zlacker

> So I would argue that you are completely wrong.

You could argue that, but it would be idiotic. It would be deeply and deliberately ignorant of e.g. Facebook complicity in ethnic massacres in Myanmar. Cambridge Analytica. Youtube as an engine of algorithmic radicalisation. The continued extremism on what was once Twitter. Online anti-vax disinformation. QAnon. All of Truth Social.

You posit it as "people vs governments" but that is not the reality. There is a third force. "The people" don't run the internet any more. A few incredibly wealthy oligarchs control most of it, and this trend is strengthening. Elon. Zuck. Jeff. Satya. Sergey. Rupert. You know who I mean from one or two syllables each and that's telling. This state of affairs requires government inaction as power consolidates.

> But most people, actually, have not lived through those "early" days

I have been online since the mid 1990s, so whatever point you might be trying to make doesn't apply to me.

The idea that "Government red tape ruined the internet" is just nonsense.

>>Sidebu+(OP)
Back then facebook did not exist. Hence, good times. Also, government regulations always come because people start complaining they got scammed or damaged in some way(usually due to their own ignorance), so government comes in and makes things worse for everyone. I am not saying there should be no legal framework for internet, but today it is just way too much and it stagnates progress, freedom of speech and overall usability of the whole thing itself.

>>Sidebu+(OP)
By the way, "back then", when there was no or little regulation, online businesses had to build trust by being reliable and deliver on their promises. That is why paypal could have even taken off as a business. Nowadays, with regulations, we are supposed to trust every company because it is regulated or might have some kind of legal danger for not providing services and whatnot, yet that is not the case in reality.

So again, i argue that internet before facebook, instagram, tinder... was in its golden age mostly due to lack of government involvement and too many people being online.

>>gethly+wb
> Back then facebook did not exist. ... so government comes in and makes things worse for everyone.

I really do not agree at all. The power consolidation that Facebook is a good example of is just not a government regulation thing at all. The opposite in fact. Government regulation being hands-off allowed the internet to become "5 giant websites that share screenshots from the other 4". And that they're largely uncountable.

The internet as it is today, with very little governance over the large websites that exist today, is terrible for the people who are online today. I stand by that. Removing regulation won't help, as the bad actors are already pretty much unregulated already.

>>gethly+Pb
IDK, this makes very little sense to me. You used to rely on but trust, and now you can't ... because government? You have to trust and it doesn't work? So maybe don't do that and you'd be back where you were?

The "mostly due to lack of government involvement" part that you abruptly pivot to in the second para is completely unsupported and does not tell a compelling story about how we got here. Try Cory Doctorow on "Enshitification" which does, and it's all about consolidation and large company leverage. The only way that government is involved is as a bystander who could have done something but did not.

>>Sidebu+oh
We do not have to agree. My point was that internet should be as little regulated as possible, as it transcends borders and governments. You see it in another way, and that is fine. I have no issue with that. Merely difference of opinion.

Cheers.

>>gethly+Fk
I don't really understand the argument that Facebook should have been allowed to consolidate its power by acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram ... because the apps are multinational.

Maybe those acquisitions should have been allowed, and maybe not. But the reasoning there is non-sequitur. The one thing simply does not follow from the other.