Sir Tim Berners-Lee warns of widening digital divide(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Sir Tim Berners-Lee warns of widening digital divide
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56367719
128 comments
> The internet snatched civilization destruction from the jaws of progress.
Remarkable how someone can post this bad take on the internet on the internet forum for the most internet-connected people who work on the internet.
I'm old enough to remember when the internet was a liberatory technology. Even facebook/twitter were getting praised as recently as 2011 for the Arab Spring. And of course, even today, "cut off internet access" is a key checklist item for repressive governments.
That doesn't mean there aren't severe problems being caused by social networks, but we should be specific about what they are and targeted in our solutions.
Remarkable how someone can post this bad take on the internet on the internet forum for the most internet-connected people who work on the internet.
I'm old enough to remember when the internet was a liberatory technology. Even facebook/twitter were getting praised as recently as 2011 for the Arab Spring. And of course, even today, "cut off internet access" is a key checklist item for repressive governments.
That doesn't mean there aren't severe problems being caused by social networks, but we should be specific about what they are and targeted in our solutions.
I grew up on the Internet, made a living with it for a long time, and still spend a good portion of time online. Making things for the Web is one of my favorite things to do ever.
I was one of the early "adopters" of attached life, often neglecting "meatspace" pursuits in its favor.
We have created some huge problems for ourselves and for others, and we have to work hard on solving them.
I was one of the early "adopters" of attached life, often neglecting "meatspace" pursuits in its favor.
We have created some huge problems for ourselves and for others, and we have to work hard on solving them.
Remember also that the arab spring featured some coups, G was found to be shaping traffic during some of the re-elections to shift voting. Internet is not inherently good or neutral.
Totally agree those actions would be an abuse of power, but Google is not the internet. Google is among the most powerful entities on the internet. I worry that it wields the power of a nation state without the checks and obligations that constrain actual nations. But I can imagine a post-Google world where the internet persists. I think the internet is neutral. We users are not.
> I worry that it wields the power of a nation state without the checks and obligations that constrain actual nations.
The power of a nation state is based on its ability to maintain and control property, levy taxes and enforce compliance with its authority through a monopoly on violence. The premise that Google or any web platform has anything near the power of a nation state is ridiculous.
Also, Google isn't an independent state, they're a corporation and as such are subject to the laws of the nation(s) in which they operate. They do what they do because governments allow them to, not because they have the power to defy governments at will.
The power of a nation state is based on its ability to maintain and control property, levy taxes and enforce compliance with its authority through a monopoly on violence. The premise that Google or any web platform has anything near the power of a nation state is ridiculous.
Also, Google isn't an independent state, they're a corporation and as such are subject to the laws of the nation(s) in which they operate. They do what they do because governments allow them to, not because they have the power to defy governments at will.
Very nice, krapp. Despite the downvotes, you've given me some things to think about this weekend. I will concede I was hyperbolic in equating Google with a nation. I've picked that up from sci fi and futurist stuff, but I'll have to think about how it would work in reality, for a corporation to gain that kind of authority.
In my opinion, Google is more of a monitoring station for governments, [1] as is Facebook [2]. I agree that they do not hold the power to directly levy taxes or enforce compliance on their own accord. They can probably influence voting and other aspects of public perception. Netflix has a show called "The Great Hack" [3] that starts to go down this rabbit hole as well.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKxUYl3WSE
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shpiVm1qpnw
[3] - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4736550/
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKxUYl3WSE
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shpiVm1qpnw
[3] - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4736550/
Do you have a source for Google shaping traffic during some re-elections to shift voting? I ask as I have never heard this, it's a big deal if true, and sounds like a conspiracy theory (nb: how it sounds does not make it false).
See @linuxbender's reply, The Great Hack was where I heard about it first.
> Internet is not inherently good or neutral.
I agree! But, given that it exists, acting against it is hardly neutral either. I would argue - and this is deliberately a separate post from the top of thread - that many of the problems come from techno-libertarianism mistaking neutrality for impartiality, and assuming that a technology that doesn't explicitly mention politics is apolitical.
The internet allows true information to circumvent censors and permit the organisation of dissident groups against repression. It also permits the circulation of false or misleading information which has the effect of promoting violence and repression. Trying to distil this down to "internet good" or "internet bad" without having a clearly articulated politics is silly.
I agree! But, given that it exists, acting against it is hardly neutral either. I would argue - and this is deliberately a separate post from the top of thread - that many of the problems come from techno-libertarianism mistaking neutrality for impartiality, and assuming that a technology that doesn't explicitly mention politics is apolitical.
The internet allows true information to circumvent censors and permit the organisation of dissident groups against repression. It also permits the circulation of false or misleading information which has the effect of promoting violence and repression. Trying to distil this down to "internet good" or "internet bad" without having a clearly articulated politics is silly.
> Technology is not inherently good or neutral.
FTFY
FTFY
Boredom is good for you but it's damn boring
Such an easy thing to say from a privileged position in (probably) the richest country on Earth. I was lucky enough to be born in one of those "remote locations", which you could not find on the map if your life depended on it. The internet connection I now have _enables_ my creativity, however limited. It allows me to learn and use technologies I wouldn't even know existed. I'd rather off myself than go back to ye olden times when the only thing I had to entertain myself was a limited collection of 40-year old books from a local library.
This is a mis-understanding of the OP. The internet is inherently a very __useful__ tool. The problem is that social-media companies have turned the need for social interaction into a crack-like addiction (by design) where peoples attention-spans are being sold piecemeal.
Social media is often a junk-food version of social interactions designed to sell ads to people. This leads to short attention spans and social anxieties. How many dinner tables have you sat at where couples sit there on their phones, and scarcely talk? This seems commonplace now...
Social media is often a junk-food version of social interactions designed to sell ads to people. This leads to short attention spans and social anxieties. How many dinner tables have you sat at where couples sit there on their phones, and scarcely talk? This seems commonplace now...
I take those dinner table situations as a challenge; in invitation to making that moment more interesting than their phones.
> The internet connection I now have _enables_ my creativity, however limited. It allows me to learn and use technologies I wouldn't even know existed
100% agree. The internet provides knowledge right at your fingertips. It is amazing and sad at the same time that most people don't take full advantage of this.
> I'd rather off myself than go back to ye olden times
However, I have 99.999% confidence that you or most of us wouldn't do this. Human beings are extremely adaptable.
100% agree. The internet provides knowledge right at your fingertips. It is amazing and sad at the same time that most people don't take full advantage of this.
> I'd rather off myself than go back to ye olden times
However, I have 99.999% confidence that you or most of us wouldn't do this. Human beings are extremely adaptable.
Internet makes the smart smarter and the dumb dumber. Its an amplifier. Same thing with Twitter, you can find amazing independent content or you can end up with commenting and dunking the outrage story of the day.
