep up the spirit and support the people whose values and efforts resonate with ours? Nobody's gonna do this for you. The current paradigm puts the responsibility always on someone else, something external, but that also means giving away the power. Keep up the good fight and thank you Trav and everyone else for this guerilla radio!

Yeah it used to be so much better.

But the thing is... I think humans yearn to be governed. Most of them. Not me.

I guess the fact that this forum is off of reddit or other large groups... means this place is more like "The old internet". We don't want to be controlled so much. But most humans want to be heavily controlled.

It is mostly being used for negative right now. Destruction through distraction. Endless garbage... but also censorship. I'd say the garbage is the biggest issue.

At first it was called ''the internet'' and it was a positive place. It then evolved into something called ''teh interwebz'' and became toxic.

I wouldnt say it hurts humanity but it has indeed became quite toxic compared to 15 years ago.

Both