Where the Sidewalk Ends: The Death of the Internet

[Long Tongue Silver]

I share your opinion of the enviable Balkanisation of the Internet and I’ve hit a brick wall trying to explain this to people. Most everyone is online seems obsessed with either crypto, cooming or consooming and expects the Internet will be a permanent fixture.

I've always had a saying about this: "The Internet is forever. Until it isn't."

Way too many people ignore the tectonic movement under their feet as long as they can play their favorite games, jerk off to their favorite porn or farm crypto tokens all day. Meanwhile, the Internet itself grows ever more corporate and woke-friendly.

I've always thought we'll get dragged kicking and screaming back to the old AOL-style walled garden, only this time there's no way to access the wider Internet unless it's through clandestine means. I never thought I'd see people sleepwalk their way towards the garden.

 

[BigStix]

Good article. I will say this, though: regardless of your reservations about hosting Kiwi Farms as a hidden service, I firmly believe that (a) the vast majority of this site's registered users would use the .onion address if forced to, and (b) if that happened, this site would be the best-run forum on Tor.
Given how centralized the Internet has become, is it really so much of an ask anymore to ask users to open a different browser for one of the few interesting sites left?

I think it has to do with the mob. If Kiwifarms were on TOR then it would be much more “””scary””” and “””””mysterious“”””” to general people. if some twitter checkmark started talking about this “deep-web misogynistic harassment forum” then we are giving them more cake for their fat asses. Us purposefully hiding ourselves and letting ourselves be secluded from the mainstream internet is only going to harm us more.

 

[Shek$il]

Hello there... this is the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER... Josh was sent to a special prison where they keep all the other criminals from the online business... you know... the ones who get caught... it's a horrible place, painted all green on the inside, where webmasters and former codemonkeys take turns snorting detergent and plooking each other...
... Anyway, listen, while he's in there he meets this guy who used to be a promo man for a major IP2 production, named Baked Alaska Anthime . . . King of the Plookers . . .

Dong Work For Yuda

Provided to YouTube by Universal Music GroupDong Work For Yuda · Frank ZappaJoe's Garage Acts I, II & III℗ 1979 Zappa Family Trust, Under exclusive license t...

www.youtube.com

 

[AnOminous]

For anyone taking notes, this is exactly what you look like when you accuse the left of being the REAL racists. I'm sure the next time you tards accuse resettera of telling blacks to go back to the plantation it will work.

What do you mean "work" you dumb fuck? It's just true and they've done it dozens of times.

 

[DaddyDickDown]

A lot of people think they got answers in this thread but the fact is that the stuff mentioned is impractical.
You’d literally have to try and run a server on something like OAI and try to hijack networks in the US.
Even establishing a SIP server is a huge pain in the ass.

Fact is too many people don’t care. They don’t have ideas that yield any pushback. They don’t think “what if it’s me?”
They don’t see the bigger picture behind being able to say “nigger”
It’s not the ability to say it, it’s the freedom to say it.
Instead we only have faggots like Ted Cruz anywhere near the issue and dude sucks black rock cock.

Our politicians are failures and faggots at that.
But too many faggots don’t care because they don’t feel the pinch.
Shit, the faggot zoomers don’t even know what the wild west was like.

It’ll never comeback that way since people are just too huge of faggots in general.

 

[Merrick]

Spoiler: Letter to Senator

Dear [Republican Senator],

As I understand it, you seem to be a very good man, so I wanted to not only help you, but help everyone out too by informing you of a problem that not even the Republicans in Congress have been able to understand.

There are frightening headlines in the news these days - more and more countries are brainstorming social credit ideas: they will require ID in order to the use the Internet. In America, there is no out-and-out plan for this, but instead, companies running social media sites are talking about requiring IDs in order to use their sites. The argument, as stated by the everyman in favor of these measures, boils down to: "Someone has different opinions (on me, on political issues) on the Internet, and now I want to know their address so I can send people to lynch this person."

Obviously, anonymity is crucial to many people. Imagine a whistleblower who is in danger of either work-related, political, or physical retaliation by another party, and in order to contact a journalist with key documents, they need to upload an ID. It might be impossible for some parties, such as Project Veritas, to reveal certain facts about horrifically politicized issues, such as COVID. Even now, I fear that I may be labelled an extremist for expressing such views, so I have come up with a pseudonym and a different address which do not belong to me.

Section 230, the first but not the second paragraph [230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) respectively], is vital to preserving free speech and anonymity on the internet. 230(c)(1) states that, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." What this means is that a website is not liable for the views or content expressed on it. It is important that this paragraph of 230 is left alone. What this means is: if unscrupulous members of Congress pass new hate speech laws in which certain conservative or right-wing views are new hate speech, and a website hosts a forum in which a user expresses these views, the website will not have to take down that user's post. This is critical for smaller websites who rely on 230(c)(1) in order to allow users the freedom of speech. I understand wanting to strike out at Facebook, at Twitter, at myriad big social media sites who abuse their powers - but the removal or editing of Section 230(c)(1) will not do it. In fact, it will provoke them into removing every post which does not fit into their narrow political views. As far as 230(c)(2), the editing of this paragraph is crucial to helping the American people curb the excesses of big social media sites without causing damage to the smaller sites dedicated to freedom of speech. 230(c)(2) states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)."

