>The internet is shit today. It’s broken. It was probably always broken, but it’s worse than ever
>reading the article
>"oh he's making some valid points"
>mfw he goes full commie at the end of it
You blew it.
>The amount of employees in these companies are smaller then ever before and the profits are, in turn, larger. Apple and Google are passing oil companies by far. Minecraft got sold for $2.6 billion and WhatsApp for like $19 billion. These are insane amounts of money for nothing.
Marxist revolution is the answer my brother
>We just don't have enough people that care about these issues.
It doesn't matter how many more people care about the pro-corp regulation. Nine out of ten Joe Blows just see it as a passing interest to share on their social media wall. Anything that's accomplished through their short break from inaction is almost immediately dodged and snuck in by another law or another bill. Even if they cared a little more than they did now, they wouldn't be willing or able to do anything drastic for the cause.
See: SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, CISPA, and the TPP
IPFS is a peer-to-peer distributed file system that seeks to connect all computing devices with the same system of files. In some ways, IPFS is similar to the Web, but IPFS could be seen as a single BitTorrent swarm, exchanging objects within one Git repository. In other words, IPFS provides a high throughput content-addressed block storage model, with content-addressed hyperlinks. This forms a generalized Merkle DAG. IPFS combines a distributed hashtable, an incentivized block exchange, and a self-certifying namespace. IPFS has no single point of failure, and nodes do not need to trust each other.
>Well, yeah, I totally agree with that. I’m a socialist. I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody.
welp, to be honest, I'm surprised I haven't been sued by the MPAA yet. I run a popular movie magnet link search engine and haven't gotten a take down notice yet. Sunde is absolutely correct though. People don't understand that Google and Facebook are making money off YOUR DATA and the filter bubble they are causing.
He seems a bit deterministic about this ~ like the Pirate Bay is the only answer Sunde can offer... Were he a true entrepenuer he would have a variety of other programs offering solutions as problems arise.
Question: am I too dumb, or is everyone who keeps repeating the honeypot meme? If you use public trackers, everyone can already see your IP address. What would be the added benefit of keeping TPB as a honeypot?
He's obviously not an entrepeneur, he's just some sysadmin codemonkey who's pissed cause his precious piratebay is just an ads ridden shithole managed by some jews now.
The fucking idiot extrapolates communism to piracy as if they were related at all just cause >muh free information, nigger probably hasn't even read The Capital.
He focuses on the wrong things, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is government intervention in the free market. In a trully free market copyright law wouldn't exist, ISPs would be so numerous that controlling them would prove almost impossible, centralization wouldn't be an issue at an infrastructure level like it is now, etc. The other side of the coin is that all the issues we have now are a result of people not giving a shit and using Facebook,that's the fault of nothing other than people themselves.
The one thing he 100% has right is that people need to learn out of shock, and that's likely going to come from a new enlightenment era.
I don't blame him for viewing things so cynically though, he lives in one of the most mentally distraught countries in the world.
it has always been important. you see, http is a huge pile of shit. an example:
on the front side of the machine http was developed on was a sticker that read 'this machine is a server DO NOT POWER DOWN!!'
If you had powered that machine off back then, you would've powered off the entire web.
And out of all the communication protocols out there, that one caught on.
In the future maybe. We're certainly not ready now or in the near future. The only possibility of it ever working is if we had a fully robotisized industrial revolution. Where we can literally do nothing and still move humanity forward
I'm fairly sure that the <a> tag is called such because it was the only thing that seemed to matter for Tim. The only advantage http had to any other protocol was the ability to link the documents together, creating a web of documents.
But look at where we're now. video streaming, video calls, chat rooms, music streaming and so on, all done on a system originally developed to transfer pretty text with links.
And it scaled pretty badly too, if you want to serve a wider audience you have to use a cdn to deliver your scripts and content. The current web is distributed, but it's costly to maintain because the protocol wasn't built for anything else but requesting fancy text from a remote machine.
Please study this image.
The current web is NOT distributed.
>this man thinks access to the internet is a "basic human right"
>wants 60% of the world to be plunged into poverty and violence as a result of robots taking their jerbs
>that commie rant at the end
He might be on to something.
He's a pretty wise man.
Also worth watching, He says that the next 15 years are a lost cause.
>I think in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal access to everything for everybody.
Is he referring to everyone having free access to information or does he actually think that it's possible to give everyone everything for free?
>ISPs would be so numerous that controlling them would prove almost impossible
maybe at national level
the only way to have multiple ISPs in the same region is if they share the physical infrastructure, cables and all that
>So, how bad is the state of the open internet?
>Well, we don’t have an open internet.
He knocked that one out of the park.
The rest of the interview is less valuable. If you really like "giving up" rhetoric, I recommend James Mickens.
What an awesome number wasted on such a terrible opinion.
