It's Official: The Internet is The Worst Thing Ever

[The Great Zaganza]

If it's there when you are born, it's normal.

Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

-Douglas Adams

 

[Roger Ramjets]

it's an old post, but the incredible advancements in advertising/marketing/manipulation and their role in addictive of smartphones, particularly in children, is to me a huge issue with it

The date - December 25, sometime in the mid 1960's. The event - me and my brother opening our Christmas presents. "Wow, all those cool toys we saw on TV and desperately wanted! Thanks Dad!"

The date - December 26, the next day. All our new toys are now broken and/or we have lost interest in them. "Let that be a lesson for you.", says Dad.

Yes, there have been massive advancements in advertising/marketing/manipulation over the last 30 years. The average TV set is now over 50" diagonal and has way better resolution.

 

[The Atheist]

-Douglas Adams

Except that's not what drives my thinking, although the DNA quote does lead to the most important part of his piece - which long pre-dates the level of connectivity in 2023, as smartphones hadn't been invented.

Adams finishes with this:

We are natural villagers. For most of mankind’s history we have lived in very small communities in which we knew everybody and everybody knew us. But gradually there grew to be far too many of us, and our communities became too large and disparate for us to be able to feel a part of them, and our technologies were unequal to the task of drawing us together. But that is changing.

Interactivity. Many-to-many communications. Pervasive networking. These are cumbersome new terms for elements in our lives so fundamental that, before we lost them, we didn’t even know to have names for them.

He's quite right on communities, only it's becoming clearer that the kind of communities gaining the most traction are negative, and if you doubt that, take a look at the Brexit vote and who America voted in as POTUS in 2016.

I'm not some grumpy old geezer clamouring for the good old days - I am a web developer, have written Apps and listen to almost exclusively 21st century music. I never look backwards. What concerns me is the future.

The best guide I know of is the Global Productivity Index. Despite continuing advances in technology and methodology, productivity has been flat at best most of the 21st century, so it's clear the internet isn't aiding productivity, despite it being an obvious means of increasing it. How much it's hindering productivity won't be known until far too late.

 

[dudalb]

The Genie is out of the bottle and he cannot be put back in again.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....

The best guide I know of is the Global Productivity Index. Despite continuing advances in technology and methodology, productivity has been flat at best most of the 21st century, so it's clear the internet isn't aiding productivity, despite it being an obvious means of increasing it. How much it's hindering productivity won't be known until far too late.

What really is the point of increasing productivity if it only means you get a new one of something, you already, have that works just fine..

Pointless consumption is pointless and wasteful.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What really is the point of increasing productivity if it only means you get a new one of something, you already, have that works just fine..

Pointless consumption is pointless and wasteful.

I totally agree. 'Productivity' is defined as the 'value' of stuff we consume. But I am already consuming the amount of stuff I need, why should I buy more? My TV is 20 years old and still going strong, why would I want to buy a new one, and why should it have to be an 85" 4k model (same price I paid for my 32" set)? I don't watch TV anymore anyway, since the internet provides the information and entertainment I need.

Oh no, by disincentivizing us from buying more expensive products the internet is reducing productivity! OTOH during Covid lockdowns productivity plummeted, but there was something that kept productivity up by allowing people to work from home - the internet!

According to the World Bank, the growth of productivity has been slowing due to:-
- Reduced working-age population growth
- 'Stagnating' educational attainment
- 'Stalled' growth of 'global value' chains
- 'Weakened' labor reallocation toward higher-productivity sectors
- Natural disasters, wars, and pandemics
- Economic disruptions such as financial crises and deep recessions

Guess what's not included in that list?

When personal computers and the internet were invented, many of us hoped it would reduce waste - which it has done. People now communicate via email etc. rather than traveling to meet in person. Online shopping has cut down on the amount of 'brick and mortar' required. Games and movies are streamed online instead of being distributed on physical media, and the ability to self-publish at almost zero cost has vastly increased the amount 'free' information and entertainment available.

But this all comes at the 'cost' of lowered 'productivity'. Airplane flights are classed as 'productivity', emails aren't. But airplane flights are a net drag on the economy as they increase global warming and generally suck up resources that could be put to better use. The same goes for a lot of other 'productivity' which is really just a synonym for waste. If the internet is reducing that then it's doing what it was designed to do! Why would we not want that?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm not some grumpy old geezer... I am a web developer, have written Apps and listen to almost exclusively 21st century music

I was a web developer in 1996. I have recently written 'apps' too. We are 23 years into the 21st century and I am 65 years old, but I bet my outlook is more modern than yours. In fact I'm so modern that I've given up on conventional media - I now get all my entertainment and information from the net.