>when they don't have the internet to destroy creativity and distract people from using their imaginations.
There is no way that the internet is solely to blame for a child's creativity and imagination dying. Think about the billions and billions of creative projects on the internet.
I'm afraid that what you've done with that line is sort of romanticize some fictional past where kids were kids and men were men and women were women. There was always something that people tried to blame the death of creativity on - when I was a kid it was TV. When my grandfather was a kid, it was reading and books.
While I agree that "social" media is destroying many social conventions, I absolutely disagree that the internet is to blame for killing childhood creativity.
There is no way that the internet is solely to blame for a child's creativity and imagination dying. Think about the billions and billions of creative projects on the internet.
I'm afraid that what you've done with that line is sort of romanticize some fictional past where kids were kids and men were men and women were women. There was always something that people tried to blame the death of creativity on - when I was a kid it was TV. When my grandfather was a kid, it was reading and books.
While I agree that "social" media is destroying many social conventions, I absolutely disagree that the internet is to blame for killing childhood creativity.
yeah it just looks different. Instead of watercolors they're spending more time in minecraft and roblox. Are those worse for kids? It's too early to tell but I certainly doubt it.
In my experience kids still love doing watercolors too.
In my experience kids still love doing watercolors too.
My daughter does art daily. She also builds intricate cities in Minecraft. It blows my mind how detailed a 7 year old could get.
I suspect building in 3D is going to provide some spatial benefits that drawing doesn't.
I suspect building in 3D is going to provide some spatial benefits that drawing doesn't.
You have to view things from a bigger timeline. The Internet is only about 25 years old. In the grand span of human history, that is nothing. It's so insignificant that making final pronouncements about it is really nonsensical.
I always go back to the printing press analogy. It took about 50 to 100 years after its invention for serious societal change to start happening: The Reformation, Counter-Reformation, birth of Protestantism, etc.
Give it time. Networked communication is just getting started.
I always go back to the printing press analogy. It took about 50 to 100 years after its invention for serious societal change to start happening: The Reformation, Counter-Reformation, birth of Protestantism, etc.
Give it time. Networked communication is just getting started.
While I agree with other replies to your comment that the internet became prolific/mainstream much faster than the printing press, I think your point still stands when looking at things from the perspective of a human life or culture. We're still the same humans that we were back when things perhaps didn't change as rapidly.
Sure, the internet was a lot faster at becoming ubiquitous, but humans are still humans. Our society still needs time to adapt to internet, because 25 years old, as you point out, is really not that much on the scale of a human life or an institution or society.
Sure, the internet was a lot faster at becoming ubiquitous, but humans are still humans. Our society still needs time to adapt to internet, because 25 years old, as you point out, is really not that much on the scale of a human life or an institution or society.
Proliferation of the Internet is much faster than that of the printing press, because vast majority of the population is now able to read and write. In the late 1400s, reading books was a fringe activity of a few educated people, mostly priests.
People under 30 do not remember the world without Internet anymore; 25 years is a generation. That said, it is really too soon to proclaim any final judgments.
People under 30 do not remember the world without Internet anymore; 25 years is a generation. That said, it is really too soon to proclaim any final judgments.
I’m just saying, Bitcoin barely existed a decade ago. YouTube barely existed 15 years ago. Google barely existed 20 years ago. A lot has happened in a very short period of time. It might take awhile to unravel these things.
The iPhone isn’t even 15 years old. People have cats older than that.
My work was talking about a 10 year plan yesterday. In the back of my mind I couldn't help but realise that the majority of the population was just getting smart phones 10-11 years ago.
My parents didn't know what WiFi was, internet culture was still largely for nerds, etc.
My parents didn't know what WiFi was, internet culture was still largely for nerds, etc.
How does the rate of spread of the Internet compare to that of the printing press? I think the ubiquity of the internet is what makes people comfortable to judge it as if it is mature.
By 1500, printing presses in operation throughout Western Europe had already produced more than twenty million volumes.
It took roughly 30 or 40 years for the press to be widely distributed around Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_spread_of_the_printing_...
> I think the ubiquity of the internet is what makes people comfortable to judge it as if it is mature.
Technology isn't going to stay exactly the same indefinitely. It just seems like a complete lack of imagination about the future to me.
It took roughly 30 or 40 years for the press to be widely distributed around Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_spread_of_the_printing_...
> I think the ubiquity of the internet is what makes people comfortable to judge it as if it is mature.
Technology isn't going to stay exactly the same indefinitely. It just seems like a complete lack of imagination about the future to me.
Is the internet really to blame though? It can be a great way to meet new people and establish local groups.
I think the bigger issue has been the lengthening of working hours (imagine working just 9 to 5), and recently of course, the lockdowns.
I think the bigger issue has been the lengthening of working hours (imagine working just 9 to 5), and recently of course, the lockdowns.
My take is that we're still adapting to and experimenting with how to live with the internet, given how it fundamentally changes so much and the transition is still very much ongoing.
Every revolutionary technology probably generated similar amounts of hysteria about the end of civilization - think about the printing press, industrialization (luddites), TVs, etc.
Eventually things should find a happy equilibrium, it just doesn't happen immediately. But it's assuming too much to think no solution today = no solution forever.
Every revolutionary technology probably generated similar amounts of hysteria about the end of civilization - think about the printing press, industrialization (luddites), TVs, etc.
Eventually things should find a happy equilibrium, it just doesn't happen immediately. But it's assuming too much to think no solution today = no solution forever.
"The Internet" isn't to blame. The problem is advert funded media & technology and the 'free market' of eyeballs.
Competitive markets; our greatest engine of innovation and creation are racing to discover our biggest weaknesses and exploit them mercilessly.
This is inevitable — at its core ad-tech is a market in manipulation. There's no possible band-aid fix to square the circle: Markets innovate for their customers. Even google must constantly optimise to better manipulate the public or be beaten by those who will.*
We really need to get out from under this because machine learning makes it terrifying. We already have recovering addicts targetted to re-ignite their addictions. Eventually the technology will be good enough to make addicts of us all.
In my view the answer is to nationalize product discovery. Have a free to use government run product register. Let industries create open standards for product specifications and have real legal penalties for deception. Have product reviews with again real penalties for fraud.
Ban all paid promotion of products. Pay anyone selling adverts today 90% of last years revenue to run socially beneficial nonsense (call your gran, eat some veggies, go for a run). Until the whole thing is wound down.
* There's an interesting meta-possibility here where ad-tech platforms manipulate and bamboozle their real customers _the advertisers_. Facebook lying about video plays for example. This is probably the best outcome for society! Naturally the legal system punishes it sharply.
Competitive markets; our greatest engine of innovation and creation are racing to discover our biggest weaknesses and exploit them mercilessly.
