Posts Tagged ‘internet’

Net Neutrality

Friday, October 27th, 2017

The Left consists of an angry mob, and requires some outrage to motivate the mob each time it must act. These invariably belong to the species of excuses known as victim narratives, where the raving herd perceives that someone has taken something from it that affects its personal lives.

They focus on personal lives because as egalitarians, they live in a fiction where each individual acts only for its immediate interests, and no one focuses on shared interests like civilization, values or accurate depictions of reality. It is all about what each individual wants to do and nothing more.

When we boil down the net neutrality debate, then, it translates to a mob of angry plebs concerned that without Big Daddy Government to regulate the internet, companies might charge more for access to popular sites. Those sites, which take up most of the internet traffic, impose a burden on ISPs and other smaller companies because most of their data use goes toward supporting those big sites.

Naturally, the industry — or rather, those big sites — want to preserve “neutrality” so that every smaller site is obligated to spend its traffic money on supporting those big sites, and those big sites can continue to grow. Regulations always protect large companies because they have the money to spend on lobbyists, but the bills are always pitched to the foaming crowd as being for their benefit.

Not surprisingly, ISPs — the ones sending traffic to the big sites — are the ones writing Net Neutrality laws because they want to fill it with loopholes and defend against the onslaught of FANG (Facebook, Apple/Amazon, Netflix and Google) companies who are the big names behind recent Net Neutrality publicity.

Beyond the dismissive rhetoric, ISPs are coincidentally united today in calling for Congress to act — and that’s because they’ve paid handsomely to control what Congress does. There’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, and that’s taking money from ISPs. The telecommunications industry was the most powerful lobbying force of the 20th century, and that power endures. It’s no secret that lobbyists in Washington write many of the laws, and the telecom industry spends a lot of money to make sure lawmakers use them. We’ve already seen net neutrality legislation written by the ISPs, and it’s filled with loopholes. It’s not just in Congress — companies like AT&T have deep influence over local and state broadband laws, and write those policies, too.

These companies have enlisted the raving mob to support them in the name of “free” access to their favorite monopolist entertainment groups. The FANG companies want net neutrality to continue to grow; the ISPs want to control it so that it is the opposite of what it says it is. Who loses? The smaller sites like this one, who are getting crowded out by Google’s algorithm that prefers big sites, and big sites like Facebook and Twitter who capture most of the audience. That has killed the internet, not a lack of net neutrality.

While conservatives blather on about “censorship,” they are actually defending the very forces that are actively censoring them in the name of “Net Neutrality.” For sensible observers, actual net neutrality has not existed for some time, since all commercial firms throttle traffic in order to avoid having access to other sites drowned out by people checking for new kitty pictures on Facebook. As of yet, ISPs have not enacted pricing plans that favor certain sites, mainly because it is technically complicated and audiences dislike the idea of it. The market has spoken, and done so more decisively than this legislation.

If anything, what we need to support an internet free of censorship is fewer larger monopolists who control most of its traffic and almost all of its search results.

To do that, we would need stronger local broadband, which ironically has not happened because state and local government regulations make it prohibitively expensive to run new lines — other than the existing ISDN (over old copper phone lines) and cable television lines — because every bit of red tape adds costs that mean no new lines are going to appear:

Broadband policy discussions usually revolve around the U.S. government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), yet it’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry.

Much as is the case with federal regulations, state regulations protect the big guys while raising costs for the little guys, ensuring monopolies on local internet access:

States have given municipalities the authority to offer broadband but made it difficult with tons of bureaucratic requirements, he said. “The bottom line is some states have created thickets of red tape designed to limit competition,” he said. Local residents and businesses are the ones suffering the consequences, he argued, pointing to members of the two communities in the audience.

With more local competition, meaning multiple lines into the homes so consumers could have access to newer technologies like fiber optic lines, consumers would have a choice if their local ISP decided to (rightfully) charge more for access to Facebook or other FANG companies, but government has regulated competition out of existence so that consumers do not have much choice:

And whose fault is that? Well, that would be the government’s fault. It regulated the cable TV business with a heavy hand since its infancy, giving monopoly rights to operators to string cities with coaxial cable. Those policies have been relaxed, so now it’s easier for a new provider — like telephone companies or fiber-upstarts like Google — to create broadband competition. But the market power of entrenched cable operators and the remaining regulatory hurdles still deter new entrants, suppressing the sort of competition that would make broadband companies more mindful of the needs of customers.

Google discovered this the hard way when it had to rein in its ambitious fiber optic ISP because costs were too high, apparently because of local regulations:

But it will pause further plans in at least eight more metropolitan areas where it has been holding exploratory talks with local officials. Those include Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Dallas, Tampa and Jacksonville in Florida, Portland in Oregon and Los Angeles and San Jose in California.

In the meantime, localities where government has decided to set aside those regulations, even if only so that it can provide its own internet, have provided a workable model.

As with all things Leftist, the Net Neutrality debate is inverted. These new rules will not stop censorship, will grow monopolies, and will avoid the vital question of giving consumers more choice so that they can use market forces to discipline ISPs to be exactly neutral. And the herd, thinking itself intelligent, will rage until it has them, and then rationalize its failure as victory while quality plummets.

