Now that the dust has settled, can we all agree that the Internet has been a net negative for humanity historically speaking?
>>18443313yeah but saying that makes you look stupid since you use it anyway so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>18443319The only way to wake the world up is to speak up brother. All the technoskeptic CHADS who agree are already offline
>>18443313internet is greatop must be a faggot>kek
>>18443341>t. thinks he escaped the matrix after reading 50 twitter screenshots
>>184433131: The dust hasn't settled at all.2: Absolutely not. The internet's effect on humanity has been generally positive on the long term. Very liberating.
>>18443374>2: Absolutely not. The internet's effect on humanity has been generally positive on the long term. Very liberating.How?
>>18443374I reiterateWhat exactly has the internet done for humanity that couldn't be done before it became widespread? We didn't need the internet to land on the moon or build the Empire State building. It seems like most resources on the internet is being focused on distracting social media shitposting, porn, and AI-slop, Now don't get me wrong, I love to jack off and shitpost as much as the next guy, it just seems like the world takes it too seriously. People seriously think they've uncovered forbidden knowledge by reading a few schizographs lmao
>>18443341>>18443374>called "the web" or "the net" (traps for catching unsuspecting prey)>durrr its heckin great i can jack off and go to my leddit hugbox!Yes I know there is potential to rapid information network but look where it's gotten us.>inb4 schizo
>>18443313The internet is fine, it's social media that's the true plague.
>>18443313All that really has to be done is restricting access to it outside of Europe, east-asia and the anglosphere.
>>18443313No, it was good to be able to share information freely. Before, it was all locked down by publishers and tv companies and such.
>>18443313Hell no, imagine going back to the days where looking at info meant reading 10 ton books in some library or get a dvd from a weird source. You can have that if you want, but i don't.
>>18443729You seem to be confused anon, people were allowed to freely share information before the internet, TV companies and Publishers weren't literally gatekeeping freedom of speech. You don't really have freedom of speech on the internet anyways
>>18443736I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you still need to dig to find useful information even online. The internet in general seems to be way more efficient at spreading misinformation than it is at spreading useful information. It never replaced traditional sources. C'mon guys you have to think more critically than this
>>18443375Broke the information monopoly hitherto established by television, print, etc. Made information vastly more readily accessible and allowed like-minded individuals to share thoughts and ideas they never could have before. Dethroned the megalopolis as the centrifuge of culture. Allowed for independent commerce.>>18443382That you think masturbating and shitposting are the only things you can do in the internet reveals more about you than about me.And to answer you, it allowed the two of us to communicate on a neutral ground without having prior knowledge of eachother. It also allows for rapid, on demand retrieval of information >>18443556A net is not inherently a trap. It's just a mesh of ropes. And you only believe what you believe because of the Internet. >>18443758Still massively democratizing. And plus if the topic is popular enough, odds are someone else was already there before you and you can stand on their shoulders. Rather than starting from scratch.
>>18443754There was no Anna's Archive before the internet. The internet has its detriments, but it's been great for disseminating knowledge
>>18443850Being able to bypass the constraints of the library and the physical book by itself was a massive leap.
>>18443854Did you know that back in the olden days if you stole a book from the library enough times the stock would run out and it would be lost forever? It happened with books critical of Scientology.You could literally take a book off the shelves. And this of course begs the question of publishing and whatsuch.
>>18443850>it allowed the two of us to communicate on a neutral ground without having prior knowledge of eachother.It didn't allow us to do this, it forced us to, because likeminded people aren't going outside anymore
>>18443929Well we wouldn't be having this conversation without it. Outside is a big place and just because two people are there doesn't mean they'll ever meet. Stumbling into anything fringe was basically a matter of random chance. And God have mercy on you if you live anywhere less than metropolitan. If that's the case then it's the Eltingville club for you.
