The Game Is Up - World Future in Doubt

[neonlyte]

Of particular interest is the growing volume of information on the web that documents more and more aspects of human activity and knowledge.

(Sir) Tim Berners-Lee inventor of the World Wide Web hits out at the misinformation being spread across the Internet.

I think he means us - he's clearly pointing at Literoticans. This means:
- no more ten inch dicks
- no more eighteen years olds with mammoth breasts willing to fuck all night for a candy bar
- no more 'one look from the hunky fireman, Sven, made me cream my panties'
- no more false avatars and misleading names (this applies to you too 'shereads', now to be known as 'shreads and writes a little bit (mostly humour'

Hey - the guy makes a service available world wide where anyone can be just who they want to be - and he's worried about 'misleading information'.

Yours,
Sven (The Fireman)

 

[rgraham666]

It looks like Sir Tim has joined the ranks of Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein.

"My God! What have I done?"

To me the creation of the Web is like the creation of the printing press. It's taken the dissemination of information out of the hands of people with power and spread it around.

There are going to be consequences. The people with power will try desperately to get their power back. Witness the attempts to end 'Net Neutrality'.

And nutbars will get the chance to spread their own brand of insanity.

But like the printing press, we'll learn to live with it, balance out the bad and the good, come up with social and legal structures that let us deal with the Web on an ethical and useful basis.

 

[Pure]

it's a bit vague what Berners Lee has in mind.

i think we're all learning to find correct info on the 'net, and it's not that different from choosing a good book on, say, sexual anatomy.
look at the source; see ITS sources; compare.

if you want to know average penis or clitoris length, you pick a 'sex information' website, esp. one connected to a hospital or university.

just as you'd pick "gray's anatomy" and not the cover of a gay porn book for info on dick length.

trickier: to look for the medicinal effects of rosemary-- you wouldn't necessariliy go to a witchcraft site, but to one connected with a medical school. but then again the med. school may be biased or ignorant. how about 'academies of herbal medicine'? maybe they're good. but then again i can set one up right now, and have a website.


---
it's possible, of course, that the web's dissemination of FANTASY-- which most realize is such-- will have effects. so that's why i set up the thread about rape and porn. maybe it will encourage some fantasies. as to acts, that's the big question.

 

[neonlyte]

It looks like Sir Tim has joined the ranks of Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein.

"My God! What have I done?"

* * * *

But like the printing press, we'll learn to live with it, balance out the bad and the good, come up with social and legal structures that let us deal with the Web on an ethical and useful basis.

I think he's just positioning himself Rob. The WWW is going to change, it's too big for governments not be envious of the revenue it generates, they are looking to tax access and the ISP's are going to help them.

Dissing the so called 'misinformation' hints at regulation. Sir Tim has previously spoken out against regulation - the streaming of information on a pay per view taxable basis - looks to me like someone has tweaked his strings.

The 'printing press' - nice analogy. I don't know much about the 'pamphlet era' the Gestetner world, when anyone could turn out a handout with a stencil typewriter and a Gestetner press, but I'm betting there was a lot of rubbish spooled then.

 

[Liar]

...mammoth breasts...

Old and hairy?

 

[rgraham666]

I think he's just positioning himself Rob. The WWW is going to change, it's too big for governments not be envious of the revenue it generates, they are looking to tax access and the ISP's are going to help them.

Dissing the so called 'misinformation' hints at regulation. Sir Tim has previously spoken out against regulation - the streaming of information on a pay per view taxable basis - looks to me like someone has tweaked his strings.

Jesus, that scares the hell out of me, neon.

On my disability there's no way on God's green earth I'll be able to afford to use the internet if they start taxing it.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

10 inches is too short??

 

[Liar]

Jesus, that scares the hell out of me, neon.

On my disability there's no way on God's green earth I'll be able to afford to use the internet if they start taxing it.

Dontcha pay VAT on your net access already? I know I do.

 

[neonlyte]

Jesus, that scares the hell out of me, neon.

On my disability there's no way on God's green earth I'll be able to afford to use the internet if they start taxing it.

We'll be OK. What we do counts for nothing. We'll get a choice of feeds, fast at cost, or slow at lower cost. It's all relative, even slow access will be faster than most have now. But if you want hard information - that is where the costs will hit. Might lead to more misinformation - what do you think?

Hairy and old, Liar. I take it that wasn't personal But if that's what turns you on, I won't shave tomorrow.

 

[rgraham666]

Dontcha pay VAT on your net access already? I know I do.

Yep, but that's just on my ISP service. If I have to pay by megabyte of traffic or some other such form of measurement, I'm screwed.

 

[Tuomas]

Bah, the government can't charge you for the content of internet any more than they can charge you for the content of your telephone or voice mail. Not gonna happen

 

[Liar]

Bah, the government can't charge you for the content of internet any more than they can charge you for the content of your telephone or voice mail. Not gonna happen

Content provders can charge though. And do. If not you, they charge the advertisers.

Problem is what happens if traffic providers charge content providers to transport their content. What happened to that bill that was in the news, that spawned the "series of tubes" debacle? It was supposed to safeguard against that.

 

[neonlyte]

Bah, the government can't charge you for the content of internet any more than they can charge you for the content of your telephone or voice mail. Not gonna happen

Where there is a will, there is a way. Part of the reason why it is being explored, (under the guise of controlling 'real information') is VOIP - voice over internet protocol, Skype, Ichat and the others. Taxable revenue being lost through telecoms companies is reaching serious proportions. My own phone bill is a quarter what it used to be, I split my time between two European countries and rarely use the telephone to make calls. My calls are effectively the monthly cost of my two broadband connections, taxed at 17.5% and 21% in the two countries split my time between. My phone bills used to be circa £120 per month, now they are virtually capped at £30 per month regardless of how many calls I make, - tax saved is around £15 per month. Scale this up to the internet population and the loss of tax becomes significant.

That is why ways are being sought to tax information supply. It will be done through ISP's (Telecoms companies for the most part) by banding service charges according to the information users wish to access. The expansion of ISP services (bandwidth etc) currently makes this appear a little implausable - users are receiving larger bandwidth for lower prices - at the moment. The whistles and bangs will begin to roll out later. For example: guaranteed security, auto data back-up to ISP servers - of no real current interest to domestic users, not until all their family images and music collection is in digital form, then they face real loss. Consumers will 'buy protection' for an extra £10 per month. And so on. Expect to pay extra for live image feeds, TV on demand, even a full belt and braces WWW4 interface - you don't want it Sir, that's fine, we have a stripped down service for you, it's a little slow, and image resolution isn't great but it does the job.

Berners-Lee has always spoken out against moves in this direction, he's changing his tune - did he get it wrong before, or is he accepting the future that is being hammered out behind closed doors.

ETA:

Problem is what happens if traffic providers charge content providers to transport their content. What happened to that bill that was in the news, that spawned the "series of tubes" debacle? It was supposed to safeguard against that.

I think it was taken off the table - the Telecoms companies, who don't yet have sufficient control over the ISP's, kicked it off court. This is the discussion taking place in closed rooms, who gets which bit of the cake and how much can they realistically expect consumers to pay.