Why The Dot-Com Collapse Will Doom The World Economy

Wednesday, October 11th, 2017

For those who are not familiar with our consumer society, it works like this: governments and large companies dump money on the working and middle classes so that they spent it buying essentially disposable goods, which makes the money used in those economies experience higher demand, which allows governments to keep borrowing.

Advertising drives this entire process by taking money from companies and using it to fund media, which in turn provides products that keep the workers occupied (“entertained”) and so neutralized from any other lifestyle, while compelled to buy more stuff and thus, drive the gears of the economy. It is Keynesian “pump-priming” in perpetual motion, at least until the debt bomb explodes.

Over the past ten years, the new Dot-Com 3.0 monopolists have taken over advertising, as this image from Visual Capitalist shows us. The internet has displaced television, but if the internet revenues are built on false promises, then the whole thing will crash.

If advertising goes, media goes; if media goes, our consumer economy will be irreparably damaged. This will further invalidate the age of ideology which promised a comfortable and stable life for the average person, and will have instead delivered them into an economy in permanent recession, since money that should have been spent on infrastructure and future planning was not.

The Dot-Com 3.0 bubble will burst as the truth of a 2009 report is revealed to be consistent, namely that 8% of the user contribute 85% of the ad clicks, meaning that all of internet advertising is based on false promises. At that point, the gig is up and confidence in online advertising will crash.

The updated results based on March 2009 comScore data, and presented by comScore chairman Gian Fulgoni and Kim McCarthy, manager, Research & Analytics at Starcom, at the iMedia Brand Summit in San Diego on September 14, 2009, indicated that the number of people who click on display ads in a month has fallen from 32 percent of Internet users in July 2007 to only 16 percent in March 2009, with an even smaller core of people (representing 8 percent of the Internet user base) accounting for the vast majority (85 percent) of all clicks.

Since that time, internet advertisers have attempted to transition to video, but are finding that these ads are less effective in a world of multiple windows where a user can simply click away from, close or mute video content. In particular, Facebook and Twitter have been caught inflating statistics, and Google remains vague on how many of its ads are viewed by bots and not real humans, or if those real humans actually intend to buy anything. In any case, the data suggest that most people are not paying attention to these ads.

This explains why dot-com companies are behaving like abusive monopolies, swallowing up any companies which compete with them or driving them out of the market, in order to keep the emptiness of their franchise from being revealed:

In an explosive new allegation, a renowned architect has accused Google of racketeering, saying in a lawsuit the company has a pattern of stealing trade secrets from people it first invites to collaborate. Architect Eli Attia spent 50 years developing what his lawsuit calls “game-changing new technology” for building construction. Google in 2010 struck a deal to work with him on commercializing it as software, and Attia moved with his family from New York to Palo Alto to focus on the initiative, code-named “Project Genie.” The project was undertaken in Google’s secretive “Google X” unit for experimental “moonshots.”

But then Google and its co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin “plotted to squeeze Attia out of the project” and pretended to kill it but used Attia’s technology to “surreptitiously” spin off Project Genie into a new company, according to the lawsuit… This week, a judge in Santa Clara County Superior Court approved the addition of racketeering claims to the lawsuit originally filed in 2014. Attia’s legal team uncovered six other incidents in which Google had engaged in a “substantially similar fact pattern of misappropriation of trade secrets” from other people or companies, according to a July 25 legal filing from Attia.

Much as Amazon consumes smaller companies in order to expand to all reaches of the market, and how other social media firms aggressively filter out links from competitors or promote their own paid advertising above that of others, the Dot-Com 3.0 surge itself represents a monopoly: crowding out old industry, such as brick and mortar stores, while concentrating power in itself, all without a business model that is transparent and therefore, likely represents illusory value which causes a consumer investment binge like the one that preceded the Great Depression:

The stock market, centered at the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street in New York City, was the scene of reckless speculation, where everyone from millionaire tycoons to cooks and janitors poured their savings into stocks. As a result, the stock market underwent rapid expansion, reaching its peak in August 1929.

By then, production had already declined and unemployment had risen, leaving stock prices much higher than their actual value. Additionally, wages at that time were low, consumer debt was proliferating, the agricultural sector of the economy was struggling due to drought and falling food prices, and banks had an excess of large loans that could not be liquidated.

As reported here before in the past in depth, based on years of observing the internet economy, we face the same conditions now: arrogant pseudo-elites wielding excessive power, over-investment by clueless consumers trusting media hype, fake value, a mutually self-validating industry, un-hyped currency devaluation, signs of a fragile bubble, catastrophic government intervention, maturing technologies worth less over time, and a lack of awareness by those who should know that the market is unstable.

Consumer society has gone this way before, producing bubbles where early investors make out like bandits, and then transfer the money to actually functional industries, leaving the clueless herd to rush in and buy a lot of virtual properties that turn out to be worthless, in time. But this time, we are playing not just with our own economy, but with the new interlinked global economy.

We might view this as a tragedy of the commons. To investors, wealth is a zero-sum game, with more of it made at the drop of a hat. But when this value is not backed by something of actual utility, a bubble is created, and then we all wait to see what random event will trigger it and bottom out the economy.

