Why Big Tech controls us: It controls the internet.

Wall St. Journal, Jan. 15:

. . . "Fiber-optic cable, which carries 95% of the world’s international internet traffic, links up pretty much all of the world’s data centers, those vast server warehouses where the computing happens that transforms all those 1s and 0s into our experience of the internet. Where those fiber-optic connections link up countries across the oceans, they consist almost entirely of cables running underwater—some 1.3 million kilometers (or more than 800,000 miles) of bundled glass threads that make up the actual, physical international internet. And until recently, the overwhelming majority of the undersea fiber-optic cable being installed was controlled and used by telecommunications companies and governments.
Today, that’s no longer the case. In less than a decade, four tech giants—Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Meta (formerly Facebook) and Amazon—have become by far the dominant users of undersea-cable capacity. Before 2012, the share of the world’s undersea fiber-optic capacity being used by those companies was less than 10%. Today, that figure is about 66%…”

Pay wall: Google, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft Weave a Fiber-Optic Web of Power - WSJ

The challenges of being on social media and the internet

I was checking on the biography of the person who had written about and translated Saint Epiphanius of Salamis.  That’s not important since he’d posted for many ancient writers and Christians.  What was interesting was the warning he’d given about anything about himself:

“This page was written in 1999, when this website was new.  It contained my photograph, my email address, and various personal, educational and professional details and so forth.

Little by little, it has grown shorter.  The internet is not so small a place as it was in those days.  A troll was merely a nuisance, not a brutal thug determined to use the compulsive element in social media to drive a vulnerable teenager to suicide, and to jeer at them afterwards on their memorial Facebook page.  A spammer was merely an advertiser, not an internet criminal determined to steal your every shekel, and your identity with it.  Privacy was taken for granted.  None of this is true today.

My email address was the first to go.  That change was forced upon me by the torrent of spam.  I created a form -- which the spammers soon learned to attack -- but this stemmed much of the trouble.

Next to go was my photograph, once I found that the nastier people online sought out personal information in order to use it to inflict pain on their victims.  Professional details went next, for the same reason.

Today I have decided to remove the rest.   It is a wrench, it is true.  But I see no alternative.  If I were to join the internet today, I suspect that I would not use my own name at all, but a pen-name.  Anything else puts you at risk from the criminal element online. 

I myself feel uncomfortable writing online under any name but my own.  Occasionally some forum software prevents me from using my own name; but it is a weird feeling.  But I think it would be absurd for me to attempt to use a pseudonym at this time of day.

All the same, I cannot sensibly allow personal details to remain on the web when I can prevent this. Nor should you.

You can still email me, if you like.  The following link will take you to a form, and this will email me.”

A sad story of our times.  Vicious trolls, angry Christian haters, and just plain nasty people.

Our internet is back

Our internet, phone and cable are up and running again. Sunday we had a big storm, and lost the use of the 2 TVs with cable boxes, the internet and our phone. Our other TVs (limited channels, no box) were working but not a great picture.   Everything had slowly come back on over 2 days, the interet returning about 10 a.m., but instead of cancelling, we just kept the service call. He went over everything very carefully, and then asked if there were any other cable boxes, so we sent him to Bob's office on the lower level. He was there a long time, and when he came up he was holding a piece of cable pretty well chewed up, from the outside. Apparently it had been the victim of lawn equipment, don't know when. He suspected that as it dried out from the storm, the connections were again working. I hope that stops the various interruptions we've had that our neighbors didn't. Two years ago the remodeling on the unit next door cut our electricity source which went through his attic into ours.

So for two mornings I went down the street a mile to Panera's to read my e-mail on my I-pad and then in the afternoon I went to the UAPL and used its Wi-Fi. But I'm happy to have the convenience restored.  Although I do get more done when it isn't available.

Net neutrality, coupons and capitalism

 Many political conservatives or alternate voices in medicine, history and science are going to YouTube, pod-casts, alternative media to be heard, and to get around the blatant media bias filled with Trump hate and Climate scares. Every day I find new sources--some just awful (bad voice quality, bad IT) and some very good.  Meanwhile when I log in the search engine front pages lie about "net neutrality" and how we need it. No, THEY need it to keep the alternative viewpoints and start ups back. The "wild west" internet is what made these giants like Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc., and like all good capitalists who become Democrats in order to fight competition that made them great, they want to put up the barbed wire fences with the government's help. Lots of lobbyists make their livelihood with this.

