The end of the internet

You don't need to be an anarchist to know the state has overwhelming power over modern life. Since the Treaty of Westphalia, modern governments have functioned essentially as autocracies that have sovereign imperial power over everything in their territory. Just think of things like "air space" and "territorial waters." But there's one thing we all share that seemed to defy this, the relatively borderless anarchy that is the internet. But something is slowly changing. In 2013 the USA's mass surveillance program was exposed. Since the US dominates software packages it threatens to control digital infrastructure and its companies (Twitter, Reddit, Facebook etc) have rapidly colonized the internet, crushing small forums and pushing aside the main websites of other countries. Russia and China have reacted badly. The Russians have been working to isolate themselves from the global internet while China built a massive firewall which doubles up as digital economic protectionism. Now we have the latest spate of age verification laws in America and the English online harms bill. The NATO alliance is forcibly deanoning the internet and similar laws are in the works in the EU, Australia etc. What was once a borderless frontier is slowly being nationalized. I can see a future where instead of the internet being a big ocean that connects the world, we have walled off national intranets North Korea-style with limited interaction between them. They just need to figure out the technical challenges of how to make this work. The conflict between the US and China over the BRI and 5G networks shows how the world is gradually splitting into rival camps based on the control of infrastructure. Its like the end of the Wild West and the slow conquest of Injun country. Those who resist could be criminalized or cut off on reservations. The sovereignty of the state extends everywhere, there are no shared spaces where people just meet outside of their control. The fun, convivial, shared spaces online will die out as it slowly becomes like a subway system. You can move anywhere along a predetermined network where every station and route is tightly controlled and always remain imprisoned within the system. This process could take years but it will happen. But there's another dark prospect to age verification ID bullshit. As more of our selves are represented online where life is treated as essentially information removed from a physical body, then there is no longer a need for those in control to peek behind the facades people put up in public because there is no longer a 'real' self to hide from power. Total surveillance is achieved.

How about terminal? Like,how about to create a site on it? I dunno how it works,just an idea

Internet balkanization is a very real thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinternet It's been a very, very long buildup and is really not a huge shock. Folks at various tech conferences have been workshopping long range radio networks.. you might like this OP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

THere's no way to resist it. Gottta just make the most of the net while its still around.

>>46638 the future is total hypercommercial brainrotting slopification with a hefty dose of govt surveillance... honestly i see no alternative to just leaving the net when the time comes

Speaking of this, I'm hearing rumors that YouTube will be requiring an ID to properly use it in the future. What are some good YouTube alternatives? Alongside that, what are some good "back of the alley" alternatives to other more prolific sites too? Stuff like Nitter for Twitter and the like.

There's always Freenet/Hyphanet/TOR sites. But fuarrrk age verification laws. They will be the death of the internet.

Why the fuarrrk is society forcing everyone online? It's getting worse and worse every fuarrrking year, like everyone on social media is a loser we need real life communities - these dumb fuarrrking parents put all their stupid fuarrrking kids online and their stupid kids made all these stupid fuarrrking decisions and now the parents want to change the internet so their dumb fuarrrking retarded ass kids don't do something they consider "bad" - they're going to ruin the internet. Thankfully a lot of them are so fuarrrking stupid and don't know how any of the technology actually works, so only mainstream apps will be affected, but fuarrrk it's only getting worse.

>>46653 For the first question, my personal opinion is "none" as long as the majority of content creators still publish their videos on YouTube and I doubt any platform that is large enough would be exempted from regulatory compliance For the second question maybe give LibRedirect a try? It's not a alternative frontend per se but it provides lists of public instances of various services that it redirects you to. Awesome lists of alternative frontends on github might also help.

>>46653 Bitchute and Rumble for more libertarian/far right style. Bitchute has already suspended their website in the UK due to this age verification crap, though. Peertube for a FOSS approach. This is the most reliable in a TEOTWAKI internet scenario, as its software you host yourself and connect the network of other peertube hosts. This means nobody is going to be able to force it to use age verification.

>>46657 Bitchute and rumble are trash. There is no credible YouTube alternative because YouTube has monopolized video sharing. Its only real rival is PornHub. >libertarian/far right style Do far right types really complain about the loss of anonymity online? Their ideology should lead them to being supportive of sovereign state control of the internet (or total corporate control in the libertarian case). They helped bring this on us.