You say you aren't clamouring for the good old days, but then you complain about how the internet is full of 'porno', 'time wasting', 'misinformation' and 'scams'. Welcome to the 21st century!

I remember when the main reason to buy a video recorder was to watch porn, when magazines were full if misinformation and scams, and when people wasted their time in pubs and 'social' groups. So sure, the internet has taken over as the vehicle for those activities, but that doesn't mean the 'good old days' that you pine for were any better.

You say you never look backwards and are concerned about the future, but your concern for 'productivity' puts the lie to that. 'Productivity' (defined as GDP per person) is an ancient concept that we should discard in favor of sustainability and reducing waste and pollution. This isn't just something to be concerned about, it's an existential crisis - one that too many 'grumpy old geezers' are ignoring as they focus on the 'moral decay' of the modern world.

If you were truly a 21st century man looking to the future, you wouldn't be ranting about something so inconsequential. You say you are a web developer who has written apps. That means you have the power to make a difference by using the internet for good. I hope you are being productive in this area, not just coming here to vent about what other people are using it for.

 

[TragicMonkey]

My job is only possible because of the existence of the internet. Without it my productivity would therefore be 0. I'm curious how that could be a better state of affairs for my company, I mean they do get some value out of my work. Not that they say that, but I'm pretty sure if they didn't they'd pay me less than they do.

 

[arthwollipot]

My job existed before the internet, but has been made much more weird by it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I totally agree. 'Productivity' is defined as the 'value' of stuff we consume. But I am already consuming the amount of stuff I need, why should I buy more? My TV is 20 years old and still going strong, why would I want to buy a new one, and why should it have to be an 85" 4k model (same price I paid for my 32" set)? I don't watch TV anymore anyway, since the internet provides the information and entertainment I need.

Oh no, by disincentivizing us from buying more expensive products the internet is reducing productivity! OTOH during Covid lockdowns productivity plummeted, but there was something that kept productivity up by allowing people to work from home - the internet!

According to the World Bank, the growth of productivity has been slowing due to:-
- Reduced working-age population growth
- 'Stagnating' educational attainment
- 'Stalled' growth of 'global value' chains
- 'Weakened' labor reallocation toward higher-productivity sectors
- Natural disasters, wars, and pandemics
- Economic disruptions such as financial crises and deep recessions

Guess what's not included in that list?

When personal computers and the internet were invented, many of us hoped it would reduce waste - which it has done. People now communicate via email etc. rather than traveling to meet in person. Online shopping has cut down on the amount of 'brick and mortar' required. Games and movies are streamed online instead of being distributed on physical media, and the ability to self-publish at almost zero cost has vastly increased the amount 'free' information and entertainment available.

But this all comes at the 'cost' of lowered 'productivity'. Airplane flights are classed as 'productivity', emails aren't. But airplane flights are a net drag on the economy as they increase global warming and generally suck up resources that could be put to better use. The same goes for a lot of other 'productivity' which is really just a synonym for waste. If the internet is reducing that then it's doing what it was designed to do! Why would we not want that?

Good post!

 

[The Atheist]

What really is the point of increasing productivity if it only means you get a new one of something, you already, have that works just fine..

Higher productivity results in less hours of work required.

You say you aren't clamouring for the good old days, but then you complain about how the internet is full of 'porno',...QUOTE]

Showing you don't even read what I said. I didn't make any complaints about porn, and specifically said: I'm on the fence as to whether it's good or bad

'time wasting',

Evidence given.

'misinformation'

You might be happy that Brexit happened and that America elected a narcissist moron as POTUS. I'm sure neither would have happened without the internet.

and 'scams'. Welcome to the 21st century!

Quite right - why would anyone give a damn about 8 trillion dollars of cyber crime a year? It's just the 21st century. A few scams are no big deal, amirite?

I suspect if your health information had been compromised by hackers, or if you'd been forced to re-schedule cancer treatment due to the attack on Waikato Hospital's computers you might be a little less complacent.

If you were truly a 21st century man looking to the future, you wouldn't be ranting about something so inconsequential.

Ignorance is strength.

Trillions of dollars of cyber crime and attacks on critical infrastructure aren't inconsequential.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


He's quite right on communities, only it's becoming clearer that the kind of communities gaining the most traction are negative,

...snip....

