Gareth Fuller/PA Archive/PA Images
The 1990s drew a great deal of inspiration from the 1960s. In music, fashion and even politics, there was a reaction against the hard-edged 1980s and a return to the looser, softer feel of earlier decades.
That was certainly true of the first flourishing of internet culture. Virtual communities such as The WELL (Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link) were pioneers of what we now call social media. However, unlike the ruthlessly commercial tech giants of today, sites such as The WELL were a digital embodiment of counter-cultural values – indeed some of the founders were old hippies.
It’s not difficult to see why the internet of 20 or 30 years ago was embraced by idealists trying to build a better world. Here was an environment that brought people together free from the constraints of established economic and social structures. Furthermore it facilitated sharing, mainly of information, but nevertheless without relying on the price mechanism of the market or the top-down bureaucracy of the state.
A digital utopia beckoned.
Fast forward to the present, and things look very different. Corporate capitalism dominates large parts of the internet, while authoritarian governments call the shots elsewhere (sometimes literally). As for darker recesses of cyberspace, one finds not a benign counter-culture, but criminality and extremism of every description.
Rick Webb was one of those early optimists who thought that the internet was the way forward. However, in a post for NewCo Shift he admits his error:
“For the last twenty years, I believed the internet prophets of old… I believed that the world would be a better place if everyone had a voice. I believed that the world would be a better place if we all had no secrets.
“But so far, the evidence points to an escapable conclusion: we were all wrong.”
Not entirely wrong, of course. The internet has enabled many good and useful things (as someone whose job wouldn’t exist without it, I could hardly say otherwise). However, one can’t get away from the fact that the world is now encircled by a vast digital sewer, an all-pervasive conduit for lies, bigotry and mental poisons of every kind.
That is something that genuine progressives and proper conservatives should be able to agree on (if they aren’t busy screaming at each other on Twitter). I’m assuming that Webb is in the former category, but nevertheless his account of what’s gone wrong calls to mind some of the key ideas of conservatism (the Burkean kind, not the free market fundamentalism that masquerades under that name).
For instance, here he is on the problem with revolutions:
“I really, really, really want the world to be globally connected. I’ve never liked the idea of nations. I have always believed that particular core tenet of Silicon Valley. But it would be irresponsible, at this point, to not consider that it’s wrong.
“And if you stop and think about it, how surprising is it that it’s wrong? We are biological organisms with thousands of years of evolution geared towards villages of 100, 150 people. What on earth made us think that in the span of a single generation… that we could suddenly jump to a global community? If you think about it, it’s insanity. Is there any evidence our brains and hearts can handle it? Has anyone studied it at all?”
Then there’s his ‘critique of pure reason’:
“Silicon Valley likes to think of itself as a bastion of rationality. But if you think about it, Silicon Valley, like virtually every other organization or entity, has a set of core beliefs at the bottom of its philosophical pyramid that are just that: core beliefs. They extend beyond rationality. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ our declaration of independence begins. Every good philosophical treatise starts with these. Every debate starts with the polite agreement about defintions.
“What if Silicon Valley’s core beliefs — even the benign ones — are wrong?
“What if we were never meant to be a global species? What if Zuck’s wrong when he says ‘Our greatest opportunities are now global.’?
“What if information doesn’t want to be free?”
Webb concludes with a heartfelt apology:
“We were wrong. I was wrong. I am sorry.”
Contrition: in today’s world, that might be the most counter-cultural thing of all.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNormie, allied with basic competence, must surely be the way to go. De Santis seemed to have both until he went nutter on abortion.
America, like every where else, has strident nuttters occupying 10% of the vote, and 90% of the discourse, at each end of the spectrum. Trump is a nutter and Biden is controlled by nuttters.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult but at least you guys have people with ideas and energy unlike the focus group zombies here.