>>46661 1) libertarianism (even the corporate kind) does not necessitate total corporate control. Degrees, nuance, etc. 2) you're forgetting that it's the government's propping up of bad companies through endless soykafty welfare programs is what is keeping these corporations afloat, not any ideology per-se 3) you're never going to do anything. Criticizing someone else for something you yourself are guilty of is hypocracy >WAAAH PEOPLE SHOULD CARE ABOUT ME!!! YOU WON'T CARE ABOUT ME SO I HATE YOU! -you

>>46661 I'm just giving alternatives that actually exist and work similarly to youtube. Whether you ideologically agree with them or not is no concern of mine. Peertube exists in that realm anyway where ideology doesn't even enter into it because its personally hosted and decentralized. Pornhub isn't a reliable alternative because even if they created a non-porn site (I always thought they should make something called "TheHub"), they're already cutting themselves off from many states who passed age verification laws or other anti-porn things. Their non-porn sites would suffer the same fate in the UK. Only something decentralized like Peertube, or perhaps Freenet/Hypanet/TOR, is immune to censorship.

>>46638 This is why stuff like liveleak was important to the fabric of the internet. uncensored, login free, pure journalism. i've yet to find a suitable replacement

someone whitepill me instead please

>>46664 Is there a liveleak archive somewhere?

>>46663 There are no credible alternatives to youtube. >>46662 Liberatrians don't believe that there is (or should be) an enduring, ownerless commons. Everything should be private property and turned into a service. This is anti-internet. The far right are hardcore nationalists who believe in state autocracy and national control. Again, anti-internet. At least if you believe the internet should be a borderless, open access, free space, and public good and not 100% monetized or run by a state. >>46655 Easier to surveil people.

>>46638 It's one of the major tragedies of the today, what once was escapism in the most human form now it's a wasteland, online communities are mostly centralized now as you pointed out, it's really sad to see, I just wish I learn how to scavenge the underworlds of the web and be able to find some friends and frens again, some company, far away from the major eye, far from the cultural mush, I hope and pray to find communities again, places to be me without major eyes looming over me, real escapism, not manufactured one, I hope to see those the hidden realms where the ostracized find peace without wicked gaze upon them, I pray to find tranquility in the web again, it's especially sad to see when you're lonely and you've always feel like you are one of those cursed to be miserable no matter what, mostly blue and sometimes gray but never warmer than that this probably sounds dumb but I wanted to write something like this

We just have to be honest. Privacy, anonymity, and connection are dead. What we need aren't privacy warriors or free speech absolutists trying to protest government actions as if that achieves anything. What we need are survival skills to somehow live in this new environment.

>>46961 44 68 BC 80 84 7C What does this say? Exactly.

>>46638 the dwindling number of shared spaces (in general, not just online) is so incredibly depressing ... with the new tendency for the US presidential administration to directly interfere with private industry and ditch congressional approval we'll be led to a similarly isolationist, tightly monitored web like China's supercharged with the soykafload of personal advertisement / marketing data of American companies. i can see it happening in maybe 10 year's time. the next frontier for sure must be wireless mesh networks like what other posters have pointed out, which i'd imagine will bring a new degree of locality looking at it all, it kinda seems inevitable that as soon as the internet started being used for the interests of capital, something like this would be its logical conclusion

>>47006 AI companies are lobbying for AI state surveillance over mandatory backdoors right now. EU is debating it under "chatcontrol" https://wire.com/en/blog/chatcontrol-an-invasion-of-our-digital-living-spaces. It got refuted in the past already but they keep dumbing bribe money on it and now its round 2. The problem isn't money making but the desire to control people by controlling information flow. If nobody knows about a problem then a problem doesnt exist and so the aim is to censor the net.

>>47006 That screenshot is from the Ghost in the Shell movie, not SAC.

>>46661 >>46670 It is you leftists who brought this onto us with your government worship. Libertarians are the only ones who push back against state censorship.

>>47021 Unfortunately, the libertarians' ideals cause giant monopolies that control governments to be made possible.

>>47022 Most giant companies wouldn't be viable without laws rigging the market in their favor and bailouts sustaining them even when they fail. If you actually implemented libertarian values you would kill giant corporations. Though i would say the root cause is people are largely just trained cattle, they like to pretend to be moral and soykaf but they cant even do a simple thing like boycott a soykafty company and support the alternative.

>>47022 Governments created corporations. They pre-date libertarianism by centuries. They originate from royal charters - king-given exclusive monopoly rights.