This is inevitable — at its core ad-tech is a market in manipulation. There's no possible band-aid fix to square the circle: Markets innovate for their customers. Even google must constantly optimise to better manipulate the public or be beaten by those who will.*
We really need to get out from under this because machine learning makes it terrifying. We already have recovering addicts targetted to re-ignite their addictions. Eventually the technology will be good enough to make addicts of us all.
In my view the answer is to nationalize product discovery. Have a free to use government run product register. Let industries create open standards for product specifications and have real legal penalties for deception. Have product reviews with again real penalties for fraud.
Ban all paid promotion of products. Pay anyone selling adverts today 90% of last years revenue to run socially beneficial nonsense (call your gran, eat some veggies, go for a run). Until the whole thing is wound down.
* There's an interesting meta-possibility here where ad-tech platforms manipulate and bamboozle their real customers _the advertisers_. Facebook lying about video plays for example. This is probably the best outcome for society! Naturally the legal system punishes it sharply.
> I think the bigger issue has been the lengthening of working hours (imagine working just 9 to 5)
I'm pretty surprised to see this framed as if it's unrealistic. I have what you'd probably call a "very good" job, judging by my comp and the "coolness" of what I work on, and I work a hard 10-6. Based on the way people talk about it, I used to wonder when I'd hit the point in my career when I "arrived" and wasn't able to escape overworking, but I eventually accepted that this "common knowledge" is nonsense.
Work/life balance is ultimately a choice. Unless you're in dire poverty, you have degrees of freedom to trade off between work/life balance, comp, how engaging the work is, etc. I have a friend who makes 20% more than me, has 100x worse WLB and working environment, and has a less interesting job. I'm 100% sure I don't want his job... But I'm reasonably sure he wouldn't want mine (he's a workaholic and likes money a lot more than I do).
I'm pretty surprised to see this framed as if it's unrealistic. I have what you'd probably call a "very good" job, judging by my comp and the "coolness" of what I work on, and I work a hard 10-6. Based on the way people talk about it, I used to wonder when I'd hit the point in my career when I "arrived" and wasn't able to escape overworking, but I eventually accepted that this "common knowledge" is nonsense.
Work/life balance is ultimately a choice. Unless you're in dire poverty, you have degrees of freedom to trade off between work/life balance, comp, how engaging the work is, etc. I have a friend who makes 20% more than me, has 100x worse WLB and working environment, and has a less interesting job. I'm 100% sure I don't want his job... But I'm reasonably sure he wouldn't want mine (he's a workaholic and likes money a lot more than I do).
>Is the internet really to blame though?
You think kids are going to use the internet for homework and research?
You think kids are going to use the internet for homework and research?
I wonder what the age distribution of porn discovery looks like. Back in my day, I had to put-up with one of my neighbor friend's dad's Danish spank mags where you couldn't see anything due to follicular foliage in the way.
I found my first pornography in a makeshift treehouse in the middle of a paddock next to a church, the irony was lost on a younger me. An almost wholesome experience compared to the firehose of pornography available for free now.
It's handing out heroin to anyone who wants it rather than handing out clean needles.
+ Attention atrophy (at a developmental stage, no less)
The major engagement-driven platforms are chasing metrics, to the detriment of the future.
Turns out, the world isn't quite as easy or quickly rewarding as Cookie Clicker.
The major engagement-driven platforms are chasing metrics, to the detriment of the future.
Turns out, the world isn't quite as easy or quickly rewarding as Cookie Clicker.
Yep. And then you end up with hunched phone zombies almost getting run-over crossing a street because they can't quit looking at the next Tinder. When they finally do meet, they lack the social skills to do anything, and just camp on their phones like that Bansky work.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/262026482406-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
ProTip: if any humans manage to gather in large quantities in the future, all phones go into an unplugged microwave.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/262026482406-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
ProTip: if any humans manage to gather in large quantities in the future, all phones go into an unplugged microwave.
> if any humans manage to gather in large quantities in the future, all phones go into an unplugged microwave.
Or just gently enforce the norm that it's rude to look at your phone? I totally get that there are individual people who use their phone while socializing (in my experience, usually those who are dealing with some intense anxiety at the time), but most people understand that it's rude.
Is this just a cultural/class blindspot of mine? Do you really encounter social situations of 3+ people where everyone is on their phone at dinner?
Or just gently enforce the norm that it's rude to look at your phone? I totally get that there are individual people who use their phone while socializing (in my experience, usually those who are dealing with some intense anxiety at the time), but most people understand that it's rude.
Is this just a cultural/class blindspot of mine? Do you really encounter social situations of 3+ people where everyone is on their phone at dinner?
This is an OK take that can be discussed on its own merits but I’m disappointed that this is top comment on a piece that discusses poverty and technology. People who are so poor they cannot buy a basic laptop or internet. Perhaps a reflection that all of us maybe out of touch.
> The internet snatched civilization destruction from the jaws of progress.
The commercialization of the internet snatched destruction from the jaws of progress.
Once companies realized there was tons of money to be made in engagement-by-any-means-necessary, the genie was out of the bottle.
But there are still delightful isolated corners of the internet filled with brilliant imaginative creative people. Progress is still happening, but the mainstream's doing its level best to counter it.
The commercialization of the internet snatched destruction from the jaws of progress.
Once companies realized there was tons of money to be made in engagement-by-any-means-necessary, the genie was out of the bottle.
But there are still delightful isolated corners of the internet filled with brilliant imaginative creative people. Progress is still happening, but the mainstream's doing its level best to counter it.
The commercialization of the internet isn't without it's many flaws but to say that it snatched it from the jaws of progress is absurd. It was exactly the commercialization of the internet that made it the colossal tool it is today for hundreds of millions of people worldwide for starting small businesses, finding ways of making a side income, creatively expressing and promoting themselves and finding sources of work online (even if they're not all well-paid U.S/Europe based programmers and devops like some of the snidely privileged, disdainful commentators here). That so many people on a site like HN of all fucking things could be so narrowly dismissive of the overall value of a the vast commercial internet of today (despite its flaws), which many of you helped build into what it is at considerable gain to yourselves, is funny at best and grotesquely arrogant at worst. Talk about naval gazing and missing the forest for some broken trees.
Absolutely perfect take. We are truly atomized and isolated, thanks to tech (and especially "social tech"). I know this may be controversial, but our (IMHO) huge over-reaction to Covid is just an indicator of the damage that has already been done.
As a side note, I have taken this opportunity recently to quit every social media account, and give up my smartphone.
As a side note, I have taken this opportunity recently to quit every social media account, and give up my smartphone.
Reading this felt like listening to an obese, wealthy American speaking jealously of a poor Ethiopian's thin physique.
>Sir Tim Berners-Lee says too many young people do not have internet access and the digital divide has widened during the pandemic.