How The Left Will Remove The Right From The Internet Using American Law

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

We know they want to censor us and eventually, jail or medicate and then execute us. We know this because history repeats itself and the Left uses the same methods of dealing with not just the right, but all who fail to join the snowball of lost souls who form the Leftist herd. If you do not affirmatively agree with the Left, it sees you as an enemy, and you can expect open pit executions or an analogue thereof.

To the Leftist, there is only one right path, and its arbitrary and conjectural nature makes it even more unstable. “If only we were all equal…” begins the quest to suppress reality and replace it with a human order. However, this in turn makes the Left unstable, and so they view anyone who does not agree with them as a potential threat, or even a real threat, and that can be solved only one way: by murder.

The Left has conspired behind the scenes to invent a way for it to remove non-Leftist information from the internet, and by combining its war against piracy with its war against non-conforming thought, it has found a way to censor the internet, namely by removing any domains which publish controversial information, as a US judge just confirmed:

In addition to millions of dollars in damages, ACS also requested third-party Internet intermediaries to take action against the site. While the request is rather unprecedented for the US, as it includes search engine and ISP blocking, Magistrate Judge John Anderson has included these measures in his recommendations. Judge Anderson agrees that Sci-Hub is guilty of copyright and trademark infringement. In addition to $4,800,000 in statutory damages, he recommends a broad injunction that would require search engines, ISPs, domain registrars and other services to block Sci-Hub’s domain names. If the U.S. District Court Judge adopts this recommendation, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast could be ordered to block users from accessing Sci-Hub.

This motion has been incoming for some time since the Leftists recognized years ago that an uncontrolled internet represented a liability to their pretense of popular support, and so they have been agitating for regulation of content providers at the highest level, while transferring the bulk of content to private sources like social media companies:

It’s make or break for the internet as we know it. Unless Congress acts this summer, the Obama administration will end U.S. protection of the internet, handing authoritarian regimes the power they have long sought to censor the web globally, including in the U.S.

Ironically, the “authoritarian regime” in question turned out to be the United States, which has been captured by Leftists, and in doing so, both debunks the idea that limited democracy can succeed, and motivates itself to remove any threats to democracy, equality and pluralism, which requires erasing the internet domains of sources which provide troubling information.

Dot-Com Implosion Gathers Strength As Online Advertising Revealed to Be Worthless

Friday, September 22nd, 2017

Frequent readers of this site know that the internet economy is headed for detonation, and that this has been known as inevitable since the infamous “natural born clickers” study back in 2009:

…the number of people who click on display ads in a month has fallen from 32 percent of Internet users in July 2007 to only 16 percent in March 2009, with an even smaller core of people (representing 8 percent of the Internet user base) accounting for the vast majority (85 percent) of all clicks.

Over the next eight years, we have learned that not only are the frequent clickers fanatical, but they are relatively low-income, meaning that internet advertising is a giant waste of time for anything but tshirts, video games, coffee mugs and bumper stickers. And yet, companies keep investing in it, mainly because for statistical purposes, any warm body is as good as any other.

But now we are finding that even without looking at the audience, online advertising is worthless, which means that the business model behind search and social media is a dead letter:

Category 1 storm clouds are gathering over what has traditionally been one of the most lucrative, and perhaps only profitable, sectors to come out of Silicon Valley in decades: online advertising. Two months ago, it was P&G which fired the first shot across the “adtech” bow when not long after it announced it was slashing its digital ad spending because it thought it was not getting the kind of return on investment it desired, it made a striking discovery: “We didn’t see a reduction in the growth rate.” CFO Jon Moeller said “What that tells me is that that spending that we cut was largely ineffective“…

So fast forward to last week, when during Thursday’s Global Retailing Conference organized by Goldman Sachs, Restoration Hardware delightfully colorful CEO, Gary Friedman, divulged the following striking anecdote about the company’s online marketing strategy, and the state of online ad spending in general… What Friedman revealed – in brief – was the following: “we’ve found out that 98% of our business was coming from 22 words. So, wait, we’re buying 3,200 words and 98% of the business is coming from 22 words. What are the 22 words? And they said, well, it’s the word Restoration Hardware and the 21 ways to spell it wrong, okay?”

Stated simply, the vast, vast majority of online ad spending is wasted, chasing clicks that simply are not there….One wonders how long before all retailers – most of whom are notoriously strapped for revenues and profits courtesy of Amazon – and other “power users” of online advertising, do a similar back of the envelope analysis, and find that they, like RH, are getting a bang for only 2% of their buck?

Add to the above the fact that most ads (up to 80%) are not seen by humans and you have the revelation of a bubble. Over the past few years, stories have come out about inflated metrics on social media, manipulation by armies of shills, and mega-astroturfing on social media. The platform of the post-2007 internet — Google, mobile, Wikipedia and social media — has revealed itself to be entirely unreliable.

As the market adjusts to this new reality, the internet bubble will pop as the value of these stocks plummets. The longstanding assumption that our “services economy” was actually replacing the old manufacturing and agricultural economy will pop with it as these “services” stand revealed as something used by a small segment of the population, creating a statistical anomaly and not an actual market. At that point, the wealth of our currency will fall because of the market re-adjusting the perceived value of our economy based on the new knowledge that the dot-com herd is worthless.

