Can we save the internet? I learned in the past few months in support group from a fellow who taught me the following:
When we take the inventory, what we see is who we really are, what I did not like about you was really the truth about what I do not like about myself.
This made a lot of sense to me.
When I look outside my front door, do I see the trees? The sky, the birds chirps? Or do I look to the rain gutter and see cigarette butts and trash and ask why do people smoke and throw trash in the street?
The interntet is a mirror of ourselves, one can only hope that it will refect a message sooner than later that we all need to work on ourselves when out in public. My response may very well be logged for life and perpituity of who I really am. Today I use the internet to Google, Wikipedia information, spirtual guidance and more.
I only have to believe that I make a difference as an example.

Yes, all that bad stuff is there, mostly on the fringes, but there's a tremendous amount of good stuff on the internet that outweighs the bad. MIT put audio and video footage of many of their courses online for free. The open source software community is vibrant and growing - it's talented, professional people getting together to collaborate on a project available to the public. In other words, the internet is enabling the creation of digital public works! Health information is more readily available to patients, empowering them to better navigate an increasingly broken system. Last but not least, the blogosphere does have its share of nuts, but blogging gives a voice to many who otherwise don't have one. Blogging in places like Iran and China is an act of revolution. The number of blogs is staggering - too many to make generalizations. The internet is huge and chaotic and sprawling, but it's also wonderful. Unfortunately, Mr. Keen is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Remember, on our panel at PDF, I pointed out one very obvious whopper, and you changed the subject?

I believe Dan Gillmor has pointed out many other errors in the book.

Me, I'm confused... we all see a lot of crap on the 'net ... but if you're paying attention, you see far, far more good stuff.

I handle problems all day, as a customer service rep, but even I see that the bad stuff represents a very small number of people, proportionately.

Fact checking is good.

Craig

The beauty of the internet is the fact there are no rules. Why should we listen to this cranky old man? Your arguments have little to no merit, only focusing on negatives. You just want to keep the intellectuals and wealthy in control over something they have no right to; the real world has enough of this, so why should we tolerate this capitalist bullshit here online. We are free to play online games, yell at strangers, gamble and to look at pornography if we so wish. Why should someone be ashamed of going into a sexshop? Your social standards don't necessarily apply here. The internet does not require your "saving".
As for spam... well that’s been around since 1978 so don't talk about email like it was once a pure virgin that was deflowered by the uncultured masses. You are what's wrong with the internet and of course you are free to whine all you want.
Your arguement is flawed and I am amazed that you are being published in the real world. The internet is where you belong as you are no differant from the trolls we have online, except your annoyance has some how given you financial success.