Forty years ago when I was writing about the coupon scams, it was the same deal. The largest companies put out the most generous offers so they could block the newer products which couldn't afford that kind of advertising in the cut throat grocery business.. Customers fall for coupons every time--can't believe that companies don't exist to "save" you money. Voters are similar. Capitalism works when the big guy eats or stops the little guy. It's still better than government transfers, but you need to understand the game.

 https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGtq7Ou-RrY

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

Today's new word: pathbreaking

I like to blog about "new words." They are only new to me. When I go back and review those posts, I see I never use them as delightful and interesting as they are and have to relearn the meanings. But today I came across the term "path-breaking" in an article lauding the contribution of an OSU couple in astronomy--$2.8 million. It sounded awkward, so I looked it up, and found it was being used in 1913 in the title of a book about woman's suffrage on the west coast. So I downloaded and started to read it. That's why it's so dangerous to wander around the internet. I have so many books in my TBR pile I don't need to be downloading anything . . .

Advantages of books over the internet

 
I read a lot--but more and more it's on a screen, which encourages skipping, wandering off to another topic, and the flicker is bad for the eye sight.  I'm trying to read a difficult book and keep putting it down.  Then I came across an old blog that suggested 15 minutes a day of doing anything can help develop a habit.  So I'm setting the timer and sitting down to read this book--away from the computer.

 

St. James’ advice for the internet users

You probably didn't realize the Bible addresses using the Internet. I need to re-read this advice whenever I read The Daily Beast or The Huffington Post.

James 1:19-27 (NIV) My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Social networking—the impact

This could be a little dated considering the speed of change on the internet.  It was published in January 2014, but updated in September 2014. About 50% of people over 65 use a social networking site—and at the time of the survey, the preference was Facebook. Pew Internet Project

“Do social networking sites isolate people and truncate their relationships? Or are there benefits associated with being connected to others in this way? In November 2010, we examined SNS in a survey that explored people’s overall social networks and how use of these technologies is related to trust, tolerance, social support, community, and political engagement, and found:

• Social networking sites are increasingly used to keep up with close social ties
• The average user of a social networking site has more close ties and is half as likely to be socially isolated as the average American
• Facebook users are more trusting than others
• Facebook users have more close relationships
• Internet users get more support from their social ties and Facebook users get the most support
• Facebook users are much more politically engaged than most people
• Facebook revives “dormant” relationships
• MySpace users are more likely to be open to opposing points of view

There goes our internet—along party lines, of course

The Democrats on the FCC did Obama’s bidding.

Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"

Ajit Pai is an oustpoken opponent of expanding government control of the internet, including FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under the same Title II rules that are used to govern telephone-service providers as public utilities. Under current FCC regulations, ISPs are considered providers of "information services" and subject to essentially no federal regulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqnnsFiiIwY

Bye, bye internet freedoms

In a commentary, “Neutralize Obama’s Hijacking of the Internet”, Judi McLeod, the editor of CanadaFreePress.com, said “Forget NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and all warnings sent by Edward Snowden. They’ve got nothing on how Net Neutrality will silence you.”

“Someday in the near future when you type in the words “Islamic terrorists” in an Internet post, you will be knocked off the Net and find it all but impossible to climb back on again.”

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324

Net Neutrality—I don’t like the idea. And you?

“Those favoring net neutrality claim to fear that, without government intervention, Internet service providers might "discriminate" among users or content providers or may block access to web sites. In this view, government must intervene to prevent such discrimination or blocking from occurring.

Those opposing net neutrality fear that the greater threat to Internet freedom arises from giving the government the power -- or, more accurately, the government arrogating unto itself the power -- to determine whether private Internet providers are discriminating among users or content providers, or to force Internet providers to carry content they may prefer not to transmit. This fear is enhanced by the knowledge that net neutrality's "discrimination" prohibition is inherently vague, and, therefore, that the range of bureaucratic discretion is inherently large, if not unbounded.”

 http://www.cnet.com/news/why-net-neutrality-is-incompatible-with-internet-freedom/#!

“You want a Department of the Internet like we have a Department of the Interior and we have a Department of Internal Revenue Service?” Beck asked. “This is it. You like your health care? You couldn’t keep your health care. You like your Internet?”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/17/beck-breaks-down-what-he-believes-the-real-goal-of-net-neutrality-is/

Internet users say they are better informed than 5 years ago

I'm definitely better informed about some rather specialized things than I was 5 years ago--my 2nd cousins once removed, Beyonce and the Kardashians, crazy scandals of the Obama administration, but I think I know less local stuff since we no longer get a newspaper. I did all my research for my new kitchen appliances on the internet, and they still are not properly installed and we're looking at January 2015 (purchased in September). I don't use a cell phone except to call my son, but I saw a woman at Kohl's this morning doing amazing things with hers that I didn't even know were possible. I'm using the internet more for recipes, and my own file less. Data isn't information isn't knowledge isn't wisdom, as the sign in my office used to say.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/08/better-informed/

Report is based an online probability survey conducted September 12-18, 2014 among a sample of 1,066 adult internet users, 18 years of age or older.

