Time to change the internet?

drillyeye

The internet, according to my spies, is precisely 97.23% pure and utter worthless shyte.

Cats falling off a wall, some fook ate 2 eggs for breakfast on Tuesday, what did stranger no.40000093830834 think of the music video you just watched?, which celebrity endorsed the latest Chinese health craze of eating live goats?, who gives a fook about something you don't give a fook about?

And with all the current rage over Cambridge Analytica (google their name) about manipulating entire countries, 1984 Orwellian nightmares afoot.....

Wouldn't it be better, for just about every reason imaginable, to reduce the internet down to a library of pure information?

No social interaction, but regulation and vetting, peer-reviewed, approved information. Not this wild-west of idiots, paedophiles, bullying, misinformation, disinformation, trends, manipulation, intrusion of privacy, and literally wasting millions of hours of life poring over "nothing".

Would you prefer the greatest library of information ever, or would you miss telling people about cutting your toenails?

Aware of the irony of posting this on the internet, but I wouldn't miss this kind of thing at all to be honest.

LeinsterDub

drillyeye wrote: »

The internet, according to my spies, is precisely 97.23% pure and utter worthless shyte.

Cats falling off a wall, some fook ate 2 eggs for breakfast on Tuesday, what did stranger no.40000093830834 think of the music video you just watched?, which celebrity endorsed the latest Chinese health craze of eating live goats?, who gives a fook about something you don't give a fook about?

And with all the current rage over Cambridge Analytica (google their name) about manipulating entire countries, 1984 Orwellian nightmares afoot.....

Wouldn't it be better, for just about every reason imaginable, to reduce the internet down to a library of pure information?

No social interaction, but regulation and vetting, peer-reviewed, approved information. Not this wild-west of idiots, paedophiles, bullying, misinformation, disinformation, trends, manipulation, intrusion of privacy, and literally wasting millions of hours of life poring over "nothing".

Would you prefer the greatest library of information ever, or would you miss telling people about cutting your toenails?

Aware of the irony of posting this on the internet, but I wouldn't miss this kind of thing at all to be honest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Greatest library of information ever assembled. And still room for silly cats.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Can we at least keep the porn sites going?

andekwarhola

Posts rant on social media.

Wouldn’t miss rants on social media.

Probably would.

wexie

and who will we let decide quite which information this 'greatest library ever' gets to hold?

Caroleia

spend more time on wikipedia and none on FB -job done.

drillyeye

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Greatest library of information ever assembled. And still room for silly cats.

My point is that the negatives of the current internet is insanely wasteful (at best), and genuinely damaging (at worst).

Its about cutting the crap out of the equation.

Mint Sauce

Wiki and Porn!!

Damn, beaten to it.

drillyeye

Caroleia wrote: »

spend more time on wikipedia and none on FB -job done.

*extreme paedophile porn shown on RTE every morning at 11am*

Solution = "Spend more time on TV3 and none on RTE, job done"

Get it?

wexie

drillyeye wrote: »

My point is that the negatives of the current internet is insanely wasteful (at best), and genuinely damaging (at worst).

Its about cutting the crap out of the equation.

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.....that's just not how the internet works.

However....YOU have the power within you to selectively use what's there....

drillyeye

wexie wrote: »

and who will we let decide quite which information this 'greatest library ever' gets to hold?

That's a spurious argument that has the only conclusion of "shrug shoulders and do nothing"

How does television do it/did it?

How does radio do it/did it?

artanevilla

Did that lad Cardashian not break the internet?

drillyeye

wexie wrote: »

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you.....that's just not how the internet works.

However....YOU have the power within you to selectively use what's there....

See my post above about RTE and TV3 to see the true fault with this line of reasoning.

Vladimir Poontang

drillyeye wrote: »

*extreme paedophile porn shown on RTE every morning at 11am*

Solution = "Spend more time on TV3 and none on RTE, job done"

Get it?

Is this what my licence fee is funding Joe? It's a disgrace Joe!

