The Internet Could Be So Good
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Is it just sloppy posting? Why do some commenters use such divisive & questionable divisions? What purpose is there to strict interpretation?
Intellectual rigor
But it still comes off to me like frustrating pedantry to try to distinguish the active uses of the internet from the network itself. The hosts & services, the clients: they are part of the network too, & the most defining part to me, given that all the amazing fantastic superb other work building transports exists merely as a utility to support use cases. What we can do here abstractly is anything, but concretely it's shaped by who else is on the network and what's available and happening; this has been a well known idea since at least the dawn of Metcalfe's Law.
I've spent a while trying to think of how to accept your rejection of users, systems, cloud providers, sites, and every thing at the end of the network, but I can't even begin to think of what we'd call the everything else that's not transport? What do we refer to everyone connected as? If you want to reserve an extremely narrow definition for a word, and reject any other usage, I think you have to have some viable usabke terms for the greater amalgamation that you are trying to "no actually" your way out of. And I don't see alternative terms for what we have.
We already fund wonderful places that lower the barriers to accessing books and other media. In what ways could we fund the internet as we do public libraries?