Why are we copying Beijing? (ANTHONY WALLACE/AFP via Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Jamie-Bartlett-Profile-100x100.jpeg)
Be honest — did you read UnHerd’s “cookie policy” just now, before you clicked “accept and close”? Have you ever read one of those notices? Or do you, like me, agree to anything and everything so long as you can get to the good stuff more quickly?
The reason these annoying little pop-ups exist at all is thanks to a recent-ish law which helps you understand what’s being collected about you online. It’s something that probably deserves a moment of your attention. But we’re spending more and more time online; who wants to waste it checking 20 tedious Ts&Cs a day?
The future of the internet will come down to tiny things like this: subtle decisions made at the engineering or regulatory level — stuff which most of us ignore because we can’t be bothered to find out what it’s all about. Are you curious about “digital object architecture”? Do you want to know who’s behind the “Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers”? A colleague of mine once spent weeks tracking this stuff — only to conclude that internet protocols are “simply too impenetrable and boring to feel angry about”. Nobody cares. Nobody, except the autocrats of the world, who are quietly trying to wrestle control over various working groups and technical decisions — to make sure they can tame the digital beast.
Given our abject dependency on it, it’s scary to think of the internet as a flimsy experiment. But it’s already changed shape several times over its short life: from a government-funded research project for military scientists, to an academic network, to a vehicle for e-commerce and now a platform for social content. Through it all one thing remained constant, in theory if not always in practice: the idea that the internet was a single open network which anyone could join, and where everything was connected via a standard set of protocols and rules.
According to a new book, that’s about to change. Four Internets argues that the era of a single internet might be drawing to a close, replaced by a balkanised network of different versions living alongside each other. Scholars Wendy Hall and Kieron O’Hara reckon four internets in particular are already taking shape.
The “Silicon Valley” model is open and libertarian — anyone can join the network, no single authority is in charge and there are few rules about what sort of information can be transported across the network. Its modus operandi is to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. This is the original vision and remains just about still on top.
The “Washington DC” version, by contrast, prioritises data collection and corporate interests. It doesn’t mind big tech firms collecting massive amounts of information on citizens, providing it generates profits and excellent products for consumers to enjoy.
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.
SubscribeI think after the destruction of Parler by the giants of Silicon Valley, the notion that the open internet anyone can join should be called the “Silicon Valley” model needs rethinking.
Rather than forcing people to register for social media, make it voluntary but allow people the option of only seeing posts from registered accounts. That way, the anonymous trolls can be instantly blocked by those who wish.
I agree. I’ve suggested this many times, but it doesn’t appear to have any support.
Keep suggesting it. Maybe it will eventually snowball.
There is another way to encourage better behaviour from FB and Twitter uses and that is to make people pay for it. This is not foolproof of course.
Perhaps right with regards to FB and twitter…
But within weeks, months there will be another platform and another free way of doing it.
Completely agree with your sentiment, but the genie’s out of the box and halfway on its way to an all expenses holiday in the Seychelles
The alternative platforms are battling to attract punters though. And that is because of established networks on the original platforms.
That’s true
As soon as regulation is forced on them however, or if their freedom is prohibited in some way, people will migrate to other platforms.
Napster wasn’t the death of free (illegal) music online for example, and just paved way for other means.
It’s a real problem as governments most certainly should be getting a grip on this, but at the same time it’s hard to see how they can do it without the authoritarianism highlighted in the article. Or just without pushing it elsewhere.
It’s a modern day prohibition-style conundrum
“If the goal is noble, the method is not”
The goal is not noble.
Another aspect of all this that I’ve rarely seen commented on is the extent to which Internet users’ horizons have narrowed. To many people, “The Internet” means social media, instant messaging and online shopping). But these are not the Internet, they are just services which run on the Internet. When a cabinet minister speaks approvingly of Apple’s decision to scan for SCAM on people’s phones and iPads, and suggests that Facebook should folow suit, he’s merely betraying that he doesn’t understand the difference between software and hardware, and between a device and its content. It’s like confusing a car with the road it travels on, or a bus with its passengers.
This may not matter to most people who just want to get on with their lives and use whatever services they feel most at home with. But the extent to which our lives are now increasingly conducted online, from banking to interacting with the local council, means that whoever controls the Internet controls our lives.
Nobody cares who ICANN is, or what ICANN does? Well, maybe it’s time to start caring. Because authoritarian regimes would love to have ICANN in their pocket, or replace ICANN with organisations that are already in their pocket. Arguing about whether we should have to give Facebook our personal details in order to sign up will all be rendered moot if the people who run the wires that the Internet travels over obtain the power to block people they disapprove of from even accessing Facebook.
“According to a recent YouGov survey, 78% of us want users to disclose their real identity when signing up on social media”
And I hope this is extended to voting. Every vote made a matter of permanent and public record. Want to vote Trump? Well F* c*ing Own it Then! Sounds fair.
From your posting history, which I’ve often agreed with and given several thumbs up, I genuinely wouldn’t have had you down for one of the usual ‘shoehorn anything anti-Trump in’ types.
Has your account been hacked by one of the Guardian lot?
Rare mis-step from you! The secret ballot is the heart of democracy. Can you imagine the bullying and cancel culture that would come out of a public voting record?