That is a consequence of the dreaded "algorithms", we don't know that if away from the tuning the likes of Facebook and TikTok do to their networks that would be the case. The key metric they look at is "engagement" because that is what in the end they sell to the advertisers and certainly as an immediate reaction "negative reactions" will garner more "engagement" - it's the old trainwreck and watching part of human behaviour. But without the constant reinforcement by the networks of the next "negative reaction" there could be different outcomes in what sticks around.

ETA: And this isn't unique to the "internet", newspaper barons and the like have been doing the same for almost a couple of centuries. It used to take longer, and people did have time to think between "outrages".

 

[Puppycow]

US states sue Instagram over mental health harm

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has been accused of misleading the public about the risks of using social media and contributing to a mental health crisis among youth.

The claims were made in a federal lawsuit, which was announced by dozens of US states.

They say the company used addictive features to "ensnare" users, while concealing the "substantial dangers" of its platforms.

I don't really understand the legal basis for this lawsuit, but legality aside, they're arguing that social media is harmful to the mental health of young people. Other complaints include collecting data on kids under 13, which they're not supposed to do.

It feels a bit like a shakedown to me.

Large portions of the lawsuit are redacted from the public. But it specifically names features such as likes, alerts and filters that it says are "known to promote young users' body dysmorphia". Body dysmorphia leads a person to spend a lot of time worrying about flaws in their appearance, and often these perceived flaws are unnoticeable to others.

"Meta's design choices and practices take advantage of and contribute to young users' susceptibility to addiction," the lawsuit said.

Next, will they sue the makers of ice cream because some people eat too much ice cream and get fat? And the filters can be kinda fun. My daughter showed me some photos she took of herself with various filters a few years ago and we all had a laugh. One turned her into an old woman, another into a man, etc. Seemed like a bit of harmless fun to me. I even tried a few myself, although I certainly don't play with them every day.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Showing you don't even read what I said. I didn't make any complaints about porn, and specifically said: I'm on the fence as to whether it's good or bad

...and then immediately afterwards said "allowing an almost-infinite expansion in the availability or porn without a clue as to what effects it might have seems a dangerous thing to do."

You don't even know what effect it has, but you think it's 'dangerous' to have it on the internet. In my book that qualifies as a complaint.

You might be happy that Brexit happened and that America elected a narcissist moron as POTUS. I'm sure neither would have happened without the internet.

I'm not so sure. I think it was more newspapers like The Sun and TV channels like Fox News that were responsible. Plus the Deplorables of course. The internet didn't turn people into selfish bigots.

But hey, maybe you are right. Perhaps that's how Hitler came to power too!

Quite right - why would anyone give a damn about 8 trillion dollars of cyber crime a year? It's just the 21st century. A few scams are no big deal, amirite?

Cybercrime is a lot less dangerous and easier to protect against than other forms of crime. For example the shop I worked in had their website hacked (because the IT department was slack) and customers' credit card details stolen. The banks were pretty quick at detecting it and not much was taken. We were also the victims of a ram-raid (10 years ago - it's not a new phenomena!). The thieves got away with $30,000 worth of product and caused extensive damage to the building.

Online scams aren't working so well these days, while physical crime is on the rise. But even in the old days when internet users were clueless, cyber crime didn't have as much impact as physical crime. I have been the victim of break-ins and theft many times, costing me many thousands of dollars and signficant psychological harm. But I've never been hacked, and I don't personally know anybody else who has been either (apart from the one incident above which was easily preventable).

The argument that the 'net is bad because criminals use it is ridiculous. Should we close all the roads too because criminals use them? Of course not.

I suspect if your health information had been compromised by hackers, or if you'd been forced to re-schedule cancer treatment due to the attack on Waikato Hospital's computers you might be a little less complacent.

If someone got hold of my medical records I wouldn't be too concerned. A few years ago I was denied treatment because the medical center lost my health records. They would not accept the numerous physical documents I had which showed I wasn't an alien - only a birth certificate would do. Luckily I was able to apply for one online!

As for the Waikato Hospital's computers being hit by ransomware, that was largely their own fault for not having sufficient measures in place. Not surprising though. The hospital here used to put patients' names and room numbers up on a board so visitors could find them. They had to stop doing that because criminals would look up the names up in the phone book to get their addresses, then break into their homes.

At least I know that when I'm away from home cyber-thieves can't break into my computer and steal stuff from it, and I won't wake up to find one prowling around the house at 1am.