Insane Information Creates Insane Action

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Inevitably the internet was going to increase the flow of data across the world. The important aspect of this flow is the exchange of communication between individuals. Other individuals witness these exchanges, and make deductions based on what they see, which then become information upon which they rely when making decisions.

In this decentralized medium, no one can regulate the conversion between data and conversation. Tech companies realize that people act on information they perceive as reliable and important. They filter the exchange through “community standards,” fearing what happens when the masses attribute the information to a reliable organization and have it shape their worldview.

This means that, as with mass media before the internet, all information has some form of bias. It has been said that Trump is a great persuader, but it has also been said that mainstream media is a great manipulator.  So when someone raises his hand to say that: “hey, politicians are now more talked about than Hollywood stars,” then you realize that information flow is going crazy.

And it is insane, because that is not how it was intended to be by our financial overlords. The typical Western “group-think” is that the masses like images of their favorite “stars,” which are used by advertisers to sell products. This is called manipulation, where intelligence agencies combined with media and film corporations are making fortunes from creating and maintaining their own celebrity “bubbles.”

Scott Adams explained how to know when you are in a mass hysteria bubble. If you are not in this bubble, you are persuaded, but if you are within it, you are being manipulated.

It’s quite clear that millions of people are still manipulated, meaning they fall outside the “current popular group” as it were.  There is also no doubt that some people are psychologically susceptible to suggestive manipulations, where media and political “suggestions” include mass violence (assassinations) against the “persuaded” individuals. There is ample evidence of correlation between political statements and street violence in South Africa if such reference is required.

From this it is obvious that the second these masses realized they were not part of the popular group (anymore), they went crazy. But the manipulators including mass media and intelligence agencies as coordinated by the jilted political representatives, exacerbated the natural violent response to unpopularity to such an extent, that crazy information became crazy action.

It’s almost a perfect storm: the combination of greedy corporations and their political sycophants manipulating liberal masses have created a positive feedback loop that is bound to, and may already have hit critical mass. Their public address loudspeakers are at their limits resulting in a squeaking crescendo that chases away supporters rather that invite them, because it is insane noise.

Its sanity accelerates. Each group has found a way to reach maximum intensity, and now has nowhere else to go. SJWs are dressing up like vaginas, defeating any notion that they can be outdone. The bike-lock Professor can’t be outdone. The Charlottesville antifa dress better than SWAT teams and can’t be outdone. There is no more to be done; they have hit their limits.

At this point, the masses are in the process of persuading themselves. This creates circular reasoning, where the group rewards any who express its biases, and then amplify those biases by repeating the information to one another. The more this happens, the more each group withdraws into its own simulation of reality, filtered through its assumptions as if they were truth.

This is the endgame of modern democracy. We have created a pluralistic echo chamber, where each group is diverging rapidly from the rest. This radicalizes them and their competition (“opposition” and “enemies”) at the same time while increasing the speed of the change of events. The information that once controlled people has now made them chaotic and insane.

Our only option for healing this wound is counter-intuitive. The way to encourage these masses is actually to increase their crazy information flow and encourage their crazy actions because it will expose them, meaning break them outside of the bubble of manipulation, and in doing so persuade them that the system of information exchange itself has become broken.

It seems crazy to think such action could work. Then again, what we have now is also crazy, and getting more insane by the day. When the information bubble pops, people will no longer trust any forms of authority or any groups of other people, and will have to rely on gut instinct and immediately observable events and attributes of reality.

At that point, humanity will be closer to its actual nature than it has been for the past century of mass media — newspapers, radio, television, social media — manipulation, and with the fall of the idol of mass information itself, will be immunized to ideology and become weaponized in favor of common sense.

Caught In The Web

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

Without remembering exactly when I first heard the term “internet,” it appeared in my house somewhere after 1990 as a dial-up modem. I had absolutely no interest in it for some reason. I was skeptical towards it some time later even when we got the faster, more convenient ISDN. The thought of communicating with strangers around the world seemed very unpleasant to me. Closing in on 2000 some homes near us started getting cable modems that put them online 24/7. Soon thereafter it was the norm.

I began using the web infrequently to search for topics I found interesting. Later I would start using IRC, unwillingly at first. But it had benefits for communicating with friends. You were a nick on a screen and nothing more. However, the system with channels was clearly altering the way people met new contacts and made social bonds. Not in a good way. I noticed it. The amount of drama, gossip, conflicts and lies where downright disturbing. Often people behind nicks did not reflect who the person was in reality at all.

Some people I had a good impression of, whom I felt I knew after long periods of chatting, but then “met” them again when a careless comment revealed their actual character, made me want to turn around and run. I had some serious arguments with people who were present on the channels to the point it seemed we were ready for a time and place to rip each other to pieces. Only to meet by coincidence, looking at each other, embarrassed, laughing and shaking hands. This was the norm by the way. My worst examples in each end of the spectrum are not even bad compared to what other people did. I can mention a person who attempted ordering an assassination and something close to a local gang war as the worst ones. And most of these people where just the normal guys and girls in town.