Firstly, let me say that in this 'Internet', you are an intruder: It is you who penetrates as system and tries to impose laws upon it. Even at the risk of being pinned down on listening to my instinctive human behaviour, I say this.
Before I start, I'd also say a few words regarding to your frequent references on Mao. I'd never consider you a Maoist; the word that comes to mind is rather 'fascist' - I know, a cliche, but so is your historically inherited red-baiting.
Anyway, before I lose all coherence, I'll come to my argument.
Your perhaps most fundamental misconception is that the components of the real world (hierarchy, responsibility,etc.) are somehow good or desirable and pertaining to the real world, you are correct (in a certain context). They are indeed useful for building an orderly society. But they are for from good for the individual. Without the desire to sound anarchist, these are tools for making us into instruments of power, obedient slaves even, if one wants to get polemic. Aside from the obvious benefits of such a system (security), it does not make us individually happy. Things like the aformentioned ones are a mere necessity of reality where we are subject to the laws of nature which we can not bend and there have to adapt to. One needs to subjugate himself to authority so that a power can be formed that is able to defend against invaders. One must behave in an orderly fashion so that a stable society can be formed. But these things are still only a necessity, not an end desirable in itself.
To make a small jump, the second time you mentioned hierarchy ("contempt for meritocratic hierarchy"), you added to word "meritocratic" as to suggest how good (and meritocratic) hierarchy in our world is. This statement, in and on itself, is entirely laughable. Hierarchy has never been meritocratic and even if that should be the case through some hypothetical circumstances, power will quickly corrupt those in charge. You are probably not well accustomed with how power is gotten but let me tell you that it is not through openess and altruism. Only those who are the most unscrupulous and determined and favoured will get power and should that not be, power will quickly corrupt them. After all, that is what anonymity is about to some degree - power. With the abrogation of responsibility and identity humans get more corrupt (through not indefinitely, partly due to the limitations of actions on the internet and partly due to 'humanity'). However, only as far as your definition of 'corrupt' goes. As soon as people realise their anonymity and the possibilities that come with it, they will shed social customs that have been a burdem to them and are no longer forced to lie or 'roleplay', if I might use that term, out of courtesy or to obey some unwritten law. Which brings me to my next point, your unilateral and self-righteous judgement of content. Your claims of not being a 'digital Maoist' become vain as you mark everything of which you do not approve as worthless - naming (actually implying) your social customs, which, being necessary in the real world but unnecessary in the virtual one, yet there for establishing power there, as being normative - the same social customs the bondage of which people try to escape from by going into the internet. What you do not understand or do not want to understand is that people - people who 'make up' the internet - do not want your restrictions. They want to be free. For them you are nothing but an external invader, a shadow from the real world following them, trying to destroy their place of escape. I believe - to go into a more optimistic tone - that the best 'course of action', if one can speak of that, is to do nothing. Things will work out, without any imposed regulation or the the self-righteous actions if vigilantes, trying to get hold of power. You may contact me under the email adress

I don't normaly respond to trolls, but, you've really set my teeth on edge...

The things that are of beauty on the Internet are brought by people involved. I've observed many of those things, and noticed that not a single one of the creators of those beauty are shy about contact information.

What Andrew is suggesting would hardly "keep the intellectuals and wealthy in control over something they have no right to." You must be new to this whole Internet thing: It is intellectuals and wealthy people that invented, built, and maintain the Internet. Not only do they have every right to it, they decide to grant you access to some, not all, of the Internet.

Andrew's desire of one thing, accountability, is not something that one should not have to be asked for in this day and age. It should be given freely. Living the life of a 'Blank' in a dictatorship, etc. is a whole other thing.

Your packaged rebelion is as tired and sad as it has always been. You want the ability to yell "fuck" at the top of your lungs (electronically speaking), and skulk away unchallanged.

Well, fuck, I guess that's all there is to it.

Mike

mnagy@uh.edu

When a group of anonymous people can take internet radio host/ white supremacist Hal Turner off the internet - that my friend is beauty.

www.workse.cx

All of you who are listed as "Anonymous" are part of the great wrong that has become the internet. I agree completely with this article. The internet seems to be a breeding ground for ignorant, self-righteous, child-like, Blanks. They are far too pathetic to deal with issues they have in there own lives, so instead, they are able to spread their mindless trash all across the the world in their blogs,forums,and email spam. The problem is not the internet, it is with the fools that can't deal with the real world and choose to not be held accountable for their actions. The problem with the internet is that there are no SCUM filters.

I do agree with you we do need ID our self, why not..i mean even if you fake you emial adress or name, you still hable to say who are you, what you do and your age. is not the same reading the little princes when one is 9 year old that when one is 29,....so yeap the author of this article is some conservative way of thinking I GUESS I JUST ABOUT GETTING THE BASIC BALANCE....WHY IS IT THAT NOBOBY STAR WITH IT....

CHEERS
CHUY ALVAREZ FROM THE MEXICAN CARIBIAN PLAYA DEL CARMEN!!

We are legion. We do not sleep. We do not forget. We do not forgive.

-Anonymous

Whats wrong with freedom? Right now you (meaning those of you that want to put restrictions on the internet) have the freedom to ignore what you don't like. If you don't like self-righteous child like blanks, then just ignore them. You dont have to read everything you come across. Who are you to regulate what people can and can't say? Police yourself, not others.