 

[dirtywick]

ETA: And this isn't unique to the "internet", newspaper barons and the like have been doing the same for almost a couple of centuries. It used to take longer, and people did have time to think between "outrages".

and you used to have to own a newspaper. and the manipulations now are so much more widespread and sophisticated, it's the same thing they've been doing but after a few centuries of refinement, on a much bigger scale on a platform with an already built in audience.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not so sure. I think it was more newspapers like The Sun and TV channels like Fox News that were responsible. Plus the Deplorables of course. The internet didn't turn people into selfish bigots.

But hey, maybe you are right. Perhaps that's how Hitler came to power too!

Thanks for confirming your total ignorance of both Brexit and Trump's election and the involvement of Robert Mercer's Cambridge Analytica in both. Murdoch was just as active when Obama was elected and it made no difference at all. Mercer was not.

Live and learn:

https://www.adwmainz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Brexit-Symposium_Online-Version.pdf#page=75

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...annon-and-cambridge-analyticas-role-in-brexit

http://www.berghel.net/col-edit/out-of-band/may-18/oob_5-18.pdf

https://www.politico.eu/article/cam...ump-britain-data-protection-privacy-facebook/

Cybercrime is a lot less dangerous and easier to protect against than other forms of crime.

Now's when you should be rolling your eyes at such an idiotic statement.

Just think, one genius from Christchurch can stop cybercrime and save $10T a year. Even if you charge 0.1% of the savings you'll be a billionaire!

Go for it, mate.

 

[dann]

... your total ignorance ... such an idiotic statement ... one genius from Christchurch ...

When you have no arguments and facts, you can always resort to ad hominem. It's what makes the majority of The Atheist's posts so inane.

Thanks for confirming your total ignorance of both Brexit and Trump's election and the involvement of Robert Mercer's Cambridge Analytica in both. Murdoch was just as active when Obama was elected and it made no difference at all. Mercer was not.

Live and learn:
https://www.adwmainz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Brexit-Symposium_Online-Version.pdf#page=75
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-scandal-fallout.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...annon-and-cambridge-analyticas-role-in-brexit
http://www.berghel.net/col-edit/out-of-band/may-18/oob_5-18.pdf
https://www.politico.eu/article/cam...ump-britain-data-protection-privacy-facebook/

Murdoch may have been just as active when Obama was elected, but it is not as if the internet as well as Facebook hadn't been invented: "It was the most downloaded mobile app of the 2010s."
And before Obama's reelection, "Zuckerberg announced at the start of October 2012 that Facebook had one billion monthly active users, including 600 million mobile users, 219 billion photo uploads and 140 billion friend connections."

'Live and learn', indeed, but don't expect to learn anything worthwhile from The Atheist's posts.

Now's when you should be rolling your eyes at such an idiotic statement.
Just think, one genius from Christchurch can stop cybercrime and save $10T a year. Even if you charge 0.1% of the savings you'll be a billionaire!
Go for it, mate.

'Cybercrime To Cost The World $10.5 Trillion Annually By 2025', and so bloody what?!

Is it even a reliable source? I don't know: "We’ve assigned a rating of unknown factuality to Cybercrime Magazine."
I assume it's supposed to be a kind of argument against Roger Ramjet's claim, and yet this piece of alleged fact says absolutely nothing since New research examines the cost of crime in the U.S., estimated to be $2.6 trillion in a single year (Vanderbilt.edu, Feb 5, 2021).


It's a little more complicated than simply presenting an estimated prediction of the costs of cybercrime by 2025.

Estimated crime costs totaled $2.6 trillion ($620 billion in monetary costs plus quality of life losses valued at $1.95 trillion; 95 % uncertainty interval $2.2–$3.0 trillion). Violent crime accounted for 85 % of costs. Principal contributors to the 10.9 million quality-adjusted life years lost were sexual violence, physical assault/robbery, and child maltreatment. Monetary expenditures caused by criminal victimization represent 3 % of Gross Domestic Product – equivalent to the amount spent on national defense.
Incidence and Costs of Personal and Property Crimes in the USA, 2017 (Cambridge University Press, Feb 10, 2021)

But even that is insufficient for making comparisons, since:

These estimates exclude the additional costs of preventing and avoiding crime such as enhanced lighting and burglar alarms. They also exclude crimes against businesses and most white-collar and corporate offenses.

Which I assume constitute most of money scammed and stolen by means of the internet.

If only one could think of a way to eliminate posts that consist of nothing but insults, pretend facts and strawman arguments against cherry-picked excerpts.

 

[dann]

Ask not what your country can do for you ...