As a protection against this ridiculous form of skewed socialization I and some others moved out of channels like #yourtown to ones set up for networks of people who used to be together out in the real world. This improved the situation somewhat but still had problems. People would invite in others they knew, just like in real life. The difference was of course that it still had some of the same problems as the major channels. You had to deal with persons who were not there physically. People you under normal circumstances would never bond to, but ended up doing still because you kind of knew the friends of your friends more that way. This resulted in networks being formed in a more unnatural way, at least to some extent that was important. Every circle of people that formed around me at that time that had come out  of internet communication was quickly torn up by levels of conflict that were unusual in our culture prior to this. Including one episode of severe violence that had substantial effect on the local community as a whole.

The final solution to this came around 2002/03. MSN. I quickly faded my IRC use to looking at the screen now and then a few times a day to pulling the plug forever in 2004. So did “everyone” else. I looked at my hometown channels list of nicks just before quitting. The only names remaining were those of a few nerds who were the original inhabits. MSN was perfect. Just a list with your actual friends to talk to. As a add-on you had forums for different interests. I left most of those to because of many of the same reasons as IRC. That it had the tendency to put incompatible people in the same “room” in a situation that would not occur in a purely IRL setting.

So here we have a example of how social networking online went from one primitive prototype and back into just private messages and forums for whatever interests the person had. You could still be on the internet with gloves on and nothing was centralized yet. There was a very clear distinction between your life and the internet, even when you consider the negative impacts it could have had already at that point. 

However, here I should add one important thing. There were some other sites then, used by a certain kind of troubled people, which were similar to later ones like Facebook. It is interesting for me to note that the users of these that I knew often correlated with Leftism, r-selected traits and somehow using the internet purposely to find partners or sexual adventures.

Then came 2007…

Everyone was talking about this Facebook. “You have to join. It’s fantastic! You are not there yet?”

No, I was not there. I quickly learned that this was a new network that was different. I instantly felt a deep opposition to the idea and decided to not go on it. I got even more reluctant when we met friends out or invited them home. They seemed to know everything about everyone because of Facebook. I found that repugnant because one of the interesting things about meeting people is to talk about what’s new and what they have been up to. Knowing it all beforehand seemed to take away a lot of the point about going for a cup of coffee or visiting someone. Not to mention that everyone you knew were supposed to know certain things about you all the time the moment you did it. You could of course join and not broadcast everything, but it seemed to me that careful use was not the rule but the exception.

Looking back at Facebook I wonder why it happened. A network like that had certainly been technologically possible for years. And there had been some other attempts at similar ones before. But most people had a sense of a border between the internet and IRL. As in: you put on decent clothes when you  go out, you don’t go to the store in underwear or walk around your garden naked. A bit of a clumsy analogy, but you get the point. Somehow people were very willing to break down those boundaries. Why take the gloves of then? Did the users of those similar networks before pave the way, push the boundaries further and somehow pull the rest of the population with them into this new level of doing it? Or was there a strong media campaign driving people towards it that was orchestrated by the creators?

I joined in 2009, in the summer. I made a compromise. I would not add people I had been in the same room as once. I would add people I knew well enough, then, or in the past, like the guy who sat two seats behind me in the German class I attended for two weeks in 97 would not be enough. So I was there doing nothing important. Somehow parodying the whole thing or doing it with a tongue in cheek attitude when I did anything at all. So for the first years it had very little impact at all. I mostly kept things as they were by doing my communication at MSN or SMS and some forum activity.

MSN was scrapped, and people I knew in real life wanted to use Facebook for messages so I had to do so as well. They quickly introduced their own Messenger. And suddenly, together with a lot more, the internet was centralized around the monster imitation Facebook…It had by then taken over networking, chat, personal home pages, dating services etc. to such and extent that you could almost call Facebook the heart of the internet. The metaphor of the boiling frog comes to mind here

In my point of “revelation” in 2015 I finally used Facebook for activism. I had done so on occasions earlier, but not very actively. I did some posting now and then on Islam and the breakdown of family values from 2011. My prediction or hope of a rising movement in 2015 included a rebellion against this form of networking as well. As I clearly saw how the peer pressure there and in the media had finally caught complete hold. Just before the migrant crisis most people were ready to say no…but they did not.

Over time I found myself deleting Facebook, then Instagram, then messaging services. My online usage trickled to a rivulet, having once been a stream. It was as if a false world fell away, replaced by an emptiness, and this emptiness proved to be less empty than what had gone before it. Perhaps, much as there can be degrees of infinity, there can be degrees of nothingness, and in leaving behind the full void it was possible to rediscover the daily void and search for meaning within it. I felt an absence as I deleted these empty things.

This monster clearly acts and shapes the internet in this way. It is the same pattern mirrored there as in the outside world: feedback looping. In my retelling of how I witnessed the rise of the internet I left out another very important event just to avoid mixing them up. In January 2007 I watched Steve Jobs introduce the iPhone. That event is hugely important as it marked a shift in people’s use of all these things. People would soon be able to have the internet not only 24/7 on their desktop and laptop at home, work or school. They would soon be on it 24/7 everywhere. Life went total as most people picked it up towards 2010 and it caused further innovations in various services.