"Artists" are just buttmad that they can't leverage Hollywood's government goon force multipliers and so have to work for a linear wage or contracts like any other trade.
Selling 0 marginal cost copies is harmful police state nonsense. Find another business model.
He is definitely on to something. Dont be so quick to dismiss.
Capitalism taints everything with shit. Look at parliamentary democracy. It is a mess under capitalism.
The internet should be a tool for furthering and advancing all humanity. Instead it is a tool used to stupify and market all manner of crap.
With the internet we should be drowning in a sea of new doctors, scientists, discoverers. Instead we are a world of lazy ass consumers who would rather watch the X factor while sitting on our fat asses.
Sunde is right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an unfortunate victim of the modern capitalist world.
I think with this view it's far too easy to blame a 'system', when any system is made of people.
Blame the people. The option to use the internet to educate yourself is there, but people don't take it.
You want to make a system that forces people to be doctors and scientists?
People are at fault. People are naturally lazy. If you want to fix this you need to start improving the gene pool, through eugenics.
>Yes, with the focus on the big war on this extreme capitalism. I couldn’t vote, but I was hoping Sarah Palin won last time in the US elections. I’m hoping Donald Trump wins this year’s election. For the reason that it will fuck up that country so much faster then if a less bad President wins. Our whole world is just so focused on money, money, money. That’s the biggest problem. That’s why everything fucks up. That’s the target we have to fix. We need to make sure that we are going to get a different focus in life.
I dismiss him because nobody can seem to find a better answer to our social and political situation. How do you get miners to go underground and collect minerals voluntarily? Will there be some sort of mining draft to force people to do the dangerous job of mining? How about other jobs like off shore oil fields or maintaining a nuclear power plant. How do we get these things done without some owner calling the shots and directing people to do these things? Shall we become a communist society? It seems like I'm asking many questions but they are all related to the same question: is there really a better way?
I disagree. Under the right conditions people will perform so very differently.
People are not inherently anything. They are shaped by their environment.
Under the right circumstances, you would not have to force anyone to be anything. They would just know what was right for them, for others.
I dunno. Its a good question. What is the alternative to our shit world? The resource-based economy of the Zeitgeist folk? I have no idea.
But if there is one thing the old Marxists got right it was their base and superstructure model of how everything fits together.
Our 'base' is fucked. It needs to go. To be placed with, I do not know. Bit we need to think seriously of alternatives.
As far as the internet goes, we will not recognise it in 20 years. Guaranteed).
Nothing to do with capitlism marx
Money is the bewt motivator for this.
>he thinks we would have more doctors of there was no financial incentives to be a doctor.
Okay now ive seen it all, even serious socialist/communists see this as a problem.
>capitilist world order.
What's funny? Do you disagree that since the end of the cold war the world has been approaching a total and unipolar liberal-capitalist world order as proclaimed by American leaders themselves?
I don't think there is a better way. Ownership of things is within human nature. Structures of rulership are also human nature. Therefore, it is human nature for people who own things to establish a force of some kind to maintain social order and also encourage people to do work to achieve goods and services.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" Churchill
"Capitalism is bad" except that nobody cares to do hard work without some kind of reward.
I've concluded that it is not possible to have the kind of lifestyle we have (with high technology and high medicine and high engineering and high science) without capitalism to get shit done and democracy to allow us to change government without bloodshed.
The death of hyper-commercialised entertainment, such as manufactured pop music, hollywood and professional sports, will only make things better for both consumers and producers.
Fucking cunts holding us back.
>It's "worked" in the short run because it makes everyone happy while rewarding the people who are making everyone happy
Man, what a terrible system.
My copy was better. In the spirit of free sharing, I invite you to take it. >>52259921
Ah, the New Man concept. I lean towards this position on the subject: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/10/society-is-fixed-biology-is-mutable/
you dumb idiot we don't live in a capitalist world, this is a socialist dictatorship, big government is the only reason these laws are making its way through to limit the internet.
Peter Sunde doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't realize that socialism is the problem and sees it as a solution. No fucking wonder he thinks he's losing
If I was that poor I would not even know what communism is. The only people in the civilized world that seem to be in favor of communism are idealists who don't want to see what the true human nature is.
With Bittorrent you already have a logical distributed topology on top of a physical decentralized one. A physical distributed topology doesn't make much sense, every end node would need to serve as an Internet router for other nodes at the same time. It's not how TCP/IP works or was ever designed to work, you'd need to reimplement the Internet from the grounds-up, good luck with that.
Why? If I have an ISP, it belongs to me. You don't have a right to dictate what I do with my property. If you're not happy with how I run my own things, take your business elsewhere or make your own ISP.
No, it doesn't apply: you can (and should) have public schools and you're every bit entitled to demand whatever you want from them because you're paying for them. The school belongs in part to you. But if I have a private school, it is mine. And I get to teach whatever I want. If you don't like it, pull your kids out.
