Comment by elorant | Hacker News Reader

Comment by elorant | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As much as I dislike Facebook saying that they break the Internet is a bit of an overstretch. The Internet isn’t a static thing, a set of rules carved on stone that has to remain like that for an eternity. It’s an evolving medium constantly reinventing itself. And the ultimate ruler is users themselves.

Facebook isn’t in the business of creating content that’s why they don’t care that much with discoverability of posts. They’re in the business of connecting people and finding their needs and habits.

Why is it a pity that users (aka the crowd) is dictating how a technology should be used? It happens all the time. The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen. Twitter was invented as an sms service. Coca Cola was meant to be pharmaceutical product for stomach upset.

This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate.

I agree. It is an evolving medium which is reinventing itself. But saying that users are the ultimate ruler is not entirely accurate, to put it lightly.

Technically, the ultimate ruler is the one (who controls the person) who can produce the private keys or passwords for the 'core systems'.

When most of your personal information, friends, your communication and organisation tools are behind one single account, that account now becomes very valuable.

If someone then decides to deny you access to your account - for whatever reason - you're practically excluded from the platform where everyone else is.. A digital outcast.

This is very different from the 'widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate'.

True, this system might be more convenient for users and advertisers right now, but in the long term this can have strange repercussions, like companies totally 'owning' people's lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8

The iPhone wasn’t build with third party apps in mind, it was the demand of users that allowed that to happen.

Note though that before Apple allowed third-party apps, they took time to invent the concept and technology of the "app store" which allows then to strictly regulate all apps by their own (often arbitrary) standards.

This is exactly the Internet we once dreamed about. A widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate.

No one would complain if that were the case. But we do have central commands. Not a single one, but a handful of them. With the network controlled liked this, the huge participation rate could actually result in the opposite of the original vision of the internet: Not a network that allows people to grow and become more free but a network that enfoces conformity and enhances suppression. I think China's Sesame Credit system is a good example of that direction.

you probably defended Bell's monopoly in the past? If not, you are being very inconsistent now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com