8 ms·

am i alone in wanting the internet to be killed? we’d all be better off if everyone wasn’t terminally online

Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo ago
I think the scenario posited here is the worse possible one where we are still chronically online but on a dead internet while being fully and relentless surveilled.
- everdrive 2mo ago
  The internet of the future is an IQ test. Are you smart enough to get in, do your work in a focused manner, and get out so that you live your life? Many, many people will fail this test.
  - KPGv2 2mo ago
    Counterpoint: meatspace is awful unless you're a normie. Christ, the day I got out of my small town and into a major city university dorm room with fast Internet was the day my life opened up. I found people with my interests. Etc. "The Internet sucks. Get offline," is the battle cry of someone who likes Marvel movies and the book that Target has at the checkout line, or lives in one of about five cities in the USA.
    - aqfamnzc 2mo ago
      Oof. You're missing out if you think meatspace is limited to target and big American cities. I agree that the web makes it easy(er) to connect with others in niche interests, but in-person experiences can be so diverse, vibrant, stimulating that I understand the simmering tug some have toward wanting the internet to become unusable. I agree with sibling that a "healed" internet, while very optimistic, is the ideal case. Sincerely, your fellow terminally online HN commenter.
      - judge2020 2mo ago
        > You're missing out if you think meatspace is limited to target and big American cities. The joke about middle-of-nowhere towns is that the only thing for teens to do in meatspace is to go to the Walmart. Because there's nothing else to do.
        krater23 2mo ago
        Walmart?! Do you think we had a mall?! The only thing we had to do was drinking beer and smoking weed.
        monomial 2mo ago
        I don't really understand this trope and I grew up in a tiny town. Why not start a band or make movies with your friends? Build model airplanes, explore some creeks or forests. Not to say I didn't smoke and drink as well but why should that be more likely to be one's outlet in a small town with few commercial consumer experiences?
        account42 2mo ago
        All of that is a lot harder to do if you have to start from first principles because you have no place to look up how its done or talk to others who are already doing it.
        b0rtb0rt 2mo ago
        you need to look up how to explore the woods outside your house?
        KPGv2 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - KPGv2 2mo ago
        who probably grew up in a big city. I unfortunately grew up in a small town, and it's really weird that you presume to dictate to me what small town life was like before the Internet. I assure you, I have decades marinating in it.
    - everdrive 2mo ago
      I really do understand your sentiment, but please remember that "meatspace" is the whole world. You can hate stupid marvel movies and chain department stores all you like, but the entire world of books, hobbies, technology, etc. is available to you. I'm not joking: I'll bet that NO ONE at your local library cares that you're weird so long as you're polite and follow the rules.
      - account42 2mo ago
        The point is that the internet brings many distant people closer to you. All the exists on the internet exists in the real world (because the internet is part of the real world) but that doesn't mean you will find it anywhere near you. Others not minding you being weird is not the same as others being weird with you.
        everdrive 2mo ago
        Even if we take your point that internet may be disappearing. A good way to brace yourself is to expand your scope: books, exercise, hobbies, etc. (and probably download a few romsets) will protect you.
        KPGv2 2mo ago
        You probably don't intend to sound as rude as you do, but to suggest that I don't read or exercise because I think the Internet is a massive boon for social lives is pretty dickish. I boulder, run, play tennis. I read about thirty books a year. I have lots of hobbies. But the Internet has made them better. I write novels. The people who help me with beta reading are online, because no one IRL is interested in what I write. Again, expanding one's social circle.
        everdrive 2mo ago
        I didn't mean to sound rude at all :(
      - KPGv2 2mo ago
AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
When people say things like this, they mean the good parts of the internet, e.g. real people who are able to be honest because a pseudonym allows them to say things they would be punished by evildoers for saying if the evildoers could identify them. Taking that away doesn't get you out of the engagement-optimized ad funnel, it just makes that be the only thing left.
- perching_aix 2mo ago
  Having a digital ID does not obviate that (in principle), thanks to zero-knowledge schemes. To my understanding then, the issue is that the EU's implementation only has a ZK-based solution in the plans so far. But then this initiative says "No Digital ID", not "No Auto-Deanonymizable Digital ID", so...
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    > Having a digital ID does not obviate that (in principle), thanks to zero-knowledge schemes. Yes it does, because zero-knowledge schemes take it as an assumption that all of the people who are supposed to have credentials can be trusted not to share them with people who aren't, since you're proposing a system that provides no means for that to be detected. And this context doesn't allow that assumption. With a normal ID, the entity required to demand ID compares the picture on the ID to the person using it, which obviously doesn't work when they're not being provided with any identifying information. You thereby have no way to know that the ID belongs to the user and anyone can allow anyone else to use their ID, thereby defeating the system. Which means that the proponents would never be satisfied with the result and the only thing building that system does is entrench something with the shape of a non-consensual identification system, which will then have any ZK features disabled (assuming they were actually implemented to begin with) when the consequences prove unsatisfactory.
    - perching_aix 2mo ago
      > Yes it does, because zero-knowledge schemes take it as an assumption that all of the people who are supposed to have credentials can be trusted not to share them with people who aren't No, ZK schemes have absolutely nothing to do with sybil resistance. That's a threat modeling concern anyways. If your point is that the entire digital ID plan is nascent because it remains vulnerable to sybil attacks, that it may very well be, and so indeed there would need to be extra-technological measures to ensure the 1:1 mapping. That is no longer a cryptographic or technological concern however, but a governance and incentivization one. It also means that it can't "kill the internet" then though, doesn't it? > which obviously doesn't work when they're not being provided with any identifying information. You thereby have no way to know that the ID belongs to the user and anyone can allow anyone else to use their ID, thereby defeating the system This is about digital identification. The facts you list off are beyond the analog hole. What you describe is (or at least should be) a non-goal for any scheme in this context, because it is fundamentally unsolveable. > Which means that the proponents would never be satisfied with the result and the only thing building that system does is entrench something with the shape of a non-consensual identification system This is (loaded) political speculation, not an argument.
agile-gift0262 2mo ago
I'd rather have the internet healed
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2mo ago
The Internet is fine and the bad parts will heal or remove themselves if we remove the actual bad thing: smart phones. The Internet is not supposed to follow you around hence the term "In Real Life" or "meatspace". If you want to be "terminally online" you need to sit your ass down in front of a computer for hours.
- sodapopcan 2mo ago
  > if we remove the actual bad thing: smart phones. That's a tall order, although there are plenty of reports of younger people switching to "dumb phones." I've switched to one myself. But how could you possibly stop it? They are terrible -- now that I don't have one anymore it's insane how many people are constantly staring at their phones, walking on the sidewalk, crossing the street, etc. It's really depressing. But ya, at this point I don't care if parts of the internet are fine and if I had the power to burn it all down, I would.
ecocentrik 2mo ago
Social media in it's current form is already dying to the explosion in synthetic interaction but the internet could survive and reshape itself.
83642736392 2mo ago
[dead]
djaro 2mo ago
I hope they kill the internet. Mandatory ID scans might be the last push I need to stop wasting my time on Reddit.
sodapopcan 2mo ago
You are not.
krater23 2mo ago
Are you old enough to remember the time where the internet doesn't existed? Sounds like not.
account42 2mo ago
Well you can just leave if you don't like it.

