Maclean’s – The Internet Sucks

The October 30th edition of Maclean’s has an article (Pornography, gambling, lies, theft and terrorism: The Internet Sucks (where did we go wrong) – Steve Maich) that I think will catch the eye of many people and send some reeling and others will be affirmed in their beliefs. Before I list the points and my rebuttals, I would like to point out my take on the Internet.

The Internet, like any other implementation of technology is a means for us humans to become (stealing a lyric from one of Rob Zombie‘s best songs) “More Human than Human”. In the case of the Internet, it has extended our abilities as they relate to communication, knowledge storage and knowledge management. And now onto the points of the article.

1. There is an enormous amount of dark fiber that sits as a testament to the ‘net was supposed to be, but has yet to become
2. We are entering a second boom, evidenced by Google buying YouTube, Yahoo gobbling Flickr, Facebook and the like
3. The Internet was rated 13th of 20 of the greatest inventions of the last 100 years (they say this is laughable)
4. The speed at which communication travels has increased, but has not become enriched
5. The value of the Internet was inflated by the likes of WorldCom, as was it’s growth (1300%/a)
6. The Internet has diluted the worth of traditional media with a tide of amateurism and piracy (from Napster to Google Books, blogs to wikis)
7. Exchange of ideas has been limited to individualized echo chambers EPIC 2014/2015)
8. Gambling and Porn are the real winners in terms of profiting from the Internet as are other forms of vice
9. There is no going back, the Internet is too deeply entrenched into our culture

In an effort to keep this post short and readable, here are my rebuttals to the article’s points.

1. I agree with this, there is lots of it out there, and if we are to believe some other authors, Google and it’s kin are buying it up, and Friedman suggests that is/was the primary vehicle for the “flattening of the world” that we are seeing now. A waste of money? Yes and no.
2. We may be entering the second boom, but I don’t know enough to say if it’s going to bust like last time, as the services that are being assimilated are ones that are (for the most part) created by users and not by companies (like it seems that the original .com boom was).
3. Maich complains that the Internet should have been rated behind XRay, MRI and Radar that it beat out. To my mind the Internet has enriched these technologies and extended their use by extending our ability to connect to them.
4. We do communicate faster, but it’s up to the people involved to determine it’s richness. This has nothing to do with the tool, rather it has more to do with it’s use.
5. Worldcom, Enron and the like certainly found a loophole in the early part of the decade to trade in misinformation. Is this really a problem with the technology? Yes people invested good money on the lies of bad people. Likely the technology facilitated this, but does that make it evil?
6. This one is my favorite point. Basically it feels like the rest of the article feels – please pay attention to print that you pay for because it is the only reliable source of information! Ignore the fact that within a few days this article will be online and free for the taking! Starting with music, Maich says that “retailers like iTunes” (Apple!) have turned the music industry into an honor system for payment, Google Books will steal profits from publishers, wikis spread lies and blogs create echo chambers. What I think the Internet has done is that it has democratized the access to information. Just as the pencil had generations ago. Both tools write only what their respective users believe (maybe the follow up to this article should be focused on the pencil, arguing that it’s too late to go back to the chisel). Music hasn’t improved, but as Maich does point out, it has brought forward more artists than the previous model had been able to. On Google’s book scanning, this is in the news every now and again, but my two cents on it is that the books that are scanned won’t all be top sellers, they will be ones that are rotting in a vault somewhere as their publisher hordes them “to protect IP”. The final point on citizen journalism, being a blog, I have to agree on the echo chamber point, but on the rest? Wikipedia has been shown to have fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica, what does it matter if little Manjeet wants to write about the wonders of cats at the age of 6 for the world to read. Does that really lower the quality of work that the CBC or BBC produce in their documentaries? I don’t think so. What it has done is that it has provided a means of people to communicate what they feel about the established media (just like I’m doing now).
7. See 6. Maich does not point out EPIC, but should have to illuminate his point.
8. See 6 again. Are we to blame the tool, or those who use it? I see some of you pointing to guns (Guns don’t kill people, people kill people) and saying that we should ban the ‘net for the same reasons. Well, there are a few differences. I don’t think a 6 year old is going to read or contribute to the Anarchist Cookbook, but if given a gun may be able to pull the trigger. One technology revolves around the projection and amplification of communication, the other on force. What about gambling, sex and the like? Are we so naive to believe that these are modern vices?
9. I agree.

On the whole, I think Maich makes some great points that shake up my personal echo chamber (enough to make me think it’s worth blogging about), but ultimately I think he is blaming the tool, not the users that have merely taken advantage of what they have been presented with. But in the end the article isn’t really a unified argument and feels “ludite-like”/dystopian, strung together and dated, it almost feels like he’s trolling the Internet for controversy to help Maclean’s sell more magazines.

To “throw a bone”, I can see parallels in his main argument with the way that cities, schools or any large group starts to corrupt once there are spaces to hide and convenient ways to endulge. Once a group grows large enough will it fragment based on interests, regardless of what those are and the size and strength of these groups is limited only by it’s strength of communication. Why else do you think that communication is the key to governments and police?

Because of how it’s being used (well) and who it’s being used by (people who are not always the friendliest people) should the medium of communication suck? Criminals were using the telegraph and letter mail do do dastardly deeds far before the ‘net ever showed up.
For another take, check out Science Library Pad.