I was surprised when I came across this article that it wasn’t a joke. Every reason stated for why the internet needs saving I found as a reason that nothing is broken. People don’t say who they are?! Oh no, that means you have to consider your source just like in the real world. When you see an anonymous post, it means just that, some nameless moron. Take it or leave it. Would my words really carry more weight if my picture and name stood next to them? Would you remember my name tomorrow if you found them upsetting? I strongly disagree with what I’ve just read, but if you asked me the author’s name now, I’d have to scroll up to tell you. Doesn’t the content of a message mean anything? When we hear words on TV spoken by a talking head, should we consider the content to have more meaning just because we know who is speaking them? Isn’t that just playing into the narcissism of the Bill O’realys that networks and news papers sodomize us with everyday?

This lack of social shame is one of the best examples of why the internet with out censorship is a wonderful thing. We are free to speak our minds with out the worry of the PC police ruining our day. When the masses in the rest of the media say things that we used to just have to accept, now we can say “NO! I don’t believe you! And here is why….” We share our ideas for better or worse. When you post hateful poorly thought out comments, they will be taken for what they are and ignored by the majority. The fact that you have the right to make them with out retribution is the beauty. We get the purest truth from the inane rants we read. We do get in a small way a “real world” that we would never be able to view otherwise. For better or worse at least it’s people saying what they believe and not people being ashamed because there views are different.

I do agree the internet is a mirror, I don’t agree that we can change what we are. These things we see here, both the good and the bad are in our nature. Not only have they always have been there, but they have always been reflected in our media. The only thing that has changed is we all have a voice. Every single example of the horrors of the internet presented in this article was with us long before. “Rampant intellectual property theft” The Soviet Union made that an art form for 40 years. “Extreme pornography” Every culture going back 1000s of years has there examples. “Sexual promiscuity” I think most of us know someone that fits in that category out in the real world and doesn’t even use a computer in the process. “Plagiarism” Encyclopedias were the key source long before the first kid figured out he could use AOL for something other then finding porn. “Gambling” Right after man made fire, he played a game of chance under it’s light.
“Contempt for order” Anarchy in the UK isn’t considered a classic punk song cause of it’s good beat. The culture has always been there. “Incessant spam” When I was a kid we used to allowed by law to burn trash on Sundays in our town. So I would help my father carry out all the old newspapers and junk mail to be burned once a month. The Junk mail stack was always larger. “A trash heap of user-generated-content” Just flip to the “Spout off” section of your local news paper. Then find an old copy from 20 years ago. Same trash heap, different Anonymous morons.

My point is, if you’ve even bothered to read this far, the internet is a mirror, but it’s not showing us anything new, it’s just putting it all in front of us in one place.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just one more nameless moron.

You have just entered the very heart, soul, and life force of the internet. this is a place beyond sanity, wild and untamed. there is nothing new here. "new" content is not found; it is created from old material. every interesting, offensive, shocking, or debate inspiring topic youve seen elsewhere has already been posted ad infinitum. we are the reason for "not safe for work". we are the anonymous army. cross us and you will fail. anonymous is everywhere.

You depend on us every day. we bag your groceries, we fix your computers, we teach your children at school, we take care of you in the hospitals. anonymous sees you before you see him. sitting at desks around the world right now is a nameless, faceless, beast.

The very soul of man is laid before you here.

Welcome.

I completely disagree with the idea of regulating the internet, it is a haven for free speech and expression. What does it matter if some place material on the internet that many disagree with, simply do not view the material.
If laws are imposed on the internet surely this can be broadened into something worse.
Nice fight club tribute ^

Taken from Andrew Keen's assessment, you must surely think 'any publicity is good publicity'. This was the downfall of Aliester Crowley, and IMHO you have less positive going for you. IMHO, you are the trail end of the "2nd Wave Paid Bloggers", that is, after/around the 2004 elections our corporate controlled media gave this 'shocking' story about a 'paid blog' of someone supposedly 'centrist' who was paid $20 or so million to skew his stuff towards the right. Of course he was in RL one of those 'anarcho-capitalist' "Libertarians" who bear more towards Sade's "Libertine" than any progressive, populist things.

