Do we need to redesign the internet?

I've had similar thoughts over the years and while there is a lot that's wrong with the internet, issues like banning, propaganda and so on, are neither symptoms nor a consequence of it. It has nothing to do with the internet and everything to do with plain and simple stupidity which has been spreading for as long as the world has existed and much faster than covid-19.

The only difference between now and say 20 years ago, is that 20 years ago the internet wasn't a part of Average Joe's life and back then it wasn't fueled by his personal content. The TV-commercial spam has penetrated into people's social life via social media. And refusing to acknowledge this fact, people left their front doors wide open for spam, propaganda in exchange for like/upvote-based "currency". Which many are willing to exploit naturally, while others look the other way in order to take a piece of the pie. There have been some efforts to slow that process down but the means are evolving. The current frontier of spam and propaganda, as I see it, are Q&A types of communities which makes spam and propaganda cheaper and more accessible than ever.

What I'm trying to say is that what you are describing is a symptom of an sickness in people, and not in the technology: Most people are refusing to change or even reconsider their views when facts are presented to them.

In a word: "no."

In some more words:

I don't see the problem. Reddit is a private organization, they decided some other people are not welcome there, that is their prerogative. Hateful racists can go start their own forum, which they did. They are free to welcome other viewpoints or not.

In specific words:

> The last wave of bans across multiple platforms have got me thinking that we're on a bad version of the Internet.

We aren't, people are free to conduct their own business as they see fit. It's still the Internet.

> In general, I dont like shutting up the opposition and with traffic consolidated so heavily on a few platforms/companies, bans effectively shut people up.

Great, you can run your own forum and amplify the voice of whoever you want. Other people are free to moderate their platforms as they please.

> On the other hand, I cant deny that even the most outrageous claims find willing ears on the internet. Diseases that were all but exterminated are now flourishing in Europe thanks to anti-vax propaganda.

Right.

> Is there a middle-ground here, where people can speak their minds, engage with others - likeminded or not - without the damaging effects? Or are we destined to end in some form of dictatorship where 10 people determine who says what?

The internet is the middle ground. I see no reason we are destined to end in some form of "dictatorship", unless we maintain this insistence that all platforms have to allow all speech.

> And what happens when we no longer agree with these 10 people? Can we even get to that point if the entire narrative is so heavily controlled?

You can just... use the Internet. Register your own domain, pay for your own hosting, or buy some servers, take out come ads. It's the Internet, you can still do anything.

Sure, if you host a bunch of white nationalist toxic garbage your registrar may revoke your domains. Your hosting provider may pull the plug on your servers, etc. That's exactly how it should and does work.

The Internet is fine. It's the Web that has become problematic. Choose open protocols to build your communication systems on (email, usenet, others), then let people establish their own servers and set up peering. Users can elect to use one or multiple servers and any client that can understand the protocol.

We need more decentralization, moving the Web outside of big corps that censor "wrong think." We need more critical free thinkers. We need to be more vocal. We need more conversation and willingness for understanding differing view points. I almost feel like, at least for a ‘main’ social network/chat and political conversations, we need something like the Nets from Enders Game, tying online accounts to real persons, possibly reducing potential for misinformation, propaganda, and opposition-silencing spread by bots and non-persons. All I know is that FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are "hive minds" and it is incredibly disheartening when you are one those who "wrong think." And it doesn't seem organic.

> "And what happens when we no longer agree with these 10 people? Can we even get to that point if the entire narrative is so heavily controlled?"

What people seem to forget is that popular internet platforms are always controlled. When you join a site like; Reddit, HN etc.. you agree to play by their rules. The rules are not always fair but that's because it's their platform, not yours.

The reality is, you can say anything you want on your own platform, but you do not have that right on someone-else's platform... nor should you

Basically, the internet is open and free, but platforms are walled and guarded... and that's fine

I think Elon Musk's Starlink is a very promising example of keeping the internet open for everybody. Governments will have a hard time shutting down the internet when there are satellites providing unlimited access.

What about the internet ... implies there should be no bans or ... how would you do that?

I'm not sure you can manipulate human behavior to be what you want with a technology akin to "the internet".

Think of Bitcoin, there's some interesting issues that Satoshi Nakamoto talks about. Has it done any of that? I'd say not much, and rather than solve very many internet commerce issues ... it's spawned a whole world of scams and other undesirable effects.

bans are good - it means de-consolidation. Wait until something interesting happens in gab.ai and you 'll see hordes of left-leaning people flock to it, because people love to argue on the internet, and safe bubbles dont have a lot of arguing.

The internet was designed to be robust afaik, we dont need a new design but rather let it work as it was intented

You need to be more specific about what you mean by the internet. The "internet" is just a protocol and a bunch of cables connecting a bunch of servers together (obvious over simplification to illustrate a point). If you mean specific sites that dominate usage of internet then that's a different story. If you mean control of the network, that's not really a design problem. The internet was ultimately a communications network invented by the government. Governments have and always will try to moderate communication networks.

the problem with the internet isn’t the internet, it’s humans