It's a shame it took this long for journalists to realize what many of us realized much sooner: handing all the power to big tech juggernauts is dangerous. Even if they're using their power today to do things you agree with, all it takes is for one autistic billionaire to toss a few bucks into the pot and suddenly all that machinery is being used to do something else, perhaps something you don't agree with.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of independent server operators can decide what they want their communities to be like, and so there isn't one point of failure. It means there isn't machinery to totally silence and destroy your enemies, but it means there isn't machinery to be totally silenced and destroyed yourself. I've seen some new folks who don't understand this.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of independent server operators can decide what they want their communities to be like, and so there isn't one point of failure. It means there isn't machinery to totally silence and destroy your enemies, but it means there isn't machinery to be totally silenced and destroyed yourself. I've seen some new folks who don't understand this.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 3
- likes
- 3
I can't debate that. If someone who was both malicious and savvy were to decide to end the Internet, it's really simple: just end the Internet. Everything becomes an appliance again with one or two hard coded functions, and even the concept of a network stack goes away.
Not impossible, and every step the monsters take towards silencing all speech that isn't theirs is another step towards this. The telescreen is only a matter of time at the rate we're going.