Given the mental health crisis in young people (especially girls) stemming from social media use and ever present landmine of writing something inappropriate that will destroy your life later ... is that such a bad thing?
Given the mental health crisis in young people (especially girls) stemming from social media use and ever present landmine of writing something inappropriate that will destroy your life later ... is that such a bad thing?
To me that sounds as ridiculous as saying: "Given the high rates of obesity due to overconsumption of food, is the scarcity of food in developing countries such a bad thing?"
Isn't it more like: "Given the high rates of obesity due to overconsumption of junk food, is the unchecked availability and aggressive marketing of unhealthy, addictive junk food really a good thing?"
No.
He said access to the internet, not to Facebook or something. You know, that thing that has new wonders of the world and incredible educational content such as Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.
He said access to the internet, not to Facebook or something. You know, that thing that has new wonders of the world and incredible educational content such as Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.
Yes, the internet has some "wonders", and I appreciate them greatly. (If I didn't think it had value, I wouldn't have spent the last decade-plus of my life working on internet-related software and standards.)
However, it also has a huge amount of toxic garbage, by no means restricted to a few "social media" sites.
Whether we can stem the deluge of junk, so that the average person's experience of the internet is actually a net positive, seems uncertain at this point. I don't think we've yet figured out how to manage this.
However, it also has a huge amount of toxic garbage, by no means restricted to a few "social media" sites.
Whether we can stem the deluge of junk, so that the average person's experience of the internet is actually a net positive, seems uncertain at this point. I don't think we've yet figured out how to manage this.
Food has healthy stuff and unhealthy stuff.
Access to food usually means access to both.
Internet has healthy stuff and unhealthy stuff.
Access to the internet means access to both.
Access to food usually means access to both.
Internet has healthy stuff and unhealthy stuff.
Access to the internet means access to both.
Food is an actual necessity for ... you know ... living.
Access to the internet by children is not.
Access to the internet by children is not.
You're ridiculously off-topic and plain wrong. Internet access is in fact necessary for a lot of people. And since now in many countries children socialize online, not just in real life, it's a necessary aspect of their life.
>Internet access is in fact necessary for a lot of people.
We're talking about children. Internet is a fact of modern life and yes, at some point in their development, children will be exposed to it ... nobody is denying that. I fundamentally disagree however that internet access (limited or otherwise) is fundamentally necessary for child development, or academic success or education in general. That's bullcrap.
>And since now in many countries children socialize online, not just in real life, it's a necessary aspect of their life.
Yeah. I know. We're in the midst of a mental health crisis especially amongst girls brought on by social media use. That's not a good thing by the way.
We're talking about children. Internet is a fact of modern life and yes, at some point in their development, children will be exposed to it ... nobody is denying that. I fundamentally disagree however that internet access (limited or otherwise) is fundamentally necessary for child development, or academic success or education in general. That's bullcrap.
>And since now in many countries children socialize online, not just in real life, it's a necessary aspect of their life.
Yeah. I know. We're in the midst of a mental health crisis especially amongst girls brought on by social media use. That's not a good thing by the way.
>I fundamentally disagree however that internet access (limited or otherwise) is fundamentally necessary for child development, or academic success or education in general.
I don't think that's true for many parts of the world, where the level of education attainable through standard means would hardly meet your standard of what is deemed reasonable. For such places, the internet is the only way for children to make steps towards that standard, albeit not easily.
I don't think that's true for many parts of the world, where the level of education attainable through standard means would hardly meet your standard of what is deemed reasonable. For such places, the internet is the only way for children to make steps towards that standard, albeit not easily.
In what way is "internet access" equivalent to "the unchecked availability and aggressive marketing of unhealthy, addictive junk food" in this analogy? I'm quite sure you've misunderstood the analogy.
His point is that young people have had to rely on the internet for education most of the past year and that’s been difficult for less wealthy people.
That can be seen as "poorer people don't have enough access to the Internet" or as "the people in charge created too much reliance on the Internet". If COVID had happened 30 years ago, the risk tolerance would be different and we'd be much more reluctant to close schools for an extended period of time.
Okay? By that logic, the entire world has created too much reliance on the internet.
We closed school when we had no power for 4 days two years ago. To extend your logic, schools have created too much reliance on electricity. If this was 100 years ago, the buildings would be different and we wouldn't have needed to close schools for an extended period. That argument doesn't make sense or have a purpose, but it makes just as much sense as your argument, to me.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, I guess is what I'm getting at.
We closed school when we had no power for 4 days two years ago. To extend your logic, schools have created too much reliance on electricity. If this was 100 years ago, the buildings would be different and we wouldn't have needed to close schools for an extended period. That argument doesn't make sense or have a purpose, but it makes just as much sense as your argument, to me.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, I guess is what I'm getting at.
What I'm getting at is that to whatever extent poorer kids are falling behind academically right now, it isn't really for lack of Internet access, but because we made policy decisions assuming everybody could learn-from-home for months.
That's fair, but lack of internet access absolutely is a major problem. I still don't understand why you would try to remove that from the policy decisions about learning from home.
Yes, but it didn't happen 30 years ago. We have the ability to let kids learn from home and save more lives by doing so.
Except for poorer kids where "learning from home" isn't working. I think this approach that "we can just stay home and do everything online, we're saving lives, everything's fine," is generating a lot of unforeseen costs to society in the longer term.
I agree.
He is making the point that young people have found it hard to learn over the lockdown because of not being able to have access to education. He said, "A shocking number of kids in the UK don't have meaningful connectivity."
This has nothing to do with the toxicity of social networks.
I believe that connection to educational services should be free for all families that can't afford it in the UK.
He is making the point that young people have found it hard to learn over the lockdown because of not being able to have access to education. He said, "A shocking number of kids in the UK don't have meaningful connectivity."
This has nothing to do with the toxicity of social networks.
I believe that connection to educational services should be free for all families that can't afford it in the UK.
>His point is that young people have had to rely on the internet for education most of the past year and that’s been difficult for less wealthy people.
I think that needs to be qualified because this kind of argumentation tends rely on naive and simplified tropes and stereotypes of various class groups.
I think that needs to be qualified because this kind of argumentation tends rely on naive and simplified tropes and stereotypes of various class groups.
What are you on about? Wealth and income are absolutely tied to ease and quality of technology/internet access in the home. That's not a stereotype, it's a fact (at least in the US).
I'm not trying to be flippant, but do literally any cursory search related to income and technology and you'll find many, many, many scholarly articles supporting that statement.
I have to assume that the lesson holds true for other countries, though I do need to admit ignorance to that fact.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but do literally any cursory search related to income and technology and you'll find many, many, many scholarly articles supporting that statement.
I have to assume that the lesson holds true for other countries, though I do need to admit ignorance to that fact.