I think the scenario posited here is the worse possible one where we are still chronically online but on a dead internet while being fully and relentless surveilled.

everdrive 2mo ago
The internet of the future is an IQ test. Are you smart enough to get in, do your work in a focused manner, and get out so that you live your life? Many, many people will fail this test.
- KPGv2 2mo ago
  Counterpoint: meatspace is awful unless you're a normie. Christ, the day I got out of my small town and into a major city university dorm room with fast Internet was the day my life opened up. I found people with my interests. Etc. "The Internet sucks. Get offline," is the battle cry of someone who likes Marvel movies and the book that Target has at the checkout line, or lives in one of about five cities in the USA.
  - aqfamnzc 2mo ago
    Oof. You're missing out if you think meatspace is limited to target and big American cities. I agree that the web makes it easy(er) to connect with others in niche interests, but in-person experiences can be so diverse, vibrant, stimulating that I understand the simmering tug some have toward wanting the internet to become unusable. I agree with sibling that a "healed" internet, while very optimistic, is the ideal case. Sincerely, your fellow terminally online HN commenter.
    - judge2020 2mo ago
      > You're missing out if you think meatspace is limited to target and big American cities. The joke about middle-of-nowhere towns is that the only thing for teens to do in meatspace is to go to the Walmart. Because there's nothing else to do.
      - krater23 2mo ago
        Walmart?! Do you think we had a mall?! The only thing we had to do was drinking beer and smoking weed.
        monomial 2mo ago
        I don't really understand this trope and I grew up in a tiny town. Why not start a band or make movies with your friends? Build model airplanes, explore some creeks or forests. Not to say I didn't smoke and drink as well but why should that be more likely to be one's outlet in a small town with few commercial consumer experiences?
        account42 2mo ago
        All of that is a lot harder to do if you have to start from first principles because you have no place to look up how its done or talk to others who are already doing it.
        b0rtb0rt 2mo ago
        you need to look up how to explore the woods outside your house?
        KPGv2 2mo ago
        [dead]
    - KPGv2 2mo ago
      who probably grew up in a big city. I unfortunately grew up in a small town, and it's really weird that you presume to dictate to me what small town life was like before the Internet. I assure you, I have decades marinating in it.
  - everdrive 2mo ago
    I really do understand your sentiment, but please remember that "meatspace" is the whole world. You can hate stupid marvel movies and chain department stores all you like, but the entire world of books, hobbies, technology, etc. is available to you. I'm not joking: I'll bet that NO ONE at your local library cares that you're weird so long as you're polite and follow the rules.
    - account42 2mo ago
      The point is that the internet brings many distant people closer to you. All the exists on the internet exists in the real world (because the internet is part of the real world) but that doesn't mean you will find it anywhere near you. Others not minding you being weird is not the same as others being weird with you.
      - everdrive 2mo ago
        Even if we take your point that internet may be disappearing. A good way to brace yourself is to expand your scope: books, exercise, hobbies, etc. (and probably download a few romsets) will protect you.
        KPGv2 2mo ago
        You probably don't intend to sound as rude as you do, but to suggest that I don't read or exercise because I think the Internet is a massive boon for social lives is pretty dickish. I boulder, run, play tennis. I read about thirty books a year. I have lots of hobbies. But the Internet has made them better. I write novels. The people who help me with beta reading are online, because no one IRL is interested in what I write. Again, expanding one's social circle.
        everdrive 2mo ago
        I didn't mean to sound rude at all :(
    - KPGv2 2mo ago

