When you read "government should" that means it's fairly unlikely to happen let alone quick. When you read "government_s_ should" it's next to impossible. Not going to happen. Lee should know better than this. Technological solutions are far more agile and robust then relying on governments all over the world to have a consenses in doing something.
Kind of astonishing that a person that "invented the internet" doesn't really understand what he's proposing in terms of global and cultural impact.
I guess i'll blame it on the age:with time,we're losing perspective and assume the world is as nice and kinder just like "when we were young".(which is almost never the case,because with more people the number of conflicts towards the highest levels of our pyramidal society increases)
His intentions are well-intended,no doubt, but the proposed solution(s) really make me scratch my head
>The web needs radical intervention from all those who have power over its future: governments that can legislate and regulate; companies that design products; civil society groups and activists who hold the powerful to account; and every single web user who interacts with others online.
Out of all these 4 "entities",only 2 need to arguably "radically intervene", and those are neither the gov. nor the companies,because since ~94(US) and ~2007(worldwide), companies are the ones that mostly shaped the internet in the form that it has today.(which i'm gonna personally claim is not a very good one,at least for the future people that "join" it.)
For about ~5 years we're in the big struggle for control over it by the governments,and once again(if one makes the analogy of how societies have almost always operated in the past), the "state" and the "nobility"(in this case the companies) are fighting themselves at the expense of the people.
Besides all of this,which i think the author could have expanded on,it really can't stop occurring to me how one of the "inventors" of the internet publishes an article on NYT.
First let's address Mister Lee's claim to be a "Knight" per his use of the title "Sir".
Knights don't exist any more. When they did exist they were a hyper racist and genocidal hate organization dedicated to tracking down and exterminating muslims and jews on behalf of powerful christofascist supremacists. Very very bad people.
Intentionally and proudly identifying with the "knight" identity in the modern era automatically makes you totally crazy.
Second, he didn't invent the internet. He contributed a small amount to the HTML protocol and since then has desperately tried to become rich and powerful from that because he is extremely arrogant and delusional.
His calls for censorship and government crackdowns to eliminate "wrong thoughts" whether judaism, islam, paganism, or anything else, are on par for the whole "knight" mentality though so at least he is consistent.
They are as legitimate as saying that furries are real animals. It's play time for people suffering from delusions. I have no problem at all with them exercising their delusions in private but such persons have no authority to be dictating to the world under what form of their fascist vision others must be living, because they are intrinsically delusional and hence unsuited to be determining public policy.
How many muslims and jews has he brutally murdered based only on their beliefs? If it's none he's not a very good Knight, is he?
He's not a real Knight because he's not a cruel and depraved psychopath working for the Royal Government to exterminate hated minorities in the pursuit of white supremacy.
That he feels hey OK associating himself and claiming as his own identity the historical racist abomination of knighthood though is exceptionally problematic. Something not right in the head.
Fully agree with everything except the knights are/were fascists,supremacists,etc.
While he definitely holds authoritarian views, the fact that he's a "knight" doesn't make the "knights" of today/past like him.Most of them probably just take the medal and definitely the majority of them are not like this "inventor of the web".
Not sure why you get downvoted so much but I do agree with you on many points. I have never understood the title of "Sir". The random lucky people born to other random lucky people in the little country of UK with literally no other qualification bar or their own achievements decide to call someone "Sir" and then the whole world is supposed to do the same. I'm also taken a back by Lee's rather arrogant and bold claim of "I invented World Wide Web". At best it should be "We". This is complete disregard to all other people who worked on this project and contributed far more than him. His "Contract" theory is unenforceable, impracticle and weak to implement. So this whole thing looks more like self-ego stroking.
19 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 57.7 ms ] thread> Immediately hit by paywall
The irony is astounding.
That works for many paywalled sites.
I hope this happens really quickly. It’s truly critically important.
I guess i'll blame it on the age:with time,we're losing perspective and assume the world is as nice and kinder just like "when we were young".(which is almost never the case,because with more people the number of conflicts towards the highest levels of our pyramidal society increases)
His intentions are well-intended,no doubt, but the proposed solution(s) really make me scratch my head
>The web needs radical intervention from all those who have power over its future: governments that can legislate and regulate; companies that design products; civil society groups and activists who hold the powerful to account; and every single web user who interacts with others online.
Out of all these 4 "entities",only 2 need to arguably "radically intervene", and those are neither the gov. nor the companies,because since ~94(US) and ~2007(worldwide), companies are the ones that mostly shaped the internet in the form that it has today.(which i'm gonna personally claim is not a very good one,at least for the future people that "join" it.) For about ~5 years we're in the big struggle for control over it by the governments,and once again(if one makes the analogy of how societies have almost always operated in the past), the "state" and the "nobility"(in this case the companies) are fighting themselves at the expense of the people.
Besides all of this,which i think the author could have expanded on,it really can't stop occurring to me how one of the "inventors" of the internet publishes an article on NYT.
Knights don't exist any more. When they did exist they were a hyper racist and genocidal hate organization dedicated to tracking down and exterminating muslims and jews on behalf of powerful christofascist supremacists. Very very bad people.
Intentionally and proudly identifying with the "knight" identity in the modern era automatically makes you totally crazy.
Second, he didn't invent the internet. He contributed a small amount to the HTML protocol and since then has desperately tried to become rich and powerful from that because he is extremely arrogant and delusional.
His calls for censorship and government crackdowns to eliminate "wrong thoughts" whether judaism, islam, paganism, or anything else, are on par for the whole "knight" mentality though so at least he is consistent.
He's not a real Knight because he's not a cruel and depraved psychopath working for the Royal Government to exterminate hated minorities in the pursuit of white supremacy.
That he feels hey OK associating himself and claiming as his own identity the historical racist abomination of knighthood though is exceptionally problematic. Something not right in the head.
While he definitely holds authoritarian views, the fact that he's a "knight" doesn't make the "knights" of today/past like him.Most of them probably just take the medal and definitely the majority of them are not like this "inventor of the web".
There is a system of knights in the UK. There’s military and civilian divisions. Sir Tim was knighted as a civilian in the UK.
> Second, he didn't invent the internet.
He didn’t say he did! Where did you see that? You’ve imagined this out of thin air.