>Wealth and income are absolutely tied to ease and quality of technology/internet access in the home.
And you think fiber internet, a MacBook Pro, iPad, and a big screen tv equates to better grades? Better learning? Better education? When it comes to education a book, pencil and paper and a teacher is all you really need. Heck, technology may even be a hindrance because of the distraction aspect.
There are countries with better educational outcomes even amongst households with a fraction of income to their American comparables.
It's not income level that's the issue. A child raised in a loving but low-income two-parent household will be fine growing up in this society. A child growing up in a single-parent home, especially where drugs or alcohol is an issue and living in a crime-filled, violent neighborhood (defund the police!) will be challenged. You can't just contrast wealth and not wealth. There are other factors that dominate.
And you think fiber internet, a MacBook Pro, iPad, and a big screen tv equates to better grades? Better learning? Better education? When it comes to education a book, pencil and paper and a teacher is all you really need. Heck, technology may even be a hindrance because of the distraction aspect.
There are countries with better educational outcomes even amongst households with a fraction of income to their American comparables.
It's not income level that's the issue. A child raised in a loving but low-income two-parent household will be fine growing up in this society. A child growing up in a single-parent home, especially where drugs or alcohol is an issue and living in a crime-filled, violent neighborhood (defund the police!) will be challenged. You can't just contrast wealth and not wealth. There are other factors that dominate.
>fiber internet, a MacBook Pro, iPad, and a big screen tv
No, but I (and this is not meant to be hateful) do believe you are out of touch with the reality of this situation. It's not about having fiber, it's about having anything except dial-up or a cell phone as an option. It's not about a macbook pro or an ipad, it's about not trying to do your homework on a shared family smartphone. The television isn't even a thing, not sure what that has to do with anything.
>There are countries with better educational outcomes even amongst households with a fraction of income to their American comparables.
That is a very bold statement. Please cite.
>It's not income level that's the issue. A child raised in a loving but low-income two-parent household will be fine growing up in this society.
This is also a SUPER bold statement. Please cite.
>You can't just contrast wealth and not wealth. There are other factors that dominate.
And yet, wealth and parent income are consistently shown to be the greatest predictor of future achievement, even when controlling for other variables such as ethnicity, gender, location. My citations:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40037226?seq=1
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J134v11n02_05
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1519867?seq=1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00490...
And that's just from 30 seconds of searching while out of the office. If I was at the office today, I could cite any number of the books and articles on my shelves on this subject, as this is literally what I have built my career in higher education on.
No, but I (and this is not meant to be hateful) do believe you are out of touch with the reality of this situation. It's not about having fiber, it's about having anything except dial-up or a cell phone as an option. It's not about a macbook pro or an ipad, it's about not trying to do your homework on a shared family smartphone. The television isn't even a thing, not sure what that has to do with anything.
>There are countries with better educational outcomes even amongst households with a fraction of income to their American comparables.
That is a very bold statement. Please cite.
>It's not income level that's the issue. A child raised in a loving but low-income two-parent household will be fine growing up in this society.
This is also a SUPER bold statement. Please cite.
>You can't just contrast wealth and not wealth. There are other factors that dominate.
And yet, wealth and parent income are consistently shown to be the greatest predictor of future achievement, even when controlling for other variables such as ethnicity, gender, location. My citations:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40037226?seq=1
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J134v11n02_05
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1519867?seq=1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00490...
And that's just from 30 seconds of searching while out of the office. If I was at the office today, I could cite any number of the books and articles on my shelves on this subject, as this is literally what I have built my career in higher education on.
>And that's just from 30 seconds of searching while out of the office.
So you google around for 10 mins, to cherry pick studies, that you didn't even bother to read, as a way to confirm your preconceived conclusion? You think that this is a valid way of argument? Uh huh. Cherry picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion is how science is done ... right?
Right now we're graduating functionally illiterate kids at incredible rates. Tell me the MECHANISM (not correlation) by which low-income equals to illiteracy in the context of our society which provides schools, school-buses, books, and teachers. By the way, every single school in America is good and is staffed by good quality teachers.
Having grown up in my city's immigrant ghetto (surrounded by Eastern European, Iranian, Filipino and Hong Kong immigrants), in a low-income (but loving) household with no English knowledge, and being an immigrant myself, I always like to see how those who grew up privileged see everyone else. I really do want to know your MECHANISM of how low-income translates to illiteracy (as an example). And on a slight tangent, in my personal experience, the most lectures on poverty and privilege I get are from people who were born in the country and grew up firmly in the upper middle class.
I can guarantee you're going to find low-income households with academically high performing children, and here we're talking about just literacy (not even high academic achievement). Quickly enough you'll find that income is not a good gauge and that other factors dominate.
So you google around for 10 mins, to cherry pick studies, that you didn't even bother to read, as a way to confirm your preconceived conclusion? You think that this is a valid way of argument? Uh huh. Cherry picking data to fit a preconceived conclusion is how science is done ... right?
Right now we're graduating functionally illiterate kids at incredible rates. Tell me the MECHANISM (not correlation) by which low-income equals to illiteracy in the context of our society which provides schools, school-buses, books, and teachers. By the way, every single school in America is good and is staffed by good quality teachers.
Having grown up in my city's immigrant ghetto (surrounded by Eastern European, Iranian, Filipino and Hong Kong immigrants), in a low-income (but loving) household with no English knowledge, and being an immigrant myself, I always like to see how those who grew up privileged see everyone else. I really do want to know your MECHANISM of how low-income translates to illiteracy (as an example). And on a slight tangent, in my personal experience, the most lectures on poverty and privilege I get are from people who were born in the country and grew up firmly in the upper middle class.
I can guarantee you're going to find low-income households with academically high performing children, and here we're talking about just literacy (not even high academic achievement). Quickly enough you'll find that income is not a good gauge and that other factors dominate.
How much access do kids have to books and a teacher right now if they don't have internet access?
Our library has contactless pickup, so you can still get books. But only provided you first go the library website over the internet and reserve them.
Our library has a Kindle lending library, provided of course that you access the library website to check them out and download the book to your ~$100 Kindle device over the internet.
Our library has contactless pickup, so you can still get books. But only provided you first go the library website over the internet and reserve them.
Our library has a Kindle lending library, provided of course that you access the library website to check them out and download the book to your ~$100 Kindle device over the internet.
Preventing people’s access to something because of the potential downsides to it? You can apply it to any facility. That’s the same mentality that keeps girls locked up in some cultures, to keep them “safe”.
>Preventing people’s access to something because of the potential downsides to it?