However, the second wave was sprung, and all over 'conservative' blogs propped up. So many people wanted to say what the "rich elite right wingers" supposedly wanted them to say so they thought if they kissed rear loud enough they'd get a 'donation'. I've seen enough right-wing spew to peel the paint off a battleship with bigoted bile, but not one of these guys has gotten a DIME. Oh, once in a while they claim to have an anonymous donation to win an argument, but the next week they are complaining about the overdue rent and the repo man.

You really don't get it. The politics are at last turning. A lot of the right wingers are jumping ship and pretending to be 'centrists' again. But, we are remembering who they are and taking names.

You just got added to a 'toady' list. From now on, any work you work part of will be worked against. Any publicity is NOT good publicity. The wrong type of it, no publisher or perhaps even employer will touch you. And you deserve it.

Because of the internet, the "Worst conspiracy theory" about 9/11 will soon be seen as true, despite the millions spent trying to counter it. Why? Because it is very likely true, the only variable being how much directly Bush was involved in.

Because of the internet, it is now widely accepted that America is under a Coup De Tate, thanks to the GAO's documents on widespread fraud getting out. This will help some of the wrongs Dubya's team committed be undone, and helps Americans in the eyes of the world.

Thanks to the internet, when Bush played holy crusader for life under the Schavio thing, Americans heard of a little black baby that was suffocated as her poor mother shrieked and pleaded with the doctors. Because of a bill Dubya signed directly.

For all the porn (cool!) and the spam (Bleah) the internet allows the truth to circulate, free of the blocks placed in other media by corporate control. And the people you attempt to appease want this outlet cut, or so hyper regulated as to be just as effective a vehicle for the truth as Television and Radio are.

As far as the "Intellectual Property" goes, the H--- with it. "Intellectual Property" = "Conceptual Art". Intellectual Property was almost the downfall of the net before it passed the 56K days. There are a few 'maggot parasite' businesses who's only product is litigation. They buy up old, obscure patents, and then use blackmail backed up by lawsuits to gain money. One in particular, an inventor patented a way to transmit studio quality music over the phone lines, but never sold it because plain mail courier worked too well. So, they bought it from his relatives for a pittance after he died, who didn't even know he'd invented it. Then, they cost a few companies at least $100 million suing them for the internet's existence. They lost, but the legal fees were high. Also, others tried to patent hyperlinks, webpages, simple "img src" commands...(Read early WIRED for more info)

And when a person does invent something good, the companies STEAL it from him. The "intermittent windshield wiper" for example. They steal, wait 10 years, and if it does make it through court barely pay a day's interest on what they stole was actually worth.

Music in particular. When it became possible and practical to record music, 95% of musicians went out of business. The big companies, the grandfathers of the RIAA backed giants cried crocodile tears over these people ruined by a new technology. And they replaced the minstrel with the 'pop star' who for the most part just churned out bland tedium with NO social content or message. Most of the 60's stuff didn't get on the radio or in the stores till the market pressure was overwhelming, and then those acts were matched by plenty of bubblegum.

I wonder, and I'm being hypothetical here. Don't want to encourage any 'crime', now, do I? But what if this happened..?

What if we each download (or, rather check our archives) for something we have, a CD/DVD, Program, etc... That's "Pirated"... Not stupid stuff, like open named ptp from dorm rooms, plenty of other channels to those that look.

And we make 10 or 100 copies and mail them to random people in the phone book. And we write an anonymous letter (fake return, no fingerprints) to the RIAA. Both these things mention that we did it because Andrew Keen made us so mad.

Hmm... If it mounted up, would they sue him to ruin? I think so. Technically, they wouldn't have lost a dime because the randomness would have argued that those people who received said product would have already bought said product if they wanted it. But, due to the "Mickey Mouse Protection" racket, they can get a lot of money in the short term holding on to these scraps of IP like the most covetous people in the world. They'd quickly get a judgment and garnish him, just for some more money in the short term. And that would show this toady wanna-be how much the elite truly appreciate him.