Same way with hospitals: the state can (and should) have public hospitals and you can (and should) demand free basic treatment. Not to my private hospital though because that doesn't belong to you.
Likewise, if the state had an ISP, any rant from any citizen of how it should be ran would be valid. Not with a private ISP.
I did specify "property", you know.
Yes it does. Content is addressed by its hash, which makes it immutable, and means if two people upload the same file they effectively seed the same torrent. The immutability also makes it impossible to enforce a DMCA take down request so long as even one person in the world retains the data and has an IPFS client. IPNS requires DNS for now but will eventually move to Namecoin. That will make DNS blocking impossible. The distributed nature of the swarm also means you can't block by IP address. There's literally nothing centralized to take down.
OK, that's pretty fucking neat. The namecoin thing is probably it's weak point though, right? bitcoin can be hacked, namecoin will too, right?
full disclosure, I have no idea what I'm talking about. But the idea of linking files by hash alone is beyond awesome.
The Namecoin and DNS stuff is just for human readable pointers to "real" IPNS addresses which are derived from your client's public key. IPNS content is mutable, so it's more for stuff like blogs or wiki sites. Files are generally shared by direct IPFS, which is immutable. So even if every DNS server in the world blocked IPNS record sharing (extremely unlikely since it'd involve manual parsing of every TXT record returned by every request for the string "dnslink=/ipns/") and Namecoin got 51% attacked, it wouldn't do shit to the core of IPFS.
You don't get it. Files don't "move" in IPFS, they just "are". There is effectively only one copy of any given hash, with multiple "seeders" on different nodes, that might have a partial set of the constituent blocks or the whole thing. Nodes communicate with each other via a DHT that automatically bootstraps up, listens on all public addresses, and punches holes through IPv4 NAT if necessary.
I know a store that was sued, or otherwise blocked, for exactly this.
Feel my hate, Microsoft.
Also, guys, make, lets make the deepnet, a better place. Get in there and do some stuff. Tor, I2P, Freenet, Hyperboria, whatever. Make it happen so we do not have to be visible anymore.
Lets leave the clearnet once and for all.
>distributed file sharing and HTTP replacement
>CJDNS semi-anonymous network for meshes (note: tunneling of clearnet traffic is broken as fuck. Use a regular tunneling/vpn protocol for point to point tunneling of clearnet traffic)
>decentralized imageboard, works just as well on cjdns/hyperboria and Tor
And of course there's the old standbys like Tor and Linux, but if you're in this thread you probably already know how to use them.
>communism never worked in the past and when it was tried it resulted in staggering numbers of deaths
>now there's more people on the planet than ever. Lazier, more entitled and stupider than ever
>unpredictability in food supply higher than ever due to clime change
"It's totally, seriously, DEFINITELY going to work this time, guys. I swear!"
Fuck it. The world could do with a bit of a fucking cull anyways. Best of luck, comrades.
Instead of "human nature", I think it would be appropriate to write "human culture". Just because we never had a really different system doesn't mean this one is a product of our "nature".
It could very well just be a coincidence that we went that way and only that way to the point that we thought it was our nature.
Also, I think democracy and capitalism are good systems when they don't inter-mingle. To the exception of "savage capitalism" (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalisme_sauvage sorry it's not available in english) that should be avoided at all costs, and because of that, a minimal amount of law should be made.
That's why Sunde thought about the collapse of society. Because the US have got a shitbig army and bases everywhere just because of muh cold war, they can't be overthrown like that.
Sorry for the long-ass post.
By system I meant the set of values you claimed to be human nature : Ownership and Structures of Rulership.
I think that those values are considered important by people only if they grew with them, and had them in their culture and environment.
Just like a 90's kid will have affection for the Internet and it's vision as a free place, whereas an older person would not necessarily have it.
According to that, the value of Ownership exists since tribes/families (before the agricultural revolution) had to keep a territory for themselves because their food (berries and prey) was very scarce in a given area, and they kept that food for themselves, for survival purposes.
After the agricultural revolution, farmers could have began to share their products in exchange for the services of the others (barter) since they were now grouped in cities or villages, with a mind of -simply- sharing; but the notion of Ownership was still in their minds and culture, so they wouldn't let -their- food go for free
Structures of Rulership came with the grouping of people in cities, and later, states. However, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for everyone to live separately enough to have little independent groups, but not too much, in order to keep trade possible.
Since those values have always been around and that they are transmitted, it is wrong to assume there is nothing else. I concede it would require a vast cultural change, but I doesn't invalidate my point.
TL;DR : When people got to own things, they liked it, so they continued. Owning things was forced if you wanted to survive when food was scarce. Thus, people just kept owning things. However, in a abundant society (in the future probably, now not yet), this is no longer needed.
nice pipe dream. in a truly free market, with no intervention, you are free to make the market not free, on top of a lot of other terrible things. the "free market" is a meme that makes no sense in practical terms.