In 1979, a chain email about science fiction spawned the modern internet? | Hacker News Reader

In 1979, a chain email about science fiction spawned the modern internet?

slate.com

101 pointsdanso52 comments

If you're going to talk about the historical significance of social computing, I would imagine that Usenet would figure in the story somewhere. To jump from email threads (that the authors incorrectly call forums) to modern social networks leaves out quite a bit of the story! Usenet was a remarkable tool for communication and community-building, as was Compuserve (already mentioned by skookumchuck).

Usenet was deployed in 1980, only a year after the SF-LOVERS email chain started.

Pretty much every sentence in this article that uses the world "first" is wrong. Community Memory[0] is arguably the first social network and it was launched in 1973. For more information and depth on the origins of tcp/ip and email, I suggest the book Where Wizards Stay Up Late[1].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Memory

1. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/281818.Where_Wizards_Sta...

Not to say you are wrong, but why do you claim that your one source is more right than the one source that is the article? Just saying that there's a book that says otherwise shouldn't be proof. E.g., I bet I can even find a book that says Trump is our savior, Jesus 2.0.

*edit: I knew this would get downvoted. Why discuss logically when you can downvote, right?

I have that book, too. I’d trust it more too. Not saying untruths couldn’t make it into the published works of yesteryear but there was a higher hurdle to publishing physical books than publishing this online article.

For one thing, Fooblat's wiki link alone cites a couple of dozen sources. It's not just about one book.

For another, this isn't really a matter of opinion. If I say "the widget was invented in 1979," and you've got a widget that was manufactured in 1973, then I'm obviously wrong, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something.

Community Memory in 1973 appears to pre-date the article's 1979.

For one thing, Fooblat's wiki link alone cites a couple of dozen sources. It's not just about one book.

For another, this isn't really a matter of opinion. If I say "the widget was invented in 1979," and you've got a widget that was manufactured in 1973, then I'm obviously mistaken, absent strong evidence that your widget is a hoax or something. My personal credibility doesn't enter into it.

The article reads like it's the only network that existed. BBS software also got its start in 1979. CompuServe also got started in 1979.

Not to mention PLATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system)), which by the mid 70's had multiplayer games, emoticons, chatrooms, and more.

Just to add - the book "The Friendly Orange Glow" is an excellent, readable history of PLATO. Absolutely fascinating, and one the other of this article probably hasn't see, or else they wouldn't be putting so much stock in this one email chain.

And PRESTEL

This article is not correct. I was using email in 1974 and experienced similar issues.

>> After an unsuccessful attempt to sell ARPANET to a commercial buyer (AT&T could have literally owned the internet, but said No thanks), the government split the system in two

Can you imagine what it would be like if AT&T bought the internet?

Failure to mention NJIT's EIES or The Source for that matter renders this article's origin claims kinda questionable. Push reset, try again.

wow. that last paragraph was a little heavy handed on forcing a completely new topic and new facts wasn't it?

Link without (illegal) GDPR noise: https://web.archive.org/web/20181005074604/https://slate.com...

Or just use a plugin that blocks jerberscript, and you can read it fine. So does uMatrix (apparently the GDPR shit is an external JS resource!).

In 2018, you need a web browser to view the web. Plus uBlock Origin. Plus I don't care about cookies. A mere web browser respecting web standards to the letter would not suffice.

To publishers: I'm not interested in you tracking me just for reading one text article from your website. Asking me is non-sense. Who the hell wants to customize their "tracking experience". I just want to access the content.

I'm fine if you don't want me to read the article without your tracking stuff. Please block me. But don't ask me. This is creepy and this wastes everyone's time and bandwidth. Go to a street and ask people if they would like to be followed and if they would like to customize this experience. Hell no. I don't want to. Leave me alone.

You may not care about me, but I'm sure I'm not alone. Many people are actually confused and afraid of these questions and run away. I've heard that from several people these last weeks.

What I don't get, isn't GDPR supposed to make tracking opt-in? While most sites just give you the option to opt-out now! Isn't that a violation of GDPR?

Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given.

"This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service"

Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

Makes me a bit annoyed now to have to go through a consent-wall like this - I can only imagine the management pouring over the "consent data" as some sort of new marketing metric about how engaged their audience is etc etc

This does not mean that a company has to offer free access to its contents if you refuse its terms.

Those consent walls are the expected consequence of GDPR.

People are given a real, free choice: Accept and access free contents or navigate away. There is no detriment and this is not a condition of sale.

One can go further and argue that consent is indeed in fact required to provide the service since this is free contents financed by ads.

This is expressly the argument the GDPR forbids: The consent that the GDPR allows cannot be in exchange for anything (because then it is not completely free). (Also, this consent is not the only justification you can use under GDPR for tracking, it's just the easiest way to justify the intrusive tracking used by ad networks, because the other ways mean you have to actually describe why it's necessary).

No, the GDPR does not forbid this, as I wrote.

The GDPR does not state that consent cannot be exchanged for anything. The GDPR will look at whether consent is necessary for the performance of a contract and/or provision of service.

So the argument that this is allowed is two-fold:

- this is free content made publicly available: There is no contract or provision of service.

- this content is provided free thanks to ads: Consent is necessary to provide the contents.

The GDPR is not meant to force companies to work for free and it does not force them to.