Maybe he could try completing a sentence without using the word “woke”?
yeh, who could possibly disagree with identity politics ideologues and blank slatists
yeh, who could possibly disagree with identity politics ideologues and blank slatists
The abortion thing really turned me off. Florida had a sensible 15-week threshold that 70% of people support. By reducing it to six weeks, he was pandering to the fringe. I would have more respect for him if I thought he truly believed abortion was an immoral act. But I don’t think this is true. He changed the law for purely political reasons, not because of any personal belief.
Maybe he could try completing a sentence without using the word “woke”?
The abortion thing really turned me off. Florida had a sensible 15-week threshold that 70% of people support. By reducing it to six weeks, he was pandering to the fringe. I would have more respect for him if I thought he truly believed abortion was an immoral act. But I don’t think this is true. He changed the law for purely political reasons, not because of any personal belief.
Normie, allied with basic competence, must surely be the way to go. De Santis seemed to have both until he went nutter on abortion.
America, like every where else, has strident nuttters occupying 10% of the vote, and 90% of the discourse, at each end of the spectrum. Trump is a nutter and Biden is controlled by nuttters.
It really shouldn’t be this difficult but at least you guys have people with ideas and energy unlike the focus group zombies here.
The problem with Ron DeSantis is he’s simply a product manufactured and propped up by the Never-Trumper Republican establishment class. This is how they think. They thought: “We can get those stupid American’s who voted for the orange menace to like this guy if we get him to start talking about things that fire them up like he does.”
So, they chose a few culture war issues, and he started hammering them. His positions got a mild response, but then it turns out that on issues of substance, like the Ukraine war (a sacred cow for the blue-blood Neo-Con Republican establishment) he’s a double-talker. In other words, he’s a phony. People can smell phony, and he smells like a rotten phony!
Trump, for all his faults…and he has a lot of them, genuinely believes the things he says, and the issues he takes on he believes in…and here is the thing, he will talk about things that the establishment doesn’t talk about. He’ll just bring them up, and say stuff that nobody in the media is talking about, and therefore they are telling us what the “significant-issue-of-the-day” is. He sort of marches to the beat of his own orange colored drum.
Really though, RFK Jr. is the real story. That man is a great man, a man of great substance, and I’m not even a Democrat. That man has some things to say, and if we are smart we will listen to him. He has, as they say “gravitas” like no one else running on either side. It’s like he was plucked out of another time, or another generation, and is here now in the political clown-world days to show us what a man of substance and character looks like, sounds like, and talks like. He has that sort of air of unstoppableness about him… I hope he doesn’t end up like his father and uncle.
The problem with Ron DeSantis is he’s simply a product manufactured and propped up by the Never-Trumper Republican establishment class. This is how they think. They thought: “We can get those stupid American’s who voted for the orange menace to like this guy if we get him to start talking about things that fire them up like he does.”
So, they chose a few culture war issues, and he started hammering them. His positions got a mild response, but then it turns out that on issues of substance, like the Ukraine war (a sacred cow for the blue-blood Neo-Con Republican establishment) he’s a double-talker. In other words, he’s a phony. People can smell phony, and he smells like a rotten phony!
Trump, for all his faults…and he has a lot of them, genuinely believes the things he says, and the issues he takes on he believes in…and here is the thing, he will talk about things that the establishment doesn’t talk about. He’ll just bring them up, and say stuff that nobody in the media is talking about, and therefore they are telling us what the “significant-issue-of-the-day” is. He sort of marches to the beat of his own orange colored drum.
Really though, RFK Jr. is the real story. That man is a great man, a man of great substance, and I’m not even a Democrat. That man has some things to say, and if we are smart we will listen to him. He has, as they say “gravitas” like no one else running on either side. It’s like he was plucked out of another time, or another generation, and is here now in the political clown-world days to show us what a man of substance and character looks like, sounds like, and talks like. He has that sort of air of unstoppableness about him… I hope he doesn’t end up like his father and uncle.