We're not talking about adults, we're talking about children. Yes, at some point they need to be exposed to the internet because the internet is a fact of life. I'm just not sold that any child (say, under the age of 14) who doesn't have access to the internet would somehow be crippled socially, culturally or academically. I have yet to see any study that suggests limiting access to the internet for children, or even no access internet is greatly detrimental. Contrast this with the FACT that there is a mental health crisis happening right now due social media use, and that there is no effective way to segrate internet from social media. So what is the argument here? What if there is no safe-level of social media use for children? By the way it is not uncommon to see children of tech-savvy parents, who may work in the industry, outright banning or tightly controlling internet access to their children.
We're not talking about adults, we're talking about children. Yes, at some point they need to be exposed to the internet because the internet is a fact of life. I'm just not sold that any child (say, under the age of 14) who doesn't have access to the internet would somehow be crippled socially, culturally or academically. I have yet to see any study that suggests limiting access to the internet for children, or even no access internet is greatly detrimental. Contrast this with the FACT that there is a mental health crisis happening right now due social media use, and that there is no effective way to segrate internet from social media. So what is the argument here? What if there is no safe-level of social media use for children? By the way it is not uncommon to see children of tech-savvy parents, who may work in the industry, outright banning or tightly controlling internet access to their children.
This last year, a large part of UK teaching to children of all ages has been entirely online. No internet == no teaching.
If only someone had invented a way to partition and limit access between networks...
That kids definitely won't be desperate to work around and overcome.
But I'm sort-of in favor, to encourage technical skills. Set up society so kids have to learn pentesting to see boobs, and seven proxies to not get found out and told off by the local morality commisar. Instant generational competence upgrade.
But I'm sort-of in favor, to encourage technical skills. Set up society so kids have to learn pentesting to see boobs, and seven proxies to not get found out and told off by the local morality commisar. Instant generational competence upgrade.
That needs to be qualified ... greatly.
1) There is such a thing as homeschool.
2) Schools are closed because of government mandated lockdowns. Not every region or nation decided to close their schools. In fact, most didn't. We're not even sure if that level of lockdown was good policy. Certainly there are credible epidemiologists who vehemently disagree with either lockdows or school closures.
3) The level of learning by remote instruction ... the data isn't out yet, but it isn't looking great. Maybe it's better than nothing but maybe not by much.
4) This is a generational pandemic that came suddenly and required big government bureaucracies to turn on a dime, and the internet to facilitate remote work was the most natural choice. But what are you saying, had this happened in 1992, no learning would be done? Or as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" and we would find alternatives. We educated children just fine before the internet. In fact I suspect we would come up with something better than zoom classes.
5) But OK. Let's give the internet points for assisting with this pandemic. Let's draft laws that in the event of global pandemics you leverage the internet for remote learning. What is your argument for post-pandemic world?
But overall I vehemently disagree with the notion that: "No internet == no teaching."
1) There is such a thing as homeschool.
2) Schools are closed because of government mandated lockdowns. Not every region or nation decided to close their schools. In fact, most didn't. We're not even sure if that level of lockdown was good policy. Certainly there are credible epidemiologists who vehemently disagree with either lockdows or school closures.
3) The level of learning by remote instruction ... the data isn't out yet, but it isn't looking great. Maybe it's better than nothing but maybe not by much.
4) This is a generational pandemic that came suddenly and required big government bureaucracies to turn on a dime, and the internet to facilitate remote work was the most natural choice. But what are you saying, had this happened in 1992, no learning would be done? Or as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" and we would find alternatives. We educated children just fine before the internet. In fact I suspect we would come up with something better than zoom classes.
5) But OK. Let's give the internet points for assisting with this pandemic. Let's draft laws that in the event of global pandemics you leverage the internet for remote learning. What is your argument for post-pandemic world?
But overall I vehemently disagree with the notion that: "No internet == no teaching."
To be fair, a lot of cultures prevent children from buying alcohol and firearms on their own.
False equivalency. We prevent children buying alcohol and firearms because they might harm themselves and other people not because other people might use those things to harm them.
the original comment seemed to be concerned with kids harming themselves, but at any rate we prevent kids gambling as well which is much closer to the dynamics of social media than alcohol or firearms.
Boys have far higher suicide rates, we should not overlook helping them perhaps more.
I was wondering, now that Starlink is getting ready for business, if connectivity white spots on the map could not be closed with it. Now, it's a very expensive service, and it might be against the TOS?, but it seems like one Starlink ground subscriber station could serve several households via Wifi or similar. Kinda how some of us shared our connection back in the 1990s, just faster. Perhaps the government of the UK could also make deals with Starlink and similar companies.
I mean do that if you don't want to dig holes and put cables in them.
Also, btw, do we have to say "Sir Tim Berners-Lee"? Call me postmodern, but idgaf if he's a Knight of the UK or the Jedi, it's just character spam. His name is "Tim Berners-Lee", no? (This man is a legend either way.) We say "Paul Graham" not "Dr. Paul Graham, Comp.Sci." and I would also call Professor Albus Dumbledore just Albus Dumbledore, I mean if there was a blogpost about him. :)
I mean do that if you don't want to dig holes and put cables in them.
Also, btw, do we have to say "Sir Tim Berners-Lee"? Call me postmodern, but idgaf if he's a Knight of the UK or the Jedi, it's just character spam. His name is "Tim Berners-Lee", no? (This man is a legend either way.) We say "Paul Graham" not "Dr. Paul Graham, Comp.Sci." and I would also call Professor Albus Dumbledore just Albus Dumbledore, I mean if there was a blogpost about him. :)
Given it's a British article, it seems quite fair to do so.
Just for fun, I'm going to waffle on about your comment a bit!
I think your outlook stems from the "individualist" movement and mindset that encourages everyone to see themselves as individuals separate from society and it's constructs. As we have all become a little bit more disconnected from society because of it, and our place within it has become less important, we don't see such achievements as being as important as they once were. How many people don't even know who their town Mayor is?
As well, access to information from the internet means you know exactly what this guy did, you know all his achievements already, he is elevated above his knighthood to you because you care more about his achievements than his place in society. Fair enough, and I'd agree!
Imagine instead it's 1890 and you're a foundational part of a strong british community, then as graciously as he disembarked from the train, Sir Tim Berners Lee has greeted you. A sir! My goodness, what must he have done? You don't know, all you know is they hold a very important position in the society you're also strongly part of, so you can respect that achievement. Gosh, how exciting!
Just for fun, I'm going to waffle on about your comment a bit!
I think your outlook stems from the "individualist" movement and mindset that encourages everyone to see themselves as individuals separate from society and it's constructs. As we have all become a little bit more disconnected from society because of it, and our place within it has become less important, we don't see such achievements as being as important as they once were. How many people don't even know who their town Mayor is?
As well, access to information from the internet means you know exactly what this guy did, you know all his achievements already, he is elevated above his knighthood to you because you care more about his achievements than his place in society. Fair enough, and I'd agree!
