[r113500]

you misunderstood the concept, brought in your own windmills, and then successfully attacked them. I guess it generated an interesting subthread, even if it did derail my point into the tired "internet ain't what it used to be!" direction. god, I was hoping what I said was more subtle than that. other people in the thread have done better, even managed to use google to search the original posts on oblomovka so that they can reflect on the point, instead of just typing things.

but to your "people's internet" point, the real communism has clearly never been tried! it's not the people that want TikTok, it's the power structure. left to their own devices they built cathedrals!

[nonrandomstring]

Sorry if I stole some of your thunder there old chap. I don't think I "misunderstood the concept" but rather found it wanting and moved the discussion on. The focus was your precis of the term "hinternet" which I found very interesting and so addressed.

Where it landed (perhaps thanks to TeMPOraL) was actually quite exciting in my opinion, that, in the words of The Jam:

   "the public wants what the public gets."

That's something different from the tired old "internet ain't what it used to be!" trope. Isn't it? : That the entire "market theory" of the internet (and maybe technology in general) is mostly myth.

> real communism has clearly never been tried!

Not sure I follow how a vibrant, diverse, bottom-up, self-governed Internet would be akin to "communism", but then you've got your own windmills to tilt at too.

[r113500]

the public's wants are always reduced to trite generalizations, so maybe it's not about thunder, maybe the upset is that one can generate lively conversation easily by exploiting trite dichotomies, and that such a behavior is distasteful. everybody has an opinion on the hoi polloi from the vantage of their phantom high horse. a chat gpt could write the rest of the thread.

"real communism has clearly never been tried" is a set expression, from the internet. it's a variation on doing the same thing, but expecting different results, with a touch of ideological stubbornness, "this time around if we let people choose, they'll choose a very different internet, from the one they chose before, i'm sure of it, because I believe in people". of course the reason I choose this particular set expression, rather than some other one is to play off your comedic choice of terminology "people's internet". they have "people's internet" in "people's republic of china". you know? I'm not saying communism bad, it's a funny phrase. jeez, you brits used to be keen on subtle humor.

[nonrandomstring]

I sympathise with you. It's sometimes hard to get the conversations you want on the internet. But then you have to take people as you find them right? And try to learn something, even (especially) where that's uncomfortable?. Sometimes it's bloody awful. But I come here because I _get_ something; Not knowing what certain demographics think about contemporary issues is worse than knowing and being upset/offended, and I genuinely need that intel to get a fix on what I'm doing.

> a chat gpt could write the rest of the thread.

That's a low opinion of our fellows. Be careful what you wish for. In a few years a forum like this might be untenable for that reason. What keeps it going is precisely the "faith in people" you seem at odds with. Let's not assume it's ideological stubbornness to imagine things could have been different or that they could be different in the future.

> subtle humour

Now I really sympathise. I'm frequently at the sharp end of trying that, and you must know it almost never translates in this forum. Mainly because there is so much sarcasm and double-think that nobody (even the authors) are unsure whether they are making one point, or its opposite.

Respects.