This is baloney on stale bread from a RINO.
This is baloney on stale bread from a RINO.
Don’t try to overcomplicate it – he’s losing because he is a horrible politician with grotesque policies.
Could you give some examples? I googled him, but almost every headline is about how unlikeable he is – very little on his actual policies.
Why don’t you start with his attempts to bully private companies and his subsequent humiliation.
I need to read more on this, but from what I can tell he seems to be trying to de-fang companies that are adopting Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) initiatives. From what I’ve gathered so far about ESG policies is that they are highly controversial and undemocratic. In effect, they circumnavigate democratic processes in order to place state decision-making power into the hands of unelected officials and experts. Disney, Bud-Light, and many others seem to have gone down this route which is why many of them are losing money. In short they are massively neglecting their duties to their shareholders (e.g. making profit) in order to promote agendas that are controversial to a large majority of the electorate.
What business of it of his what policies private companies choose to adopt? What has that got to do with democracy? You do know that Disney profits rose by almost 30% in 2022? ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority of far right wing extremists.
You seem incredibly poorly informed on this subject, much like DeSantis. I suggest you try to expand your sources of information beyond the conservative echo chamber.
“ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority…. “ You’ve given yourself away as one of the 10% of nutters.
No doubt you are also active on Twitter and the others. Probably all from a bedroom in your mum’s house.
I predict you will be active on here for a week or two then, like all the others incapable of a coherent argument, will go in search of somebody else to screech at.
Au contraire, cherie!
The “nutters”, as you so charmingly refer to them – you really should try to come up with your own material BTW – are the lunatic fringe who seem to feel that corporations should not be allowed to try to make the world a slightly better place for us all to inhabit.
I note that you did not try to refute the other points that I make. Good choice on your part!
I ditched Twitter the moment that Elon Musk took over – good decision on my part!
I’ll tell mom you said hey!
Au contraire, cherie!
The “nutters”, as you so charmingly refer to them – you really should try to come up with your own material BTW – are the lunatic fringe who seem to feel that corporations should not be allowed to try to make the world a slightly better place for us all to inhabit.
I note that you did not try to refute the other points that I make. Good choice on your part!
I ditched Twitter the moment that Elon Musk took over – good decision on my part!
I’ll tell mom you said hey!
You make a lot of assumptions here. Private companies are not islands unto themselves. They have vast sums of money and political influence at their disposal. I am deeply uncomfortable with company policies that run counter to democratic processes or enforce a moral framework that employees and customers may disagree with.
Disney profits and stock are actually down, not up. While there are many factors that contribute to this, one major reason is that most parents are uncomfortable with the company’s political and sexual messaging toward younger viewers. Yet, Disney continue to churn out movies and cartoons that net them very little profit (“Elemental”, “Lightyear”, and “Strange World” to name a few). The only people it seems keen on pleasing is a small group of very vocal activists who are more concerned about an agenda being passed through than it is about entertaining the majority of its customer-base. That’s rather strange, don’t you think?
ESG policies are deeply controversial, not just to ‘right-wing extremists’ (a term too easily applied to those who question current political orthodoxy), but to anyone who cares about democracy.
This newspaper article does a pretty good job of explaining it better than I can:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-insists-on-anti-worker-anti-democracy-esg-principles#:~:text=ESG%20represents%20a%20genuine%20threat,voters%20repeatedly%20and%20steadfastly%20reject.
I do try to live outside my ‘echo-chamber’ as you describe it. I understand that on the surface ESG goals sound noble and virtuous particularly if they support long-held and cherished views. But we do need to question where our views come from, how our opinions are formed, and be aware that human nature is deeply flawed. If people are suspicious of big companies accruing yet more political power, does that really make them ‘right-wing extremists”?