Imagine instead it's 1890 and you're a foundational part of a strong british community, then as graciously as he disembarked from the train, Sir Tim Berners Lee has greeted you. A sir! My goodness, what must he have done? You don't know, all you know is they hold a very important position in the society you're also strongly part of, so you can respect that achievement. Gosh, how exciting!
I have to say, I don't see the connection between individualism and not caring about an individual's achievements. in fact, I would draw the exact opposite connection. individualism is very much concerned with the achievements of individuals, whether or not that individual is you.
in any case, I don't think GP is disregarding what the good sir has accomplished in life. the quibble seems to be with titles specifically. I think egalitarianism would be a better word to describe this position.
in any case, I don't think GP is disregarding what the good sir has accomplished in life. the quibble seems to be with titles specifically. I think egalitarianism would be a better word to describe this position.
The detail here is that the achievement is acquiring status in a society with which individualism doesn't care about anymore. The OP cares much more for the real achievements, and not much for their title and place in British society (society of old at least)
I think you are right about egalitarianism being part of the outlook, I think egalitarianism is part of individualism though. Everyone is as special as everyone else, so your rank in society isn't as important.
I think you are right about egalitarianism being part of the outlook, I think egalitarianism is part of individualism though. Everyone is as special as everyone else, so your rank in society isn't as important.
A knighthood is a seriously different beast to a PhD e.g. Paul Graham will never be shown off alone to an audience of billions in an olympic opening ceremony.
Right. A PhD is proof that you spent years of your life theoretically advancing the boundary of knowledge in your given field. A knighthood is that an old lady thinks you're neat.
Knighthoods are actually usually from the government, often for being a world leading researcher or sportsman etc.
The fact that the queen or similar taps you on the shoulders is an implementation detail
If you want to be petty all you have to do to get a PhD is pass a viva - Two slightly bizarre french "physicists" come to mind
The fact that the queen or similar taps you on the shoulders is an implementation detail
If you want to be petty all you have to do to get a PhD is pass a viva - Two slightly bizarre french "physicists" come to mind
> Knighthoods are actually usually from the government, often for being a world leading researcher or sportsman etc.
This gets lost in translation. I (in the US) tend to see it more like GP does as well.
This gets lost in translation. I (in the US) tend to see it more like GP does as well.
You could also get your Phd by doing useless stuff for 3 to 5 years and kissing enough ass.
That's a big 'theoretically', and given the government subsidies involved, the value involved quite strongly depends on the field in question, and is often questionable.
That was because he invented the web, not because he's a knight. There are thousands of knights in the UK.
In a world where people increasingly share one or two line console text output as screenshots, you are bothered by three extra characters being character spam? :)
I see it as a harmless thing.
I see it as a harmless thing.
Also, btw, do we have to say "Sir Tim Berners-Lee"?
The headline comes from the BBC so it is natural that they use his title. Elsewhere he might be referred to differently.
The headline comes from the BBC so it is natural that they use his title. Elsewhere he might be referred to differently.
> Knight of the UK
Technically he's an " Officer of the Order of the British Empire", a bit anachronistic for sure :)
Technically he's an " Officer of the Order of the British Empire", a bit anachronistic for sure :)
The British seem to treasure their anachronisms. "Order of the Garter", indeed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
(Honi soit qui mal y pense)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Garter
(Honi soit qui mal y pense)
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Also, btw, do we have to say "Sir Tim Berners-Lee"?
No, that's "Mylord" to you.
No, that's "Mylord" to you.
Starlink, for me, is the same price as cable internet, once the teaser price on the latter expires.
I think his title should be "www" rather than "Sir"
Americans are sticklers for titles more than Brits. For example, outside of very formal settings no-one calls the prime minister "The Right Honourable Boris Johnson" but the president is nearly always referred to as "President Biden".
> "A shocking number of kids in the UK don't have meaningful connectivity."
Growing up the UK, I don't think I ever had a classmate without internet connectivity at home. It would've been like not having electricity. Am I out of touch?
Growing up the UK, I don't think I ever had a classmate without internet connectivity at home. It would've been like not having electricity. Am I out of touch?
I'm willing to bet if you did, you wouldn't know. It's not something anyone is going to brag about. Similar to kids getting free school meals or any other 'benefit' for being poor. When you have these problems you tend to keep them to yourself due to shame.
Also, from the article:
"But, he says, one-third of young people do not have any internet access and many more lack the quality of connection needed to work or learn from home."
Also, from the article:
"But, he says, one-third of young people do not have any internet access and many more lack the quality of connection needed to work or learn from home."
I dunno, I had a lot of friends from poorer families. Their computers were shared and usually not the best, but I never saw anyone without any access at all.
Group projects were regularly done remotely on Skype after school to do homework (admittedly to my chagrin as I didn't have a Windows machine to run Office).
Is there more reliable data on this?
Group projects were regularly done remotely on Skype after school to do homework (admittedly to my chagrin as I didn't have a Windows machine to run Office).
Is there more reliable data on this?
[deleted]
Did you grow up in a rural or urban area ? I mean if there are people queueing for food there must be people too poor to even own an extra laptop
Yes, you're out of touch. Access to the internet is seen as a luxury when you're relying on charitable donations to put food on the table.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This is the letter itself:
https://onezero.medium.com/the-web-must-work-better-for-youn...
https://onezero.medium.com/the-web-must-work-better-for-youn...
Digital divide is not even so much of a problem as social media overuse.
Let’s say, and why not, that you’re a pretty girl living in a small village on a farm.
You start to dabble on Instagram and at first post photos or horses, veggies growing, campfires - you know, normal farm stuff.
A couple young farmers from the community has they eyes on you. They tout the size of their farms and how you can have beautiful children together.
But one day, accidentally, you post a photo on Instagram of yourself that’s slightly revealing, you felt a bit daring that day.
Now you got 15,000 likes. Normally you’d get maybe 2 likes for anything else.
You get a little more daring. Now you’ve posted more like the “daring” photo and in the space of a couple of months, without even noticing, you’ve gained 120,000 followers.
You fear looking at your DM. You have to turn off Instagram notifications.
You start posting on tiktok. Even more followers because, video.
In total you’re over 220,000 followers. Men contacting you every day.
Now those farm boys with the promise of marriage look pretty lame.
People start sending you money. Cash app. PayPal. Venmo.
Secretly, you’re making more money than your parents.
Another girl online mentioned lonely-fans. You’re considering it...
Current social media has destroyed normal relationships. Destroyed remote communities.
It’s 10,000x worse than any “digital divide”.
There’s good or bad in everything - but this is one of the indisputably bad things that has happened to the world in the last 10 years.
Let’s say, and why not, that you’re a pretty girl living in a small village on a farm.
You start to dabble on Instagram and at first post photos or horses, veggies growing, campfires - you know, normal farm stuff.