But that's a fantasy. Let's not break the law, now, mmmkay.

Hey, I said "Covetous" and almost said something else. Ever watch South Park, the "Death Camp of Tolerance"??? Look at this guy and this site. Pure Zionist lunacy, (and COVETOUS ---) makes me want to raise the scimitar for Islam just 'cause I'm so sick of these people lobbying to involve us in these illegal wars.

?Might print out a few copies of "Protocols" and distribute them anonymously because "Andrew Keen Made me mad". That's not "Politically correct" but it's not illegal;-)

Is this guy a Moral Majority Republican or something? If you don't like the free exchange of ideas, user created content, and emerging social order of cyber space: Log off, shut up, turn on the television, and watch your damn commercials by yourself.

I'm not sure the Internet needs saving just yet, nor that any intentional attempt to regulate it in the direction that Mr. Keen would have us go would actually accomplish anything like what he suggests it should be. He's right that truth is in short supply on the Internet, or at least something verifiable as truth, but that's also the case with the so-called main stream media these days. Fox News famously calls itself "fair and balanced," for example. But it's also true in Mr. Keen's book, The Cult of the Amateur. In one example, early in the book, he cites former British Prime Minister James Callaghan as saying: "A lie can make its way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on." That quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, as well as Sir Winston Churchill, but some effort (not even on Wikipedia) would also have shown that it was found in an excerpt from "Manslaughter," The Boston Commercial Gazette; 7 September 1820; Vol. 55; Issue 19; Pg. 2; reprinted from The Portland Gazette, 5 September 1820: "The public mind has been too much inflamed in this transaction, by misrepresentations -- these the examination have materially corrected, but the influence of the corrective, does not extend as far as the injury of the falsehood: 'for falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.'" If we can't trust Mr. Keen to be scholarly and authoritative about his work, thereby proving his hypothesis that the Internet is, by contrast, a cesspool of amateurish, unregulated, mash-ups of myth and misinformation, then what hope is there?

Though social rules and loss of anonymity may make the internet more civil, they will not necessarily make the internet better. Keen cites, the lose of importance of traditional media, like newspapers, CD sales, etc. as evidence that we are listening more to amateurs than professionals, but this is a dubious claim. The world and it's opinions are still very much fueled by "the pros" - like this discussion for instance. Whether they be journalists or musicians. I am not convinced that the amateurs (meaning people who are not paid by a larger organization to do what they do) are degrading the work of the professionals or seriously changing the tone of our cultural conversation. If anything the internet provides tools for an unrecognized talent to rise above the fray without being subjected to cultural homogenization.

That being said, rules may be inevitable. Once a critical mass of users is reached rules and order follow. Lets not forget that myspace and wikipedia do have rules. Even if those rules are only enforced through interface design, they are rules nonetheless.

As the internet grows these kinds of systems are only likely to become larger, exaggerating the difference between the professionals, whose content will be hosted on well known, exclusive sites, and amateurs whose work will appear along side the offerings of everyone else.

The Fact that us users have to ask such a questions detirmnes the awnser this digital tree house we adore can not be saved the very nature of the internet gives the oppertunity for the fools, there open to spread there useless comments at conversations that don't matter to them.

"When I look at today’s Internet I see [all this bad stuff]"

You have two options: look away or click away. It's really THAT easy.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Unless they were called stinkblossoms. Or crapweeds.

why does humanity need saving? our existence is merely in the way of bigger things, plus regulating the internet leads to social and cultural engineering, and considering my existence is just as valid as yours or anyone else's, no one deserves/should ever get that right to determine what is good or bad for humanity.

The beauty of the internet is the fact there are no rules. Why should we listen to this cranky old man? Your arguments have little to no merit, only focusing on negatives. You just want to keep the intellectuals and wealthy in control over something they have no right to; the real world has enough of this, so why should we tolerate this capitalist bullshit here online. We are free to play online games, yell at strangers, gamble and to look at pornography if we so wish. Why should someone be ashamed of going into a sexshop? Your social standards don't necessarily apply here. The internet does not require your "saving".