>>46670 >Liberatrians don't believe that there is (or should be) an enduring, ownerless commons. I don't think you understand libertarianism. Commons can exist within the context of private ownership. The GCC license presents an obvious example of this. I assume you think that "commons" have to explicitly be defined and governed by a state. >At least if you believe the internet should be a borderless, open access, free space, and public good and not 100% monetized or run by a state. The internet as we know it was founded in a period of cultural and technical dominance by the West. The idea of universally accessible and open network is informed by western liberal values. It was somewhat inevitable that there would be push back as liberalism became less popular in the west and other societies narrowed the technological gap. >>46665 You can always break the law if you don't like it.

>>47042 other societies censor the net less than the west. This year alone saw a massive censorship push from western countries. Shit like canadian karen calling another western countries cops over a twitter post and the cops jailing a 12year old boy in compliance with the call is peak crazy.

>>47045 BRVH did you even read my post? It's like 8 sentences (-_-) Liberalism specifically is anti-censorship, not the West in general. The internet was built at a time when the West was relatively advanced AND liberalism was more popular in the West than it is today (~30 years later). It should be obvious that illiberal societies have more restrictive censorship laws than more liberal ones. It's almost definitionally true.

>>47048 Whew this whole post is a trip back in time. Neoliberalism is and always has been about absolute human and post-human control. But all ideologies sans anarchism are.

>>47048 The only reason to mention others catching up is implying they are part of the reason the net got less free which is why i replied to it with its not reflected in the west censoring more than the ones catching up.

>>47051 China, Russia, and others couldn't effectively censor their domestic internet if they lacked the technical capability do so or depended on western websites. Or do the millions & millions of Chinese users & websites not count as part of "the internet"? If the web is considered a international entity, then national restrictions still make the internet as a whole less free, even if it mostly affects only domestic sites and users.

Its nice to see a comrade here for once. Thinking about learning ham radio stuff.

>>47045 North Korea, mainland China, and Russia were leaders in censorship for a long time, but with what's happening now in the west it wouldn't be unexpected to see Hong Kong becoming the Capital of the Free World, lol.

Nothing stops you from encrypting your messages, creating pseudonymous identities (or even neuro-identities that will communicate on your behalf), using Matrix on your own server, or accessing the internet through a combination of VPN + SOCKS5, which can be bought for pennies, or even through someone else's browser. Like everyone who does any kind of "business," you have two identities. The first one is for the state. You buy goods on Amazon, shop at Walmart, are subscribed to the left Twix stick (Democrats) or the right Twix stick (Republicans) on Twitter, hate the "Bad" countries, and love the "Good" ones. And the second is your true essence. It's on a virtual machine or a live USB. It accesses the internet through public Wi-Fi and proxies. It even uses people as proxies to access things. (Read about the alternative economy—though this info is from a Russian anarchist, but if needed, I can find the link). For all of this, it's even better to have two computers. Although you can be a fool from a phone too; sometimes that's even better. And also, don't forget the rule of hostile jurisdictions. If you need to hide something, choose a "Bad" country and register there. A "Bad" country won't hand over your data to a "Good" one. I think you get the idea. The Snowden example is there to help you.Nothing stops you from encrypting your messages, creating pseudonymous identities (or even neuro-identities that will communicate on your behalf), using Matrix on your own server, or accessing the internet through a combination of VPN + SOCKS5, which can be bought for pennies, or even through someone else's browser. Like everyone who does any kind of "business," you have two identities. The first one is for the state. You buy goods on Amazon, shop at Walmart, are subscribed to the left Twix stick (Democrats) or the right Twix stick (Republicans) on Twitter, hate the "Bad" countries, and love the "Good" ones. And the second is your true essence. It's on a virtual machine or a live USB. It accesses the internet through public Wi-Fi and proxies. It even uses people as proxies to access things. (Read about the alternative economy—though this info is from a Russian anarchist, but if needed, I can find the link). For all of this, it's even better to have two computers. Although you can be a fool from a phone too; sometimes that's even better. And also, don't forget the rule of hostile jurisdictions. If you need to hide something, choose a "Bad" country and register there. A "Bad" country won't hand over your data to a "Good" one. I think you get the idea. The Snowden example is there to help you.

Your access to Make Way is locked. Complete one quick offer now to unlock full access instantly.