I'm not so sure. I think it was more newspapers like The Sun and TV channels like Fox News that were responsible. Plus the Deplorables of course. The internet didn't turn people into selfish bigots.

But hey, maybe you are right. Perhaps that's how Hitler came to power too!

It goes without saying that Hitler was able to seize power without the internet. The Nazis were skilled users of radio broadcasts and films as tools of propaganda, and they did indeed succeed in turning an awful lot of people into bigots. (Most of them were pretty close already.)

However, you make one false accusation against Hitler, Goebbels and the other Nazis: that a German people of selfish bigots was what they were going for. It's one of those things they had in common with democratic leaders of state, Kennedy, for instance: "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country."

Neither fascist nor democratic leaders of state are particularly fond of the selfishness of ordinary citizens. They are big fans of people sacrificing themselves, sometimes ultimately, to make the state great (again).

In fact, Hitler blamed the Jews for being selfish. In his opinion, they weren't real Germans, good Aryans willing to sacrifice their lives to make the state of Germany, the Third Reich, powerful, the men as soldiers, the women as the makers of more (preferably blond) babies to grow up to be soldiers. (And he hated communists and socialists for more or less the same thing: They weren't nationalists, patriots. They weren't willing to sacrifice themselves to make Germany great again. Vaterlandslose Gesellen*.)

The demonic Jewish characteristic, according to Hitler—genetically inherited—was selfish individualism; his inability to sacrifice for a national community. Jews completely lacked the conception of “an activity which builds up the life of the community.”
“Jewish Individualism as Negation of the German Community” (Annihilation of “Selfishness Individualism”)

Isn't it amazing how much democratic (as well as Democratic) politicians have in common with Nazis? It is the reason why democrats fail at the criticism of fascism!
The standard argument against fascism and for democracy never gets off the ground because they have so much in common.

Notice how easy it is for many of you to slip into the same mode of criticism, for instance when ordinary people are blamed for global warming because they are selfish and unwilling to sacrifice whatever you think is an unnecessary luxury for the working classes. Austerity is decreed and claimed to be the solution to the climate crisis: You egotists and your hot showers!


ETA *Vaterlandslose Gesellen is the title of a novel:

1930 veröffentlichte Adam Scharrer einen gleichnamigen Roman, dessen Untertitel Das erste Kriegsbuch eines Arbeiters lautete. Darin geht es vor allem um die proletarische „Heimatfront“, das Buch endet allerdings mit einer Revolution der Arbeiterklasse. Da der Roman als kommunistisch angesehen wurde, verschwand er – anders als in der DDR – im bundesrepublikanischen Nachkriegsdeutschland aus dem Kanon der Kriegsliteratur. Andere Autoren interpretieren den Text indes als Protestliteratur.
Vaterlandslose Gesellen (Wikipedia)

In 1930, Adam Scharrer published a novel of the same name, the subtitle of which was A Worker's First War Book. It is primarily about the proletarian “home front,” but the book ends with a revolution of the working class. Since the novel was viewed as communist, it disappeared from the canon of war literature in post-war West Germany - unlike in the GDR. Other authors interpret the text as protest literature.

So it's one of those books that piss of both democrats and fascists. Democrats aren't particularly fond of unpatriotic (or even unAmerican) workers who don't want to sacrifice their lives for the nation.

And as the examples above show, including the Kennedy quotation, this attitude isn't caused by the internet.

 

[The Atheist]

Murdoch may have been just as active when Obama was elected, but it is not as if the internet as well as Facebook hadn't been invented...

Nice of you to avoid the clear fact of Mercer's involvement and prove your ignorance of Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook is only relevant as the tool Mercer was able to exploit. You're so far out of date you might as well be using a quill.

'Cybercrime To Cost The World $10.5 Trillion Annually By 2025', and so bloody what?!

yeah, that's hardly any money -only five times more than the annual US total deficit, so hardly worth mentioning... Duh.

Is it even a reliable source? I don't know:

Clearly.

And the sad part is, you admit to now knowing, despite how easy it is to check the numbers:

Forbes, Boise state University, and we know the cost was $6T in 2021.

(History buffs will giggle at the name of the guy who presented those last numbers!)

We’ve assigned a rating of unknown factuality to Cybercrime Magazine.[/url]"

Royal "we" no doubt.

 

[Nosi]

The internet makes it easier for lonely people to get together and feel like a community, but there's a bad and a good side to that.
It does save on postage though.

The Internet makes it POSSIBLE for many disabled people to live independent lives. I can shop, pay bills, and socialize without leaving my home, which is a painful, drawn out process.