NationStates Jolt Archive

Saw this piece while browsing around today and it struck me as to just how unique the web is, especially the way it exploded. I was screwing around with the web in the early days of Compuserve and Prodigy, so I can see how the scenario the writer posits could have come about. (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3fe9c4a-4bd1-11da-997b-0000779e2340.html) I'm glad it didn't.

...there are three things that we need to understand about the web. First, it is more amazing than we think. Second, the conjunction of technologies that made the web successful was extremely unlikely. Third, we probably would not create it, or any technology like it, today. In fact, we would be more likely to cripple it, or declare it illegal.

Why is the web amazing? Because of what people have built on it. Some might remember when the most exciting sites on the web had pictures of coffee pots in universities far away. (“See,” one would proudly say to a neophyte, “the pot is empty and we can see that from here! This changes everything!”) But now? When is the last time you looked in an encyclopedia? When is the last time that your curiosity – what is the collective noun for larks? Is Gerald Ford alive? Why is the sky blue? – remained unsatisfied for more than a moment? (An “exaltation”, yes and look it up for yourself.) Much of that information is provided by volunteers who delight in sharing their knowledge. Consider the range of culture, science and literature – from the Public Library of Science and Wikipedia, to Project Gutenberg and the National Map. The web does not bring us to the point where all can have access to, and can add to, the culture and knowledge of the world. We cannot ensure global literacy let alone global connectedness. But it brings us closer.

Why is the web unlikely? Prepare for a moment of geek-speak. For most of us, the web is reached by general*purpose computers that use open protocols – standards and languages that are owned by no one – to communicate with a network (there is no central point from which all data comes) whose mechanisms for transferring data are also open.

Imagine a network with the opposite design. Imagine that your terminal came hardwired from the manufacturer with a particular set of programs and functions. No experimenting with new technologies developed by third parties – instant messaging, Google Earth, flash animations . . . Imagine also that the network was closed and flowed from a central source. More like pay-television than web. No one can decide on a whim to create a new site. The New York Times might secure a foothold on such a network. Your blog, or Wikipedia, or Jib Jab need not apply. Imagine that the software and protocols were proprietary. You could not design a new service to run on this system, because you do not know what the system is and, anyway, it might be illegal. Imagine something with all the excitement and creativity of a train timetable.

The web developed because we went in the opposite direction – towards openness and lack of centralised control. Unless you believe that some invisible hand of technological inevitability is pushing us towards openness – I am a sceptic – we have a remarkable historical conjunction of technologies.

Why might we not create the web today? The web became hugely popular too quickly to control. The lawyers and policymakers and copyright holders were not there at the time of its conception. What would they have said, had they been? What would a web designed by the World Intellectual Property Organisation or the Disney Corporation have looked like? It would have looked more like pay-television, or Minitel, the French computer network. Beforehand, the logic of control always makes sense. “Allow anyone to connect to the network? Anyone to decide what content to put up? That is a recipe for piracy and pornography.”

And of course it is. But it is also much, much more. The lawyers have learnt their lesson now. The regulation of technological development proceeds apace. When the next disruptive communications technology – the next worldwide web – is thought up, the lawyers and the logic of control will be much more evident. That is not a happy thought.

The context (which I snipped) is that the web is celebrating its 15th anniversary this month. So raise a toast with me to the World Wide Web, and let's hope this guy is wrong about the next layer of innovation in communication.

Same thing happened with VHS when it came out. The lawyers where a little too late to do anything to restrict control and the courts threw it out I think. The corporations wised up and now seek to control the next medium of data storage, AKA, the DVDs, and beyond.

So control and regulation would appear to be counter-productive to innovation and creativity wouldn't it?

Saw this piece while browsing around today and it struck me as to just how unique the web is, especially the way it exploded.

Heh ... kinda makes me wonder about 1000 years from now ...

Imagine people in constant debates over whether or not the Internet evolved or was Intelligently Designed ....

Same thing happened with VHS when it came out. The lawyers where a little too late to do anything to restrict control and the courts threw it out I think. The corporations wised up and now seek to control the next medium of data storage, AKA, the DVDs, and beyond.

So control and regulation would appear to be counter-productive to innovation and creativity wouldn't it?
Yeah, the Supreme Court set a precedent with videotape--although it was Betamax, not VHS--that said a technology can't be restricted simply because it may infringe on copyright as long as it can be shown to have non-infringement uses. (Of course, they ignored that precedent in the Napster case, but that's another story.)

I think your conclusion is an accurate one, however--control and regulation do seem to be counter-productive to innovation.

Personally, I think that the WWW is a triumph of the human race - "Look what we can do when we all work together" - and I think that the lawyers can go hang, for the most part.

Jeez. It just makes me even more grateful that we have it now and also, more worried about it breaking up if that dispute about the site locator thing isnt cleared up.

the lawyers can go hang, for the most part.
Terrible thing to say. I've talked/argued with lawyers before I wouldn't wish hanging around with one on my worst enemy.