I like many others have seen notable behavior changes in people after 2007. And even I being alert to this feel that my perception and experience of the world have changed. Even when leaving all this behind I can sense it around me like some sort of field. By that I don’t mean I can sense the microwaves. It is more a presence I know is there, everywhere, that my instincts detect as a threat, which it undoubtedly is. I can illustrate what I mean by this. In 2012 we where hit by a bad storm during Christmas. It knocked out everything. The mobile network, most emergency services and lines of communication went down. At one point the power went out and we were in total blackout as in a pre-1900 state. It was like some switch was shut off. My whole body and mind had a stress reduction response that was very notable. My thoughts was “Freedom!” And that was what it felt like. 

A YouTube personality I found on Stefan Molyneux’s show brought my attention to another strange psychological phenomenon that is well known but somehow less talked about. Mass hysteria. She further connected it to social media. Where she theorized that it not only caused it, but made it more frequent and long-lasting. And pointing out that it was much more difficult to cure it because of that. This further reinforced the notion I have picked up that white people tend to be much more sensitive to outer stimuli and how it affects perception of reality. That makes the current overload of media and virtual social interaction a significant contributor to our current situation. Although not being the origin of our problems it has been speeding up the decline to an extent I find hard to calculate.

We should study how this artificial shrinking of the world, distances and communication methods really affect us. What happens in the body, the brain and its various systems when you meet someone in person compared to communicating over the web? And so on…The difference might be more important than we think or tend to feel about it. Because in our time there is a huge cliff between how we consciously think various things affect us compared to what they actually do. And this lie at the heart of it all. The disconnectedness.

Goldman Sachs Notices Dot-Com 3.0 Collapse

Saturday, June 10th, 2017

Get ready for the taste of pavement. For some time, Amerika has been reporting on the Dot-Com 3.0 bust heading our way.

Where Dot-Com 1.0 died in 2000, and resurrected in the early 2000s, the current boom began with the shift to mobile devices in 2007 and has seen its fortunes fall as mobile devices have become less of the grand boom that people hoped.

Now, the markets are noticing that top tech stocks are over-valued:

Goldman Sachs on Friday released a report on the top five outperforming mega-cap names in tech with some warnings on valuations and concerns that their volatility has become extraordinarily low. In fact, the stocks had become closely correlated to safe haven plays, like bonds and utilities.

…What it found is that the current-day tech stocks have advantages in cash flow, valuation and cash balances over the top five tech names in the first quarter of 2000 — just before the bubble burst. But the current group is behind in profitability, as measured by gross profits and total assets.

The group makes up about 13 percent of the S&P 500, but has accounted for almost 40 percent of its year-to-date performance. The stocks are among the top holdings of hedge funds. The analysts noted that mutual funds, aimed at core, growth and value, are overweight all but Apple, and the five companies combined are 11.8 percent of those mutual fund holdings.

What is the product of this third iteration of the internet, which is powered by social media and search engines? Advertising. So, the internet is the new television… and yet, people are dropping out of the internet as an entertainment medium as it becomes destroyed by the herd behavior that destroys every human endeavor.

Those with the attention span and experience to know how the promise of the internet has died are starting to speak out about its centralization under social media:

In Sunde’s opinion, people focus too much on what might happen, instead of what is happening. He often gets questions about how a digitally bleak future could look like, but the truth is that we’re living it.

Everything has gone wrong. That’s the thing, it’s not about what will happen in the future it’s about what’s going on right now. We’ve centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg, who’s basically the biggest dictator in the world as he wasn’t elected by anyone.

One of the most important things to realize is that the problem isn’t a technological one. “The internet was made to be decentralized,” says Sunde, “but we keep centralizing everything on top of the internet.”

Who is “we”? The answer is simple: the consumer. The internet went from being a place of many sites offering diverse information to a few big companies that control everything because the consumer audience wanted safe, convenient, easy and cheap data. So they turned to centralizers like Facebook, Wikipedia, Google search, Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, Apple iTunes and Netflix.

That in turn ensured that all those independent producers of content stopped producing. What is the point to investing twenty or forty hours of time a week in online content in exchange for a few hundred visits a day? People abandoned the internet to the new conglomerate overlords. These then used their market power to expand so that now, they are all fighting for their share of the herd flowing through.

In other words, the decentralized behavior of the herd caused centralization, much as it did in government, and this centralized force then had an interest in managing, controlling and manipulating the herd. The human pattern repeats yet again, and soon, we will bear witness to the force of its emptiness.

They Have Made The Internet Into Daytime Television

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

Donald Trump shows another role for himself: ringmaster. He knows that as long as the goes on, the audience will cheer, and while they are cheering, they support him.

To that end he stands at the front of the three rings and gestures with his baton. Sometimes, he summons the daredevil, sometimes the clown. And sometimes he just trolls the media by typing “covfefe” into a microblog, possibly merely as a joke on the need for coffee before one can be coherent in the morning, a staple of family-friendly comedy for the past three decades at least.

He knows that business opportunities appear to those who recognize the actual state of things versus the hype, or the hive buzz created by the intersection of media, academia and social chatter. In his understanding, media is an overvalued industry about to fall, and it is to his advantage to both use them and destroy them with non-news that fascinates them.