*Heavy breathing*

Yeah, yeah, go on...we have Mary in Athlone on line 1

*Heavy breathing*

wexie

drillyeye wrote: »

That's a spurious argument that has the only conclusion of "shrug shoulders and do nothing"

How does television do it/did it?

How does radio do it/did it?

Both television and radio need a pretty big investment to get on the air, hence tend to be owned by companies with someone in charge.

The internet just needs a computer, that lots and lots and lots of people have....

Do you have any actual ideas to start implementing this new utopia of an information rich and kitten low internet?

Think it over for a bit and let us know

muckbrien

drillyeye wrote: »

My point is that the negatives of the current internet is insanely wasteful (at best), and genuinely damaging (at worst).

Its about cutting the crap out of the equation.

Its.just a reflection of life really with the added anonymity

Youre prob looking.for.encyclopaedia brittanica

Are Am Eye

Does anyone know where we left the receipt?

drillyeye

wexie wrote: »

Both television and radio need a pretty big investment to get on the air, hence tend to be owned by companies with someone in charge.

The internet just needs a computer, that lots and lots and lots of people have....

Do you have any actual ideas to start implementing this new utopia of an information rich and kitten low internet?

Think it over for a bit and let us know

So what youre saying is, that radio and television HAVE accomplished what I'm talking about. At least to a decent degree.

The point of the thread is to question the value of the internet as it exists. I don't think anyone would argue that it is mostly just crap. To what extent, that's a different question.

As to a potential solution, there was a move by the UN to begin regulation some years ago, but was shot down by vested interests. So, a centralised unbiased agency is the ideal to aim for.

The worst thing to do is shrug and watch the problems mount up.

Caroleia

drillyeye wrote: »

*extreme paedophile porn shown on RTE every morning at 11am*

Solution = "Spend more time on TV3 and none on RTE, job done"

Get it?

no because I can't see how you equate kittens falling off walls etc with extreme paedophile porn?

drillyeye

muckbrien wrote: »

Its.just a reflection of life really with the added anonymity

Youre prob looking.for.encyclopaedia brittanica

So how does television manage to not broadcast paedophilia at all times of the day, for example?

Caroleia

drillyeye wrote: »

That's a spurious argument that has the only conclusion of "shrug shoulders and do nothing"

How does television do it/did it?

How does radio do it/did it?

The great thing about the internet is YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE!! No longer a need for some Tristram (RIP AA Gill) to decide what you can watch and when you can watch it

drillyeye

Caroleia wrote: »

no because I can't see how you equate kittens falling off walls etc with extreme paedophile porn. God I love the internet!

"God I love TV3, too bad about the beheading videos that children can watch on RTE, but I can live with that."

When you take a second to think about it seriously, it really is just selfish shyt. And that is ANOTHER reason that the current internet is a societal negative.

Laois_Man

drillyeye wrote: »

Not this wild-west of idiots, paedophiles, bullying, misinformation, disinformation, trends, manipulation, intrusion of privacy, and literally wasting millions of hours of life poring over "nothing".

People are entitled to spend million of hours pouring over nothing if they wish.

Pedophilia, bullying, intrusion of privacy etc are already illegal. So I'm not sure what you want changed in their regard.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wexie

drillyeye wrote: »

So what youre saying is, that radio and television HAVE accomplished what I'm talking about. At least to a decent degree.

They have but really only because it's really quite expensive to run a radio or tv station. Running your very own 'internet broadcast station' is dirt cheap. Most people already have all the equipment needed. Not only is that unlikely to change, it's bound to get worse what with the proliferation of smartphones, tablets and the IoT....

Doing what you're talking about would be directly interfering with freedom of speech which is pretty serious business really. It doesn't just cover actual 'speech' it also covers the right to get your thoughts out there and share them with whoever wants to have a gawk.

It's just never going to happen.

Maybe you need to be aiming for something a little less drastic, like a 'serious internet' and a 'social internet' so you can choose which you access?

drillyeye

Laois_Man wrote: »

People are entitled to spend million of hours pouring over nothing if they wish.