This paragraph deliberately flouts the freedom of speech, as seen in the portion, "... whether or not such material is constitutionally protected ..." In order to protect the users of the large social media sites from the political whims of the managers of said sites, while protecting smaller sites who love liberty and freedom of speech, it is absolutely necessary to edit the second paragraph and leave the first paragraph in place as is. As for arguments that Congress should not meddle in "private companies," kindly remind these people that large social media sites like Facebook routinely receive tax breaks and subsidies from the government, and these companies must comply with American law if they are to offer their services to Americans.

As far as legislative attempts to truly modifying Section 230, here are some that have been left on the table:

1) Sen. Kelly Loeffler's 9-month-old Stop Suppressing Speech Act of 2020

2) Sen. Wicker's Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act

I understand that you might be burdened by other concerns, and I can appreciate that. However, I fear the time for relying on other members of Congress to start the ball rolling on a serious proposal to address Section 230 and Internet anonymity and freedom has passed. Other countries are on the move, the large social media sites work in tandem to restrict freedom of speech on their sites, and you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing. Please address this concern as quickly as you can.

Thank you for your time,

[Fake Name]

 

[Five or Six Stores]

null substack shilling when

 

[Merrick]

As far as the responses regarding a form of "retreat" to a less accessible form of the website are concerned: if you keep giving up ground, soon enough you won't be standing on terra firma - you'll be out to sea.

By retreating, by making concessions, by saying "that's good enough," people are settling for less and less - and I'm not just talking about social credit/IDs on the Internet/Section 230. The ones perpetrating this horror show of censorship in the Internet and in other areas (COVID mandates come to mind) are encouraged by every inch you concede. History has shown us that the more people in power can get away with, the more they will do. They (of many fingers in many pies) want a willing populace to be sure, but in the meantime, they'll work with one that quietly grumbles but is largely compliant.

 

[Shoggoth]

The only real problem is with internets between countries or blocks. I think everything else is solvable by Urbit (or your trannyverse, feel free to waste your time there).
Is there anything which could be done regarding the global fragmentation?

 

[ShoFuKan]

Pretty decent article. Didn't realised it cost so much just to set up your own website, that's certainly something a normal person can't do without some sort of revenue stream to compensate for it.

 

[Heather Mason]

I appreciate the sentiment that SOMETHING needs to be done to better the state of the Internet but what can an individual realistically do against the behemoth tech oligarchies and their political stooges? When bills about improving 230 or ensuring financial freedom die without sponsors what's the point in writing your congressman? When tech CEOs single-handedly control what is allowed on their Internet what recourse do we have?

Should we start beheading (in Minecraft) those in charge? Do we start destroying fiber optic cables and telecom infrastructure? Do we unsub from our ISPs until our demands are met? Do we pay Russians to DDoS and upload CP and gore to Facebook to cripple it?

I'm not arguing that we should do nothing, I just think trying to save the Internet as it exists now is a lost cause. It feels like we're on the Titanic discussing how to save the ship when it's already halfway sunk. I think the solution is to develop alternative networks and jump ship, but that's a problem for people way smarter than me

 

[PetrifiedTom]

This looks like written by 13yo basement dweller paranoid about Internet which changed since 1963. I read first few paragraph and had enough of the blathering that was coming my way. I won't even quote things that are blatantly stupid to not waste any more time over this... I don't know... I have read better dissertations by middle schoolers having more context than... this thing.

P.S. Are you paid per word? It could be slashed to one third and wouldn't lose it's meaning.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

Pretty terrifying really. Regulatory capture is getting to the point at which Big Tech is becoming the tail that wags the dog IMO.

Those of us of a Britbongish nature may remember the attempt in the Online Harms Bill to bring in compulsory age verification for pr0n back in 2019. Pr0n loicences, if you will. That didn't go anywhere. But it wasn't the Government which pushed that. It was corporate power. AgeID, the company who was behind the technology, and which lobbied for it to be brought in, turned out to be a wholly owned subsidiary of MindGeek. Yes. That MindGeek. The one that owns a huge proportion of the online fapping market. They would love to have spyware or data accumulation on every pr0n viewer in the world. This is the equivalent to giving the wolf the keys to the sheepfold.

Eventually it'll come to the point at which Google and similar are too big to be broken up even by the formidable anti-trust powers of the US Government. They might all just form a cartel and say, right, if you don't leave us alone we'll close down all social media and search engines worldwide until further notice. People today are so hooked on social media and smartphones and using Google or Facebook accounts to log in to other things that this will genuinely be a crippling blow. Businesses rely on it to drive traffic to them. It would cause panic and possible mass riots.

 

[Splinters RCVD ✞]

A thought that upsets me is the IoT era where everything will be 'smart' and hooked to the net; the possible 'punishments' can be nightmarish.
Even today one can anger people without the scathing linguistics of KF.