But then, for the rest of us, there remains the unpleasant task of avoiding seeing the term “covfefe” for the next forty-eight hours. Every carny and barista out there who wants to show how clever he is will be riffing on it, the media will be full of it, and soon even academia will offer papers showing how in a postmodern context nonsense language is used to accelerate totalitarianism.

This society as a whole is entirely devoid of ideas, but the worst of all may be the internet. It is presumed to be a space of ideas, where symbols are more important than the time, space, money and status differentials dividing them. In reality, it has become daytime television, or entertainment for those who are stuck in a path that leads to nowhere but its own repetition.

By itself, this would not be a problem, but the internet has taken over public discourse — you can do it without leaving your home and waddling through this diversity-blighted, corporate-owned, broken and dysfunctional wasteland — and in order to be heard, voices must be competitive, which means descending to the level of simplicity and “spicy” clickbaity text as the rest.

If the Alt Right has a weak point…

Most of the blogs now focus on, in emulation of Mencius Moldbug, making a very simple concept look as complex as possible. They invent matrices, theories, metrics and indices. The reason for this is that it makes the audience feel like geniuses for grasping a detail as if it were the whole. That is a modern theme, found in self-help books and science: tiny traits being amplified to world-controlling theories.

And we know Moldbug was just taking a college-educated view of Maddox, whose satirical-fanatical egotism was an obvious trope at the start and wore thin over time. Neither really managed what Jorn Barger saw in the blog, which was a real-time means of responding to events.

Of course, my original writings were from before those. They actually had some academic grit to them, and focused on the philosophy behind events rather than tangible and exciting use of metaphors as if they were reality. From the early 1990s onward, I have been writing against democracy, in favor of culture and race, against materialism, and in favor of transcendental and naturalistic deep ecology outlooks. My sites offered academic writing, informed by philosophy, long before Maddox or Moldbug. In fact, most of you are making a name for yourselves by rediscovering or ripping off ideas I wrote about two decades ago.

But professional analysis and sober diagnosis does not compete with “X theory is the source of everything bad, and LARPing is the solution” as seems to dominate the blogs. Like self-help books or modern science, blogs specialize on finding a new detail every week to hype into an apocalypse and a solution. This is why, over time, they fade away: one can only keep promising doom and salvation for so long.

People do not realize that whatever defines a medium migrates to every corner of it, including those that think they are underground. The Alt Right is not immune to the daytime television conversion of the internet. Instead, it absorbs it and takes it into its own unique form, so that now we get esoteric complex Rightist writings that have become clickbait and self-help.

The only solution to this is to demand more from the internet. Is it a library, a newsstand, or a television? The fools say it is all three, but the wise realize that only one form will predominate, and it will subjugate the others, as is the rule of nature. I say we go for the library, actually learn something, and then act instead of distracting ourselves with dramatic but empty theory.

Why The STEM Shortage Is A Myth

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

People react to threats with manias. They create a symbol to drive away the blood-god, and then they cling to that symbol in a pathological and obsessive manner.

It is such with the incoming economic collapse of the West. We are facing the results of centuries of bad policy all crashing down together, and our political establishment will do nothing to admit or counter this.

Our talisman against economic failure is “jobs,” and as a subset of that, the religion of STEM was born. Instead of noting that the liberal arts, when not infested with Leftism, are necessary for learning critical thinking, the herd has decided that we should all be computer programmers.

There is only one problem: they have not looked at how computer programming has changed since the 1990s.

During that time, the internet was a wild west. There were new demands, namely learning how to make many servers work together as one. People had to develop the big apps like search engines, blog software, email clients and application frameworks.

But now, all the semi-difficult thinking has been done, itself mostly derived from the work done to make the operating systems and networking protocols invented back in the 1950s and 1960s. We are at best flies feeding on the carrion of the past, converting something functional into another form of television or newsmagazine.

Applications have standardized in other fields as well. The other development from the early 1990s was the gradual stabilization of an industry standard operating system, Windows, and although it has a couple tag-alongs, it basically still rules the day thanks to its momentum caused by that standardization. (Windows itself was based on the theory behind another 1960s-era operating system.)

What won the day? Time. Time and many people working on iterations of existing technology, gradually improving it until functional versions were available. If we have a problem now, it is that people need to justify their jobs, and so keep “improving” applications in ways that make them less functional. In many ways, we are simply re-learning the past as we roll back these “improvements.”

However, all the big opportunities have gone. Over the past decade, we have seen a gradual decline of programming from a Wild West to a type of blue-collar clerkship:

U.S. tech talent shortage discussions tend to focus on getting more young people to go to college to become CS grads. Nothing wrong with that, writes Anil Dash, but let’s not forget about education which teaches mid-level programming as a skilled trade, suitable for apprenticeship and advancement in a way that parallels traditional trade skills like HVAC or welding. Dash encourages less of a focus on ‘the next Zuckerberg’ in favor of encouraging solid middle-class tech jobs that are primarily focused on creating and maintaining tech infrastructure in non-tech companies. Dash also suggests ‘changing the conversation about recruiting technologists from the existing narrow priesthood of highly-skilled experts constantly chasing new technologies to productive workers getting the most out of widely-deployed platforms and frameworks.

