back
11 comments
"We're living in the perpetual present, and that is dangerous."

I love the idea of version control for the internet. We are forced to use updates, even if we don't want them. The idea of being able to use a site's specific version is very attractive. It becomes even more interesting when you think of the internet over a much longer time horizon, say 200 years in the future where historians can go through all of our historical records. Much of this might be lost if we keep it in walled gardens as it might be lost forever unless the owners of that data release it.

> We are forced to use updates, even if we don't want them

This is one of the things I hate most about modern tech. People just assume newer = better. And it goes from the functional to the aesthetic, too. Not only are we often forced or heavily pressured to update, the updates don't just affect functionality behind the scenes but also the UI of things we use. I can't stand modern UI (and it's not some rosy glasses for the good old days of cuneiform). I never understood the value of Stallman's philosophy around free software and having the freedom to change it until machines I paid for and own started getting so many forced updates and downloads. Literally as I speak my windows PC just woke up from hibernate because of some updates; one major reason why I use the unvalidated version instead of giving windows any money if I can avoid it.

Developers are routinely breaking stuff and users have to sit and wait for the fix. It is like tracking HEAD. Not every user wants to do that.

Not only do we see an assumption that newer equals better but we see developers who believe the more activity on a project the better. To them, no activity means the project is "dead". These developers have no concept of a finished, working version that fulfills the user's needs. Perhaps they are incapable of producing such a finished product, or derive some benefit from keeping a user dependant on them for "updates". This is a purely developer perspective, not a user perspective. Not all software exists merely to give developers something to do. Not every user wants every update.

> This is a purely developer perspective, not a user perspective. Not all software exists merely to give developers something to do. Not every user wants every update.

this basically sums up what made me realize the value of why Richard Stallman pushes for free software. I detest the idea of some other entity controlling my software on my machine and making decisions for me like when to update, etc

> We're living in the perpetual present, and that is dangerous.

But my Zen master tells me that is precisely where i want to live :)

I think a 10/80/10 distribution between past, present, and future is near optimal.
It's just so incredible that someone has clawed out some right for civilization, for society, amid so many owned proprietary systems. The internet is like 99.99% corporations, all rights reserved, but here's this one team of people that say: no, the public has a right. History has a right to know. You have put this information out there, and humankind has a right to know that. You don't get to maintain absolute control over this published information, dispose of it, alter it at your will: the public also has rights.

It seems almost unimaginable that such a battle could or would be won, that this would be permitted. Everywhere else, the terms of service seem absolute, ironclad. It feels so much like it took this virtuous saint of a system to pry some user rights out of so much corporate ownership, that this example is the only thing that could ever have budged the mountain of legalese that denies users any rights to the things they see before them. And- whatever rights we have, I strongly believe including the future's right to see, to be given a chance to understand, to know of the past is at least as important.

From a state security perspective, the "Balkanisation" of the internet makes perfect sense. You wouldn't allow huge numbers of unknown agents from other countries in, to spend their time trying to influence your people, yet there is a free and open internet with a practically direct connection the population's brains, and very little way to know who is doing the influencing.
Right, states have (and should) have absolute libery to block foreign connections. I feel uneasy about the idea that the internet should be completely open and global. First because if we think about most organisms and states and houses, they all form walls in order to protect themselves, open is synonymous with infections or intruders. Second because in the end it will never be global, it will just answer to those who have the most power, which happens to be those who created it (US of A).
I appreciate the IA, especially when using wikipedia. But there is a huge conflict between privacy and unrestricted access to information, which is why companies like Facebook, Snapchat, Microsoft, etc... build walled gardens.

You have to at least recognize this dichotomy and "avoid choosing a team". The idea that copying information is a right is exceptionally popular in open internet forums like the one we are in right now, but it quickly encounters practical limits.

didn't read, closed the tab as soon as I saw the obnoxious popover.