True, but you dont need to use full-spectrum tracking to serve ads. TV commercials dont use the same level of invasive tracking, yet they finance all sorts of content just fine.

That's quite irrelevant to the GDPR.

If you finance your service through ads then consent is required because that's how your business works and ads are your income.

If you sell books online then indeed consent is not required and you cannot make ordering books subject to consent.

Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie acknowledge silliness mandatory.

That’s analogous to saying “don’t complain about the stalkers, complain about the police for requiring stalkers to tell you they’re stalkers”.

Not really. We all know that sites give us cookies, it's the standard behaviour in the net, and the constant nagging by all web sites "accept this" and "accept that" and "continue as usual" has led to a situation where each and every site gives a different warning, which we all then blindly accept, because it is way too cumbersome to actually read pages of legalese when you are arriving on a Web page that has some information you googled for.

I claim that the cookie-acknowledgement legislation does not add value and is clearly counterproductive. We are taught to accept that "everyone is a stalker" and "it's okay we do it, because you accepted it, didn't you read that legal disclaimer, possibly in a language you do not understand".

To my understanding, the legislation requires informed consent not mere assent.

So this would be like, what, pretending you’re a fan to get an autograph and then revealing that the celebrity has just signed away all their rights? And then asserting that that’s legally binding?

I agree with you. Session cookies do not require consent but settings-related cookies do and this is a bit silly.

But it got worse with GDPR (which I think is good, contrary to the previous law), and I don't care about cookies seems to take care of some of this mess.

edit: but actually I don't set settings on random web pages, therefore they should not need my consent anyway. My consent could be asked the first time I set a setting, this would not be intrusive. So maybe the cookies law was not that bad either.

Mobile phone users might not be able to use browser extensions.

Time to switch to Firefox Mobile :-)

Great extensions:

- uBlock Origin

- I don't care about cookies

- Dark Background and Light Text (especially good with OLED screens but slows things down a bit and there is an annoying white flash on page load, probably because of the way Web Extensions work)

Yeah, I've been browsing with Firefox and adblockers for years on Android.

illegal?

The wall needs a clear and visible opt out, as readily-accessible as the accept button. Instead, Slate redirects you to their privacy page. Their privacy page itself redirects you to https://slate.com/thirdpartypartners ... which is behind the GDPR wall.

And once you get behind the wall, it's a list of dozens of links, with individual opt-out from each service, on separate pages, separate domains.

In other words, you are forced to give consent before you are graciously told how to withdraw it from each individual advertising partners. You don't have a way to not give Slate themselves consent.

Yeah, it's illegal.

It's only illegal if the EU enforces it, really, and it seems that the EU has no motivation to act on these obvious violators. It's been 4 months, and this violation is one of the most obvious and easily fine-able violations and yet nothings changed. Companies aren't scared, no one is doing anything differently, so until the EU actually proves they're interested in enforcing the text of the GDPR companies are going to continue acting like they're not in danger.

, in some parts of the world.

Please do reply to every single post mentioning the word "illegal" with "in some parts of the world". After all, nearly anything goes in international waters.

Fair enough, you're right.

It's not illegal.

If you don't like their terms you navigate away from their site. They don't have to provide you access to their contents if you refuse their terms.

See mattlondon's comment:

> Yeah I am not an expert at all on this, but I believe that you canont ask for consent in order to gain access to a service/content - the consent must be opt-in and must be freely given.

> "This means people must be able to refuse consent without detriment .... The GDPR is clear that consent should not be bundled up as a condition of service unless it is necessary for that service"

> Source: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-da...

That's always misunderstood.

A company is not obliged to allow access to its free contents if you refuse their terms. End of. This does not put anyone at a detriment.

The GDPR does not change that at all.

What you quoted refers to specific contract terms as exemplified in the link provided.

Edit: I wish people understood GDPR instead of acting childishly by downvoting...

A specific example of when consent is not a valid reasoning for processing personal information under the UK's interpretation of GDPR: "consent was a precondition of a service, but the processing is not necessary for that service"

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultations/2013551...

This is free contents. You misunderstand what 'contract' and 'service' mean. And, as already said, a website that provides free contents financed by ads has a legitimate claim that consent is necessary.

You are wrong, as has been explained to you above. I laid out the argument in more detail a few weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808789

Basically, you need consent to use tracking and consent isn't legal unless it's optional and independent. So it can't be tied to access.

No, I'm not wrong.

The GDPR does not say that consent cannot be tied to access.

What was 'explained' to me stems from people who haven't read the GDPR and/or who do not understand the terms used.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Slate is doing.

Slate is not saying "You can only access this if you give us consent". There's a few media sites that do that, and they're not breaking the law. No, Slate is saying "You can totally opt out... look...", and not following the proper opt-out rules.

I understand what they are doing and it is fine.

The hard opt out is not to consent and to navigate away from the site. That's fine.

The second opt out is to withdraw consent. Obviously this means that you consent but are free to withdraw your consent as a later date. Which is what the GDPR requires, and that's also fine.

The example in the page that I cited concerned Internet commerce sites. As I read it, you can't refuse to sell stuff if customers decline being tracked.

So are you arguing that providers of "free" content are allowed more leeway in refusing service for users who decline to be tracked? Do you have a cite for that?