Use the wrong pronoun on social media? A trans admin at the heating company will turn off your smart radiators in the middle of winter.

Visit whatever will succeed places like KF or ED when/if its illegal? Suddenly the smart doors and windows will not work, giving the authorities ample time to get you.

Say the truth about a future freak like the lolcows of today? One hacker who'd follow such a person would remotely bork your smart fridge, so you can say goodbye to anything that needs cooling.

Post a controversial opinion about some book or movie? A deranged fan from the local water company will brick your smart toilet to poetically avenge you 'daring to piss on his/her favorite hero'.

The ideology to justify such insane behavior is already here, and its very old news. Everything would be sanctioned by law. All these people, as far as the system would be concerned, would be contributing to the upkeep of public order.

And much, much worse.
When everything is some file or program on the net a skilled hacker or a person in the right position can bork, and you have legions of spineless hedonists bowing to any ideology and willing to cause serious damage over slight offenses, (almost) all bets are off.

 

[I AM FUNNY]

you may be the fattest ugliest cunt alive mr moon but you have a good point. god bless you. at least the UK is unlikely to seperate itself from the USA. we're like the dementia riddled old man constantly shitting himself and america is the one to change the diaper.

 

[obsdj]

The ideology to justify such insane behavior is already here, and its very old news. Everything would be sanctioned by law. All these people, as far as the system would be concerned, would be contributing to the upkeep of public order.

Amusingly, the ACLU tried to warn us about this over a decade ago, and now they are even more a part of the problem themselves:

 

[Blue November]

Thanks for a good article.

 

[The Wall of Ba Sing Se]

Great read. I'm happy you're here helping keep the internet free.

 

[Bababo]

Very informative. Blackpilling aside, this is a lot of stuff I hadn’t considered regarding starting and maintaining a site like this. I’m definitely not crazy enough to try that, but starting a Fediverse instance or something in the future isn’t out of the question.

Seeing the internet just rot by the day makes me really want to help do something about it rather than just sit around seething. Been doing that for way too long. I just hadn’t considered how hard that would actually be until now.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

A thought that upsets me is the IoT era where everything will be 'smart' and hooked to the net; the possible 'punishments' can be nightmarish.
Even today one can anger people without the scathing linguistics of KF.

Use the wrong pronoun on social media? A trans admin at the heating company will turn off your smart radiators in the middle of winter.

Visit whatever will succeed places like KF or ED when/if its illegal? Suddenly the smart doors and windows will not work, giving the authorities ample time to get you.

Say the truth about a future freak like the lolcows of today? One hacker who'd follow such a person would remotely bork your smart fridge, so you can say goodbye to anything that needs cooling.

Post a controversial opinion about some book or movie? A deranged fan from the local water company will brick your smart toilet to poetically avenge you 'daring to piss on his/her favorite hero'.

The ideology to justify such insane behavior is already here, and its very old news. Everything would be sanctioned by law. All these people, as far as the system would be concerned, would be contributing to the upkeep of public order.

And much, much worse.
When everything is some file or program on the net a skilled hacker or a person in the right position can bork, and you have legions of spineless hedonists bowing to any ideology and willing to cause serious damage over slight offenses, (almost) all bets are off.

It gets worse. Not only does the Internet of Things present all manner of exciting new ways for you to be hacked or have your identity stolen, but also consider that certain insurance companies require you to keep a black box in your car so your driving habits can be monitored (viz: if you have ever sped, ever, in that car, your insurance will be invalid when you try to claim on it for anything), or health insurance that requires you to wear a FitBit (so if you are a fattie or a smoker or don't exercise enough, you can be refused funding for your life saving treatment.) Now, imagine this. Someone doesn't like you, so they hack the black box on your car and falsify records to make it look like you ran over a pedestrian three months ago. Of course, you didn't. But the black box says you did, and the insurance company just called the cops on you, and the telemetry stored on the box and GPS records are reminiscent of what someone hitting a pedestrian and killing them would look like.

Or someone who doesn't like you because you sneered at their favourite Marvel character on Faceache finds out you have such a health insurance policy. What if they hacked your insurance FitBit to make it look like you eat ten tons of burgers every day and never exercise? That hospital treatment for a suspected heart inflammation? Nope, sorry, you aren't being paid. Welcome to medical bankruptcy.

(Oh, and just because you may be a Britbong and have the benefit of R NHS that doesn't mean you're off the hook from this. I honestly suspect that if we do go down that road they will prioritise your treatment according to your social credit score from your mandated FitBit. Have fun dying even though you pay taxes and clapped every Thursday during the coof.)

And it gets worse. Implantable technology is seriously being considered including implantable biomonitors, so your body can quite literally betray you at all times. Also implantable contactless payment methods. Which is a singularly bad idea because now you can be robbed of all your money simply by having your hand chopped off or the RFID chip forcibly cut out.

We may sneer at how the Chinese will do anything for a crumb of social credit, but we aren't far behind in the West.