>>47048 >Liberalism specifically is anti-censorship This isn't really true. Liberal societies promise free speech but they have to define what free speech is to distinguish it from acts of treason, effectively bracketing it. Paradoxically, freedom goes hand in hand with regulation. All states need to maintain secrets and punish those who leak state secrets so all of them engage in censorship. The data that is considered a state secret is actually estimated to dwarf the entire internet and about 800,000 Americans have security clearances. What makes liberals different (and there are parallels here with China) is that they create something like a container where you can say what you like inside that container as long as you don't step outside of it by touching certain topics. Liberal theorists like Locke and Rawls do say that those who step outside these bounds can be subject to physical punishment or have their rights and freedoms taken away. The only real difference between the US and Russia or China is just how big that container is and what kinds of topics are considered free. >>47042 >Commons can exist within the context of private ownership. If you read Nozick or Rothbard you will see that they don't believe in an unowned commons, that would simply be unclaimed property that becomes owned as soon as someone plants a flag on it. You could say that a person could choose to make something they own open access, but it would still be private property and not something held in common. Libertarians wouldn't like copyleft GNU license because it prohibits you from monetizing the code, which in their philosophy is putting a limit on an individual's right to dispose of their own property. >The idea of universally accessible and open network is informed by western liberal values This is partially true, but remember that many pioneers had other influences. Ivan Illich influenced the homebrew computing scene and he was an anarchistic Christian post-development guy. You also have to remember that the internet started out as military technology. It belonged to the hidden sphere of military secrecy and was not meant to facilitate a liberal civil society. >>47062 >You buy goods on Amazon, shop at Walmart, are subscribed to the left Twix stick (Democrats) or the right Twix stick (Republicans) on Twitter, hate the "Bad" countries, and love the "Good" ones. This is an important point but consider just how much loyalty states now demand from their citizens and how social media and public performances have become sites where loyalty is extracted and demanded. Putting up a false image day in day out leads to habits forming, so those things you fake become habitual and the state gets what it wants. You could also fall to those habits and wind up becoming the thing you are pretending to be.

>>47064 treason is not a matter of speech You roughly define it as harming your organization. "We should sell stock to X" for example can be a sensible good move to secure funding or a industry spy trying to have you sell influence to the enemy. Its not the words that constitute treason. Its the context in which the words are said.

Whenever these topics come up, I'm reminded that the perfect system is the one that we already have. Everyone has free will. Let's see who lives and who dies.

>>47071 normal people are confined to choices rulers create with laws. outlaws are the only people exercising free will and they get jailed for it if caught.

>>47073 >outlaws are the only people exercising free will and they get jailed for it if caught. Skill issue. Anarcho-fuarrrk-you-I-do-what-I-wantists rise up!

>>47071 Free will supposes adequate information about your environment, prior knowledge about preconditions and projected results for each choice, and the correctness of your first priors. Suppose you are playing the Newcomber’s game, and you are not allowed to inspect the setup for trapdoors beneath the black box. Do you take both boxes, the transparent box, or the black box? The expected utility function for each choice is unclear.

>>47076 >Free will supposes adequate information about your environment, prior knowledge about preconditions and projected results for each choice, and the correctness of your first priors. I don't really buy it. I choose the right one because the right one is always right. I don't even know if there is a right one. In either sense. All this means is that I was outmaneuvered by a better informed adversary. Good for them, the bastards. Someone used their free will better than I did.

A bunch of countries, including Israel, have experimented with internet shutdowns conveniently timed for political effect. India is probably the most extensive user of this strategy which will surely spread.

>>47136 are there any technical breakdowns of these shutdowns to see how one would circumvent them? we already have enough info on stuff like china's great firewall and cuba's intranet but I wonder how places like russia and india would do it my own soykafhole just IP blocks stuff they don't like so things like tor still work

>>47142 We will load sd cards with bootleg media and send them across borders with pigeons.

People keep coming back to Double-Struck X, they keep getting nuked there, and they don't seem to be tired of this circle of masochism. You know the ones. And i thought they would be smarter. It's the nothing-to-hideists, antisocial media addicts and apathetics, who will hammer the final nail into the Internet's coffin by their inaction.

I heard about this 10 years ago or so at an hackerspace. Guess what? I wasn't even thinking that they were wrong because I heard theirs way of speaking, but I didn't understood how? Now this thread only put sad smile on my face. Btw they were talking about creating network of wifi spread intranet covering whole cities created by users as reaction. IDK what is real anymore

>>46638 >The Russians have been working to isolate themselves from the global internet К У К У Б Л Я