AnthonyMouse 2mo ago

When people say things like this, they mean the good parts of the internet, e.g. real people who are able to be honest because a pseudonym allows them to say things they would be punished by evildoers for saying if the evildoers could identify them. Taking that away doesn't get you out of the engagement-optimized ad funnel, it just makes that be the only thing left.

perching_aix 2mo ago
Having a digital ID does not obviate that (in principle), thanks to zero-knowledge schemes. To my understanding then, the issue is that the EU's implementation only has a ZK-based solution in the plans so far. But then this initiative says "No Digital ID", not "No Auto-Deanonymizable Digital ID", so...
- AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
  > Having a digital ID does not obviate that (in principle), thanks to zero-knowledge schemes. Yes it does, because zero-knowledge schemes take it as an assumption that all of the people who are supposed to have credentials can be trusted not to share them with people who aren't, since you're proposing a system that provides no means for that to be detected. And this context doesn't allow that assumption. With a normal ID, the entity required to demand ID compares the picture on the ID to the person using it, which obviously doesn't work when they're not being provided with any identifying information. You thereby have no way to know that the ID belongs to the user and anyone can allow anyone else to use their ID, thereby defeating the system. Which means that the proponents would never be satisfied with the result and the only thing building that system does is entrench something with the shape of a non-consensual identification system, which will then have any ZK features disabled (assuming they were actually implemented to begin with) when the consequences prove unsatisfactory.
  - perching_aix 2mo ago
    > Yes it does, because zero-knowledge schemes take it as an assumption that all of the people who are supposed to have credentials can be trusted not to share them with people who aren't No, ZK schemes have absolutely nothing to do with sybil resistance. That's a threat modeling concern anyways. If your point is that the entire digital ID plan is nascent because it remains vulnerable to sybil attacks, that it may very well be, and so indeed there would need to be extra-technological measures to ensure the 1:1 mapping. That is no longer a cryptographic or technological concern however, but a governance and incentivization one. It also means that it can't "kill the internet" then though, doesn't it? > which obviously doesn't work when they're not being provided with any identifying information. You thereby have no way to know that the ID belongs to the user and anyone can allow anyone else to use their ID, thereby defeating the system This is about digital identification. The facts you list off are beyond the analog hole. What you describe is (or at least should be) a non-goal for any scheme in this context, because it is fundamentally unsolveable. > Which means that the proponents would never be satisfied with the result and the only thing building that system does is entrench something with the shape of a non-consensual identification system This is (loaded) political speculation, not an argument.

agile-gift0262 2mo ago

I'd rather have the internet healed

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2mo ago

The Internet is fine and the bad parts will heal or remove themselves if we remove the actual bad thing: smart phones. The Internet is not supposed to follow you around hence the term "In Real Life" or "meatspace". If you want to be "terminally online" you need to sit your ass down in front of a computer for hours.

sodapopcan 2mo ago
> if we remove the actual bad thing: smart phones. That's a tall order, although there are plenty of reports of younger people switching to "dumb phones." I've switched to one myself. But how could you possibly stop it? They are terrible -- now that I don't have one anymore it's insane how many people are constantly staring at their phones, walking on the sidewalk, crossing the street, etc. It's really depressing. But ya, at this point I don't care if parts of the internet are fine and if I had the power to burn it all down, I would.

ecocentrik 2mo ago

Social media in it's current form is already dying to the explosion in synthetic interaction but the internet could survive and reshape itself.

83642736392 2mo ago

[dead]

djaro 2mo ago

I hope they kill the internet. Mandatory ID scans might be the last push I need to stop wasting my time on Reddit.

sodapopcan 2mo ago

You are not.

krater23 2mo ago

Are you old enough to remember the time where the internet doesn't existed? Sounds like not.

account42 2mo ago

Well you can just leave if you don't like it.