As with all things in the post-collapse West, the technology industry is trading on the image of the past. Maybe in the 1950s, and as late as the early 1990s, there was room for radical innovation that required a nerd priesthood to demystify the machine. Now, however, this technology has been integrated into everyday life, and has shown little actual utility beyond what we were doing with it in the early 1990s: office applications, email and online ordering.

This means that the market will collapse inward and be distributed outward at the same time. The new programmer does not work for a fancy technology company, but labors away at a regular business, in charge of multiple functions that involve more configuring existing software than developing new, groundbreaking work.

Programming itself has changed as well. The roll-your-own days are gone, replaced by extensive libraries that one ties together with little more than object oriented scripting in order to produce apps for mobile devices or the web. All but a few applications of this require skills that are now taught as rote by programming boot camps.

Consequently the big money is gone, too, although the market is still catching up to that fact. The radical technologies of one decade, returning high margins, are the expected parts of reality with low margins in the next decade. The best bubble comparison for the internet is long-distance calling. When the phone system was new, long distance was expensive and a lucrative market; as soon as the technology matured, however, the prices came down and the industry mostly went away.

The same is true of the internet. What will be left will be like the shopping malls of the 1980s: you go to Google and for any search, see a list of approved sites. You can then shop at any of those, including non-profits in which content has been denatured for your safety. The former Wild West will be a managed experience entirely driven by consumer demand.

Accordingly, programming will calm down as well. Most offices will have a guy who codes up the web site, maintains the network, and answers help calls from people having trouble with their computers. It will be well-paid, but not beyond what a good plumber makes. The gold rush is over, and the boom in needing engineers and programmers is also fading.

There never was a STEM gap, after all. We had enough people here to do the jobs, and the jobs were going away and losing their shine anyway. Even those who flocked to Silicon Valley to earn a quarter million a year soon found that expenses ate away most of that. Every time the herd stampedes, it destroys what it stampedes toward.

In the meantime, politicians are hyping free college and a STEM boom because it is easy. Industry wanted more workers so it could take the best and pay everyone else peanuts. Most people have ended up with jobs they dislike, doing rote tasks they have come to hate, in a predatory environment. This is what always happens when the herd fascinates itself with a gold rush.

This is the nature of markets, and if your politicians promise you a future based on STEM, they are lying. The real future lies elsewhere: in finding jobs that match capabilities of our co-ethnic citizens, and sending everyone else home, because the great wealth boom is not only over, but was always a scam.

Net Neutrality Lunges In The Wrong Direction

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

The Left specializes in creating mental spam. Every few weeks, there is a new distraction that they hype into an end-of-the-world style issue, not so much because they care about the issue, but because they need to keep their base panicked and angry so that they become a personal army to crush opposition and demand Leftist power.

Currently the Leftism media-political establishment is raging about net neutrality:

Federal regulators will move to roll back one of the Obama administration’s signature Internet policies this week, launching a process to repeal the government’s net neutrality rules that currently regulate how Internet providers may treat websites and their own customers. The vote on Thursday, led by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, will kick off consideration of a proposal to relax regulations on companies such as Comcast and AT&T. If approved by the 2-1 Republican-majority commission, it will be a significant step for the broadband industry as it seeks more leeway under government rules to develop new business models. For consumer advocates and tech companies, it will be a setback; those groups argue that looser regulations won’t prevent those business models from harming Internet users and website owners. The current rules force Internet providers to behave much like their cousins in the legacy telephone business. Under the FCC’s net neutrality policy, providers cannot block or slow down consumers’ Internet traffic, or charge websites a fee in order to be displayed on consumers’ screens.

As usual, the Left wants to confuse one method of addressing a problem with the set of all methods, so that their voters think there is only one way to fix the problem and any deviation from that is treason.

First, we should talk about net neutrality. The original idea of the net was that every node could forward packages to every other node, based on the idea of mutuality, or that each did the same to others. This works in a subsidized or military system, but not in a market, where some sites are massively larger than others. This means that the little guys spend their money and energy supporting Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, Apple, Facebook and Twitter, while the big companies owe them nothing.

This means that net neutrality, as a concept, was dead the minute that the internet was commercialized.

Next, we should talk about monopoly. When a large search engine like Google, or massive site like Amazon or Wikipedia, controls most of the eyeballs, the policies this site uses to list links on its pages regulate who lives and who dies. A site with low Google rank disappears and its business evaporates; a concept that Wikipedia refuses to mention — in a model like that of the mainstream media, excluding its ideological enemies — just drops out of public consciousness. Any concept of neutrality is long dead.

With those in mind, we can turn to a solution. Regulation adds expense and litigation to otherwise thriving industries, displacing little guys and favoring big guys. The consumers ultimately want the ability to see anything they want on the net without consideration of what it is. But they have already lost that, long ago.

Instead, it makes sense to let the market cure this one. If an ISP is blocking your traffic, you can sign up with a competing ISP… except you cannot, because regulation keeps the market small and so you have few options. Instead of piling more bad regulations on top of that, it is time to repeal more laws and let the problem work itself out.

If consumers desire net neutrality as much as they claim they do, they will be willing to put market pressure on their ISPs instead of relying on Big Daddy Government to do it for them.

Recommended Reading