So control and regulation would appear to be counter-productive to innovation and creativity wouldn't it?

yup. humanity is essentially made up of creative geniuses. the only way to restrict that creative impulse is to lock everything up and sue everyone that disregards the regulations and state-backed monopoly rights.

I think the lawyers, paper shufflers and regulaters always lag behind the innovators (who often don't have good business sense or simply don't care.)

Therefore the next revolution will catch the bureaucrats with their pants down yet again.

I think the lawyers, paper shufflers and regulaters always lag behind the innovators (who often don't have good business sense or simply don't care.)

Therefore the next revolution will catch the bureaucrats with their pants down yet again.
Unless they bereaucrats change, I never want to see them with there pants down.

The development of the atomic bomb is another moment like that.

Regardless of monitoring and treaties, the secret is out. And even if someone doesn't know the physics now, they know one thing - it is achievable.

Some inventions transcend our civilization's attempts to confine it.

The development of the atomic bomb is another moment like that.

Regardless of monitoring and treaties, the secret is out. And even if someone doesn't know the physics now, they know one thing - it is achievable.

Some inventions transcend our civilization's attempts to confine it.

There are some noticeable differences though. One of them is application. Short of glassing a big chunk of real estate, there isn't much you can do with a nuclear weapon. Maybe an oversized paperweight, but that's about it.

The internet was a much more flexible technology so far as application went, right down to how your average person could benefit from it. That made it much more desireable to have, or take part in, than bomb ownership. Also, it is a lot easier to get than a nuclear weapon. Unlike nukes however, the primary drive behind the internets expansion once it achieved a semi-stable state was mostly private entreprenuership (Microsoft for one) wasn't it? Can't say the same behind nuclear programs.

The web truly is amazing. Never have so many people been able to come together and share anything and everything that can be typed, drawn, scanned or clicked.

And then there are revolutions within the revolution. Forums, online gaming, mass games like NS, mailing lists, email itself, chat rooms, eBay, and probably the latest one in mass blogging. I've found the blogosphere to be one of the most intriguing aspects of the net, having been caught up in it for a while myself.

Yep... truly amazing stuff, that WWW.

There have been three Revolutions in human history that have made us what we are.

The Agricultural Revolution- When cavemen realized that "Hey, if I plant this seed here, I can grow food for ME, under MY control!"

The Industrial Revoultion- Mass Production and Machine Culture

The Digital Revoltution- Current Revolution, where it will end up is a question mark.

And then there are revolutions within the revolution. Forums, online gaming, mass games like NS, mailing lists, email itself, chat rooms, eBay, and probably the latest one in mass blogging.

...

Yep... truly amazing stuff, that WWW.

Of course, many of these predate the web, some of them by over twenty years.

The main thing that interests me about the Internet is its potential as a method of spreading and mixing ideas. With the invention of writing, one could preserve ideas beyond one's memory; with the invention of the printing press, one could copy these ideas relatively cheaply. With the invention of the Internet, one can now spread ideas for almost no money at all. It'll be interesting to look at society in 10 or 20 years and see how contact with people from throughout the world has changed the mindset of the average person.

Of course, many of these predate the web, some of them by over twenty years.

and this is the true beauty of the internet. all it really is is a system for connecting various ends, allowing them to share stuff over and between networks. all the classy content is made up by people at those ends. and the internet doesn't particularly care about what that content is, it just passes it along when asked. which is why it works.

and this is the true beauty of the internet. all it really is is a system for connecting various ends, allowing them to share stuff over and between networks. all the classy content is made up by people at those ends. and the internet doesn't particularly care about what that content is, it just passes it along when asked. which is why it works.

True, but I was just making the distinction between the web and the internet which had got blurred as the thread went on. What can I say? I like Usenet. So shoot me.

I think the lawyers, paper shufflers and regulaters always lag behind the innovators (who often don't have good business sense or simply don't care.)

Therefore the next revolution will catch the bureaucrats with their pants down yet again.
I'm not so sure anymore. I was watching an interview with Bernie Marcus (Home Depot) and he thought the kind of entrepreneurship that brought the Home Depot into being was too hard, anymore. Now CEOs make the decisions with a lawyer on one side and an accountant on the other.

But if you take off into an entirely unexpected direction, you're right. They won't be able to do anything until afterward.

What can I say? I like Usenet. So shoot me.

man, i haven't checked out my old usenet haunts for over a year now. and my favorite of them pretty much died completely back in 2000.

man, i haven't checked out my old usenet haunts for over a year now. and my favorite of them pretty much died completely back in 2000.

My main three lurking points - rec.arts.sf.written, alt.audio.pro.live-sound & rec.games.roguelike.adom - continue to thrive, so I remain optimistic about the future of Usenet.

and this is the true beauty of the internet. all it really is is a system for connecting various ends, allowing them to share stuff over and between networks. all the classy content is made up by people at those ends. and the internet doesn't particularly care about what that content is, it just passes it along when asked. which is why it works.
I think the greatest part of it all was the user-friendliness of it. It took people like me who know very little about computers in general and made this huge amount of information not only available, but easily accessible to them.