Pedophilia, bullying, intrusion of privacy etc are already illegal. So I'm not sure what you want changed in their regard.

"paedophilia is already illegal, so what if they broadcast it on RTE?"

That's not an argument.

Do you think it would be tolerated, for the briefest second, if RTE broadcast the worst of humanity across the country?

No, it would be shut down in a heartbeat.

So why is the internet different? Why does it get a free pass for all its negative shyt?

Heres the answer, in a word. Selfishness.

Gunmonkey

drillyeye wrote: »

*extreme paedophile porn shown on RTE every morning at 11am*

Solution = "Spend more time on TV3 and none on RTE, job done"

Get it?

So....heavy handed censorship? Y'know there was child porn on film, in photos and on paper long before the internet. Its a medium, it will be used for both good and bad. Should TV be restricted as well? Only keep informational shows and ban anything you deem "inane"? What about books, the same deal?

Rather than trying to restrict access to an amazing source of knowledge you should spend more time figuring out a way of arresting the people making the child porn, huh? Seems like a far easier and rational solution.

And you never answered who would deem whats kept and whats binned?

dr.fuzzenstein

drillyeye wrote: »

So how does television manage to not broadcast paedophilia at all times of the day, for example?

Nonsense argument.
Cars should be banned because babies die in accidents.
If you disagree, you condone the murder of innocent babies. :rolleyes:

drillyeye

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And that's also why its filled with the worst humanity has to offer, far, FAR outstripping any positives. I'm just calling it out.

wexie

drillyeye wrote: »

Heres the answer, in a word. Selfishness.

How do you reckon? Selfishness?

Selfishness by whom? All the people putting ****e in the internet or all the people wanting to keep it from censorship?

drillyeye

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Nonsense argument.
Cars should be banned because babies die in accidents.
If you disagree, you condone the murder of innocent babies. :rolleyes:

No.

Toyota cars get you from A to B. They must be taxed, insured, regulated, pass a million safety checks, speed cameras, police..............

Ford cars get you from A to B. Not taxed, not insured, not regulated, no safety requirements, no observation, no policing.......

You = "but you cant compare cars!"

drillyeye

wexie wrote: »

They have but really only because it's really quite expensive to run a radio or tv station. Running your very own 'internet broadcast station' is dirt cheap. Most people already have all the equipment needed. Not only is that unlikely to change, it's bound to get worse what with the proliferation of smartphones, tablets and the IoT....

Doing what you're talking about would be directly interfering with freedom of speech which is pretty serious business really. It doesn't just cover actual 'speech' it also covers the right to get your thoughts out there and share them with whoever wants to have a gawk.

It's just never going to happen.

Maybe you need to be aiming for something a little less drastic, like a 'serious internet' and a 'social internet' so you can choose which you access?

I'm telling you now, not only is it definitely going to happen, it will happen a lot sooner than you think.

The idea that "its too difficult" is not true. A centralisation of servers, along with the establishment of a large, international workforce will squish it like a bug.

Ubbquittious

At least the OP can spell paedophile properly which is a rarity these days.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Franz Von Peppercorn

drillyeye wrote: »

My point is that the negatives of the current internet is insanely wasteful (at best), and genuinely damaging (at worst).

Its about cutting the crap out of the equation.

There’s a clear attack on the internet these last few years. Basically because journalists are scared of losing their jobs and losing their ability to be masters of discourse. And politicians can’t control the narrative either.

If you don’t like some of it don’t view the parts you don’t like.

jaxxx

This seems appropriate!

Laois_Man

drillyeye wrote: »

"paedophilia is already illegal, so what if they broadcast it on RTE?"

That's not an argument.

Do you think it would be tolerated, for the briefest second, if RTE broadcast the worst of humanity across the country?

No, it would be shut down in a heartbeat.

So why is the internet different? Why does it get a free pass for all its negative shyt?