A couple young farmers from the community has they eyes on you. They tout the size of their farms and how you can have beautiful children together.
But one day, accidentally, you post a photo on Instagram of yourself that’s slightly revealing, you felt a bit daring that day.
Now you got 15,000 likes. Normally you’d get maybe 2 likes for anything else.
You get a little more daring. Now you’ve posted more like the “daring” photo and in the space of a couple of months, without even noticing, you’ve gained 120,000 followers.
You fear looking at your DM. You have to turn off Instagram notifications.
You start posting on tiktok. Even more followers because, video.
In total you’re over 220,000 followers. Men contacting you every day.
Now those farm boys with the promise of marriage look pretty lame.
People start sending you money. Cash app. PayPal. Venmo.
Secretly, you’re making more money than your parents.
Another girl online mentioned lonely-fans. You’re considering it...
Current social media has destroyed normal relationships. Destroyed remote communities.
It’s 10,000x worse than any “digital divide”.
There’s good or bad in everything - but this is one of the indisputably bad things that has happened to the world in the last 10 years.
How is it undisputably bad? This woman now has access to higher quality men around the world instead of a random farmer without much to offer (no offense to the random farmers in the audience).
She now has the option to leave a dead end rural lifestyle is she chooses. And if she's into the dead end rural life (insert whatever dumb american tropes we have that idealize wasteful rural modes of living), she won't find rich, high flying city guys very appealing and it's all a wash. Or maybe she wants to move to a different dead end rural community with a better match than the random farmer she happened to be born next to. Now she can do that on farmers only.
You could say some good and some bad (and of course very bad for the random farmer whose main reproductive strategy was apparently counting on his mate not realizing he's not a catch and there are much better options), but you can't say it's only bad.
Ideally, none of these people reproduce at all since we already have plenty of humans. Hopefully the shift to digital relationships can greatly reduce our headcount in the long run. This trend seems well underway already thankfully.
She now has the option to leave a dead end rural lifestyle is she chooses. And if she's into the dead end rural life (insert whatever dumb american tropes we have that idealize wasteful rural modes of living), she won't find rich, high flying city guys very appealing and it's all a wash. Or maybe she wants to move to a different dead end rural community with a better match than the random farmer she happened to be born next to. Now she can do that on farmers only.
You could say some good and some bad (and of course very bad for the random farmer whose main reproductive strategy was apparently counting on his mate not realizing he's not a catch and there are much better options), but you can't say it's only bad.
Ideally, none of these people reproduce at all since we already have plenty of humans. Hopefully the shift to digital relationships can greatly reduce our headcount in the long run. This trend seems well underway already thankfully.
> dead end rural lifestyle
Sorry, but who's growing your food?
Sorry, but who's growing your food?
Machines, immigrant laborers and huge agribusinesses, mostly. I don't engage in the trendy family farm fad if that's what you're asking.
More to the point, are you implying that it wouldn't be possible for a dead end community to grow food? If so, why? Seems like a bizarre argument but I'll bite.
More to the point, are you implying that it wouldn't be possible for a dead end community to grow food? If so, why? Seems like a bizarre argument but I'll bite.
>This trend seems well underway already thankfully
On average, for now, yes. Not across the entire national population, though. We're just selecting for the sorts of people who thrive (reproductively/evolutionarily speaking) in the modern high competition/low scarcity environment. Because this environment is very different from the environment, say, 200 years ago, people that are more fit to the current environment are relatively rare now- which is why you see trends pointing towards overall population decline- but those small subgroups are there, quietly reproducing at >2.1 children per woman. As such, over time, they'll come to make up the majority of the population, as the relatively non-competitive phenotypes numerically stagnate or dwindle.
Ironically, the prediliction to be convinced of viewpoints like your own (given things like personality and political tendency have a significant hereditary component) is one of the things likely to be selected against!
The future is a dwindling relative population of midwit liberals, lots of live-fast die-young r-selection chads, and one 150 IQ guy who made a billion clones of himself.
On average, for now, yes. Not across the entire national population, though. We're just selecting for the sorts of people who thrive (reproductively/evolutionarily speaking) in the modern high competition/low scarcity environment. Because this environment is very different from the environment, say, 200 years ago, people that are more fit to the current environment are relatively rare now- which is why you see trends pointing towards overall population decline- but those small subgroups are there, quietly reproducing at >2.1 children per woman. As such, over time, they'll come to make up the majority of the population, as the relatively non-competitive phenotypes numerically stagnate or dwindle.
Ironically, the prediliction to be convinced of viewpoints like your own (given things like personality and political tendency have a significant hereditary component) is one of the things likely to be selected against!
The future is a dwindling relative population of midwit liberals, lots of live-fast die-young r-selection chads, and one 150 IQ guy who made a billion clones of himself.
So... this “dead end rural lifestyle” that feeds the world now will be populated by young men only running the machines abd tending the crops and animals by themselves.
Hmmmm...
Now let’s extrapolate that to every country. Because that’s what social media did.
That example was taken from outside the United States. It’s only worse inside North America now.
Hmmmm...
Now let’s extrapolate that to every country. Because that’s what social media did.
That example was taken from outside the United States. It’s only worse inside North America now.
Well unless you force women back into coverture rural girls are going do like a couple of my friends, leave and never look back.
It is maybe not such a bad thing that now and again a woman secures the financial independence she needs to look beyond the life she was born into in her tiny rural community.
The new mental slavery comes in guise of emancipation.
Putting aside your ridiculous stereotypes; it's a bad thing becaauuuuse... What?
Are you one of those people who get super scared when women are too independent or make more money than you?
Are you one of those people who get super scared when women are too independent or make more money than you?
the biggest digital divide in my mind is the divide between those who can program and those who cannot. Those who can't program do not have access to the huge power curve that is the ability to automate or simplify white-collar work. There's certain to be a large gap out there of automatable problems in industries that programmers don't tend to care about (PlanGrid being a good example of this) that could do with being able to solve their own problems.
Is it me or is this article just trying to leverage TLB's status to justify the extortionate expense of high speed rural internet.
We run power and water to rural areas, even though it's incredibly expensive compared to urban areas.
[deleted]
It is ironic that he Talks about the widening digital divide while the W3C has continually ceded to the demands of copyright maximalists demanding ever increasing and costly DRM be put in "standards" which in turns makes free and open source solutions that can not comply with things like EME less favorable. Making technology more expensive and thus increase the that very digital divide
How does the cost of building a standards compliant web browser have anything to do with lack of access to the internet? Web browsers are free.
This is an infrastructure issue where people don't have internet access.
This is an infrastructure issue where people don't have internet access.
Magical realism and kids inventing their own play games in remote or poor villages is what happens when they don't have the internet to destroy creativity and distract people from using their imaginations.