Growth of internet use and church membership

Is internet use and higher education affecting your church's attendance? "In the 2010 U.S. population, Internet use could account for 5.1 million people with no religious affiliation, or 20% of the observed decrease in affiliation relative to the 1980s. Increases in college graduation between the 1980s and 2000s could account for an additional 5% of the decrease." Allen B. Downey, professor of computer science (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5534v1.pdf)

Before turning on your computer, smart phone or I-pad, arm yourself with the Lord's Prayer, one of the creeds, or a favorite psalm to balance out your strong social needs and to make contact with the One who really cares and listens and is never off line or out of range.

1994--it wasn't all that long ago people were asking

What is the internet, anyway?

Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet'

From the Hill: Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) spoke against net neutrality regulations today (Jan. 18) at an event put on by the Safe Internet Alliance. Representing the songwriters, singers, actors, producers and other entertainers in Memphis and Nashville, she said the creative community does not want the federal government to interfere with how they are able to get content to consumers via the Internet.

"Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said. The creators "fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. "They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available....We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue."

Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

And not surprisingly, Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Obama for technology policy, and favors strong regulations on tech issues. She wrote an op-ed for the NYT favoring regulation and needs to be watched closely.

Can Google make you stupid?

No, but it can help get you there if you're not careful.

"Larry Sanger has made his living on the Internet. He co-founded Wikipedia, one of the world’s top 10 Web sites with more than 65 million visitors monthly, and he now leads two other ambitious online projects. So why does he fear what the Internet is doing to our minds and those of our children?" Inquiring minds want to know.

Google won't make you any more stupid than reading only Reader's Digest instead of the original, Bible commentaries instead of the Bible, or consulting a watch instead of figuring out the position of the sun and moon. It's a tool, and I love it. I actually know (or used to) some of the arcane rules for searching complex databases, but I "google" it instead. The difference is, I know not to trust everything I read and check several sources, look for not just two sides of a question, but four or five. I've even poked through that long list of e-mails from the Climategate whistleblower and read a number of scientists who don't agree there is a consensus on the cause of global warming.

Right now I'm reading "A faith and culture devotional" by Kelly Monroe Kullberg and Lael Arrington (Zondervan 2008). I just love it that Kelly and Lael sifted through the world of Christian intellectuals and selected the authors and the topics in art, literature, history, science, etc. and that they provide further reading suggestions and web sites if a particular topic interests me. From there I can google til my heart's content.

My Monday book group, and we all read and we know how and when to Google.

Facebook vs. Google

I'm a big Google fan. The story of its founders is the American dream. I remember exactly where I was (at my desk at work) when the TN vet-ag librarian told me about it. I use it constantly. Facebook. Oh, not so much. Yes, I'm aware of it, but can't think of any reason to join. Sounds too much like junior high school--friends, constantly gossiping, not going out side the group, etc. Not for this gal. Although I have used it from time to time to track down people--like the teenage piano teacher I had when I was 6 years old.

Wired is in my first issues collection (my hobby), and I still subscribe because 1) it's incredibly cheap, and 2) I can read it in the car or coffee shop much easier than reading it online. The Facebook article in the July 2009 issue is something you all should read, whether you're in an online community that uses real identities and data, or you are a fan of Google for going outside your comfort zone for information.

Facebook has a 4 step plan to dominate the internet, 1) Build critical mass (200 million members who contribute 4 billion pieces of information every month; 2) Redefine search (members will turn to friends); 3) Colonize the Web (10,000 partner sites); 4) Sell targeted ads everywhere (from the data you've contributed which will target you for ads). And then when the government takes over like it did GM and Chrysler? Shazaam.

Today's new word is TWITTERSQUATTING

New word of the day--twittersquat--a verb. I don’t Twitter, could never say anything in 140 words or less, and I can’t think of anyone who is that hyper about staying connected to me. I started this digital revolution in communication in the early 90s with e-mail, then learned HTML and wrote my own web page back when you had to know code and how to FTP. I actually remember the first time I saw the World Wide Web demonstrated in a workshop and asked, "What would you do with it?" I can remember when a vet librarian from Tennessee suggested that the rest of us try out a new search tool called GOOGLE. Yes, I'm an old timer. Early on I joined a group on Usenet which was only text, discovered mean nasty people who would insult me for no reason, so I switched to blogging (writing a diary) in 2003 so I could throw them off my cyber-property. But that's about where I stopped. No Facebook or social networks. Hey, I remember junior high school--who wants that on the internet? Therefore, I was unaware of "twittersquating." Here’s the definition from Erik which I noticed at Techmeme.

“Twittersquatting, like cybersquatting, is when somebody registers a company's trademark (or a famous person's name) as a Twitter username with the intent of profiting or causing confusion. Other possible names for this practice include username squatting, usernamesquatting, squitting, usersquatting, and brandsquatting.”

So, just add it to the catalog of sins for which Jesus died, or your list of CW "somebody done me wrong" songs. You know what people do when they squat.

The boogey man is real; he lives on the internet

Protect the children.



And if your librarian thinks children don't need filters, sit her down in front of this video.