Heres the answer, in a word. Selfishness.

Yes RTE would rightly be shut down in an instant
RTE would be shut down
NOT the entire TV industry!

Franz Von Peppercorn

The poll is ridiculous. We have to agree with the premise that the internet needs to be shuttered because it’s “more negative than positive” or we are apparently social media junkies.

I posit another poll.


1) yes, I think we should shutter the internet because I am a totalitarian
2) no, we should not shutter the internet because I am not a totalitarian.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dxhound2005

Ubbquittious wrote: »

At least the OP can spell paedophile properly which is a rarity these days.

With English being a worldwide language, people need to accept variations in the spelling, pronunciation and meaning of words. 19 General online dictionaries do not have an A in that word, as against 14 which do.

https://www.onelook.com/?w=pedophile&ls=a

Franz Von Peppercorn

drillyeye wrote: »

I'm telling you now, not only is it definitely going to happen, it will happen a lot sooner than you think.

The idea that "its too difficult" is not true. A centralisation of servers, along with the establishment of a large, international workforce will squish it like a bug.

The internet is decentralised. Which also explains why the whole thing isn’t closed down because it contains some illegal or bad sites.

Ubbquittious

Laois_Man wrote: »

Yes RTE would rightly be shut down in an instant
RTE would be shut down
NOT the entire TV industry!

RTE wouldnt be shut down. There'd be a bit of argy bargy. A consultant would be brought in, some TD's and the minister would have a few sentences to read from a sheet of paper and an expendable RTE figurehead would be blamed and subsequently pensioned off.

You find out a year later said figurehead is sitting on some Board and being paid a generous sum ontop of his pension

drillyeye

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But how many channels did you get before the internet that were expressly made for the radicalisation of young people to become killers? Or beastiality, or paedophilia?

And that's just a sample of the non-interactive stuff.

By highlighting the worst of television era being bad sitcoms, you have to also compare it to the worst of the internet, which is the lowest of the low of acts of human depravity. They are not even close to being equal in terms of "bad"

drillyeye

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, but you cant compare low quality sitcoms to direct video feeds of murder either, can you?

One is sheer depravity, the other isn't even in the same universe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dxhound2005

Worse things than the Internet have happened in the world. And the worst of the worst all happened before the Internet.

drillyeye

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Another point to add. Would you be able to find "the worst that humanity has to offer" in any newspaper here? Or on any channel here? Or on any radio channel here?

No. To find the worst you need the worst, namely, the internet.

drillyeye

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s a clear attack on the internet these last few years. Basically because journalists are scared of losing their jobs and losing their ability to be masters of discourse. And politicians can’t control the narrative either.

If you don’t like some of it don’t view the parts you don’t like.

So to use the same analogy again, if RTE broadcasts paedophilia, you'd be absolutely A OK with that, for the simple reason you can always look at another channel?

Crazy.

As for the "clear attack" on the internet, I wouldn't doubt that some journalists don't like it. But to discount a growing amount of people that are seeing the overwhelming egatives of the internet grow and grow....

Again (again!) with the RTE/paedophilia example. If a growing segment of the population wanted RTE to stop showing paedophilia, have it shut-down or forced into regulation, would you REALLY question the motive of those people?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

drillyeye

Gunmonkey wrote: »

So....heavy handed censorship? Y'know there was child porn on film, in photos and on paper long before the internet. Its a medium, it will be used for both good and bad. Should TV be restricted as well? Only keep informational shows and ban anything you deem "inane"? What about books, the same deal?

Rather than trying to restrict access to an amazing source of knowledge you should spend more time figuring out a way of arresting the people making the child porn, huh? Seems like a far easier and rational solution.

And you never answered who would deem whats kept and whats binned?

First bolded: How about ANY kind of regulation, as opposed to complete zero?

Second bolded: My problem isn't with the good parts of the internet, its with the bad parts of the internet. Which happen to outnumber the good by a ridiculous amount.

Third bolded: Yes, I did.