Thank you for your response to my previous comment. I’ll end this one with a quote from HL Mencken:
Densantis doesn’t have authority to govern ESG. He can forbid state officials from investing public money to promote environmental, social and governance goals, and prohibit ESG bond sales. This is perfectly reasonable as a governor. He can’t forbid private companies from investing or subscribing to ESG. What am I missing here?
“ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority…. “ You’ve given yourself away as one of the 10% of nutters.
No doubt you are also active on Twitter and the others. Probably all from a bedroom in your mum’s house.
I predict you will be active on here for a week or two then, like all the others incapable of a coherent argument, will go in search of somebody else to screech at.
You make a lot of assumptions here. Private companies are not islands unto themselves. They have vast sums of money and political influence at their disposal. I am deeply uncomfortable with company policies that run counter to democratic processes or enforce a moral framework that employees and customers may disagree with.
Disney profits and stock are actually down, not up. While there are many factors that contribute to this, one major reason is that most parents are uncomfortable with the company’s political and sexual messaging toward younger viewers. Yet, Disney continue to churn out movies and cartoons that net them very little profit (“Elemental”, “Lightyear”, and “Strange World” to name a few). The only people it seems keen on pleasing is a small group of very vocal activists who are more concerned about an agenda being passed through than it is about entertaining the majority of its customer-base. That’s rather strange, don’t you think?
ESG policies are deeply controversial, not just to ‘right-wing extremists’ (a term too easily applied to those who question current political orthodoxy), but to anyone who cares about democracy.
This newspaper article does a pretty good job of explaining it better than I can:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/biden-insists-on-anti-worker-anti-democracy-esg-principles#:~:text=ESG%20represents%20a%20genuine%20threat,voters%20repeatedly%20and%20steadfastly%20reject.
I do try to live outside my ‘echo-chamber’ as you describe it. I understand that on the surface ESG goals sound noble and virtuous particularly if they support long-held and cherished views. But we do need to question where our views come from, how our opinions are formed, and be aware that human nature is deeply flawed. If people are suspicious of big companies accruing yet more political power, does that really make them ‘right-wing extremists”?
Thank you for your response to my previous comment. I’ll end this one with a quote from HL Mencken:
Densantis doesn’t have authority to govern ESG. He can forbid state officials from investing public money to promote environmental, social and governance goals, and prohibit ESG bond sales. This is perfectly reasonable as a governor. He can’t forbid private companies from investing or subscribing to ESG. What am I missing here?
What business of it of his what policies private companies choose to adopt? What has that got to do with democracy? You do know that Disney profits rose by almost 30% in 2022? ESG policies are only controversial to a tiny minority of far right wing extremists.
You seem incredibly poorly informed on this subject, much like DeSantis. I suggest you try to expand your sources of information beyond the conservative echo chamber.
No self-professed socialist would nakedly defend massive corporations like Disney. What sort of bizarre troll campaign is this?
I need to read more on this, but from what I can tell he seems to be trying to de-fang companies that are adopting Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) initiatives. From what I’ve gathered so far about ESG policies is that they are highly controversial and undemocratic. In effect, they circumnavigate democratic processes in order to place state decision-making power into the hands of unelected officials and experts. Disney, Bud-Light, and many others seem to have gone down this route which is why many of them are losing money. In short they are massively neglecting their duties to their shareholders (e.g. making profit) in order to promote agendas that are controversial to a large majority of the electorate.
No self-professed socialist would nakedly defend massive corporations like Disney. What sort of bizarre troll campaign is this?
“Unlikeable” is a typical journalistic phrase by someone who can’t be bothered to do the work.
Why don’t you start with his attempts to bully private companies and his subsequent humiliation.
“Unlikeable” is a typical journalistic phrase by someone who can’t be bothered to do the work.
Please confine your comments to the Guardian.
Could you give some examples? I googled him, but almost every headline is about how unlikeable he is – very little on his actual policies.
Please confine your comments to the Guardian.
Don’t try to overcomplicate it – he’s losing because he is a horrible politician with grotesque policies.