>>18443943We aren't having a real conversation though, you said it yourself that neither of us have prior knowledge of eachother, we don't even know what we sound like or look like. When people converse on social media, it's less that we're satiating our social needs and more like we're just getting hits of dopamine from our posts getting responses and reactions like a video game, it's a fundamentally different experience from actually conversing with real human beings
>>18443313the Net is best test to one's character. One has an access to mindbogling ammount of knowledge, that would be a wet dream of any scholar 50+ years ago. With smarthphones even moreso, this access is 24h, any place.And yet, like 99% of the Web man-hours is spend on most subhuman activities like pasivelly scrolling socials. Go anon, jump into some rabbithole in wikipedia, it is the least you can do to your hermetic immortal soul.Or at least, don't just lurk here, you (yes you reading this!) should write something, engage with other human, don't be a mindless drone.
>>18443969>should write something, engage with other human, don't be a mindless drone.I find artistic pursuits far more rewarding in the real world, drawing, playing guitar, writing etc and with AI art flooding the digital space I feel like we're going to start to see more of a shift towards physical and in-person art in general, almost like a Neo-bohemian movement, but perhaps that's just my own wishful thinking
>>18443375Providing access to books, movies, games and contact with people from other countries? It 10x times critical if you living in russian shithole with very limited options offline.>>18443583This>>18443754>to freely share information before the internetIn the US? Maybe. In Europe (especially Eastern Europe and "ex"-USSR)? Hell no!
The internet itself was a great advancement. Social media, smart phones, and normies/browns/women having access to it are what made it a net negative.
>>18444298have sex
Lots of info available to everybody.Everybody gets to be a publisher.Much info, but also much bullshit.It grew exponentially, and critic thinking is more needed than ever to discern.Also, i think it's not social media, because forums were great. It's the naming: the loss of anonymity.People now refrain from polemic statements other than on anonymous webs.Full access has been a nightmare, also, because any dumb can post whatever uninformed shit. First internet were freaks but kind of educated ones, mostly techies. Now every nonsense poster thinks his/her shit merits and deserves to be read and considered.Like freedom of expression has turned into right to be given attention.
>>18445082The problem is that social media and discourse on the internet is framed as this two-sided thing when in reality it's very much one-sided, even this thread is a good example because we're just responding to OPs thread. Chatrooms are more neutral but it's also harder to get your point across amongst all the noise, especially if there's a lot of people. The internet is fundamentally structured in a way that everything has to either be a reaction to something (the original poster of a thread, a comment on a video etc) or a statement to garner reactions from (ragebait, editorializing/sensationalism etc). Once you realize this you begin to understand that fundamentally the internet actually isn't that great of a platform for sharing ideas. You have to essentially editorialize online because if you don't then it just gets lost in the noise and you don't get any responses.
I also want to point out that the so-called "wealth of information" the internet provides may not actually be relevant because the internet also provides a deficit of misinformation, which reduces its overall usefullness for getting knowledge. It's similar to the Library of Babel project (https://libraryofbabel.info/). The cure for cancer is almost certainly in there, but part of information theory concerns itself with how information can be gained, applied to the real world and organized, the Library of Babel is not that useful for finding the cure for cancer. And overall the internet may not actually be anymore or less useful for finding useful information than traditional sources are. The way you can gain information is more efficient for sure but this can go both ways
Conceded you have to dig to find, and then select, but the library is open 724.Now we have to navigate oceans of shit, but granted most useful info is here.Can't imagine having some conversations irl.
>>18445107> And overall the internet may not actually be anymore or less useful for finding useful information than traditional sources are. The fact it outright skips past the physical constraints and offers information on demand already makes it surpass the library system by leaps and bounds. Of course you still have to research, be discerning, etc. But I never implied this was no longer the case. And if what you want is to be passively fed a string of 'correct' information you can always watch TV.
>>18443313"We gave the flamethrower to Mclovetoburn and he went on an arson spree. Fire is evil".Of course the internet does bad things when you hand over complete control of it to a bunch of rabidly evil corporations who want to turn it all into social media engagementslop.
>>18443313yesthe internet is bad unless you understand that you shouldn't take it seriously
We have to deal with superstitious browns like >>18443556 shitting up everywhere with their favelaposting so
>>18443358>actuallyI like making infographics..RIGHT WING BASICShttp://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pi20Rr9_BxBbMIfcZUTTGslfZTifEiCmgoogle drive easy to use interface
>>18445426Is this how you become brainwashed? You just read garbage and badly sourced old books?