I think Mr Keen is sorely mistaken as to what is wrong with the internet.

The Internet has become one huge sales pitch, and he is part of the problem. Wired magazine has become a series of advertisements thinly disguised as editorials. The only reason this blog and interview is up on this page is to SELL a book.

When he looks at the Internet, Mr Keen sees:
"the eruption of rampant intellectual property theft, extreme pornography, sexual promiscuity, plagiarism, gambling, contempt for order, intellectual inanity, crime, a culture of anonymity, hatred toward authority, incessant spam, and a trash heap of user-generated-content (whew, what a mouthful!)."

I don't know about a mouthful, but I do know BULLSHIT when I see it.

When I look at the Internet, I see one great big sales pitch.

That's where the problem is, not some imagined drop in moral standards.

If you want to save the Internet Mr Keen. Stop trying to sell me something.

"You want the ability to yell "fuck" at the top of your lungs (electronically speaking), and skulk away unchallanged."

YES PLEASE!

You mean to tell me that we should try to put a metaphorical noose around the neck of one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind? Where else can you access content of any kind from a single terminal, or say what you really think without having your person thought differently of?

I would frankly love to see some sort of regulations put onto the Internet and people who put things on the Internet. But the question was put first: Can the Internet be saved?

If you took polls, how many people would say the Internet is actually 'in danger'? Regardless of my personal opinion and those of several of my friends, it's just a fact that we live in a time period when actually cracking down on Internet traffic is a tall order. It's simple fact that we live in a highly narcissistic society. Look at a couple of the popular websites: YOUTube, MYspace... gossip and a transfer of a cliquish attitude in life to an electronic version of that life.

Fact: 25% of search engine requests are porn-related (the top three in 2003 were, in order: sex, mp3, and hotmail).
Fact: Pornography makes up 12% of the Internet.

Do we trust a society with that track record to see it's own shortcomings and want to change what they are quite happily and drunkenly addicted to?

I've lived on this Earth for sixteen and a half years since I was born. So far, since I can remember, things aren't really taking turns for the better. In fact, I don't have much trust in fellow citizens and humans to take care of themselves. We've been fighting one as individuals and societies from day one, and there are enough statistics I can spit out to prove that we don't have everything under control.

Dear serg:

Flatly, you're wrong. The Internet does need saving. What's more, our society needs saving.

And serg, he's not trying to keep the layman out of power. He just doesn't want to see the world turned further on its ear by the action and inaction of the lazy and the non-directionally angry.

The final point I make is: both Internet and society need saving. Issue: we have no one who can save us from ourselves BUT ourselves. Therefore...

Sit back and enjoy the fireworks, lads.

Sincerely,
talcar69@gmail.com

Whatever people choose to do online, should be their own buisness, and the buisness of the sites they visit.

I own sites, and therefore i am the god on those sites, and my will is the law. I do not want anybody else tell me what i can, or cant allow, and i allow everything that wont get me thrown in jail, because, people should have the right to be free, and do whatever they want (online), no matter what the consequences. Only through total corruption can the true rights and wrongs be seen, only when there is enough chaos and hatred will people be able to clearly grasp the concepts that are necessary for a truly good and free society.

The problem is, that current laws are made for maintaining the kind of society we have today, and while that does make sense, in some degree, there are too many flaws in current society to be acceptable, or even to call it a society. We need to get smarter, and we need a purpose, a driving force behind bettering ourselves, and that force, that motivation can only come from our own destruction.

Does the Internet need saving?

Nope, no more than my soul needs saving by the nice people in smart suits that come to my door, pushing whatever religious screed they're selling today.

You don't like what you see on the Internet? Then turn it off old man, we won't miss you when you're gone.

But try to impose your views, your morality on us, the users... then you might as well be telling us what god we should worship as well.

What gives *you* the right to tell *us* what to do?

Removal of anonymity may not be such a big deal if the country you live in doesn't care what you say, however there are plenty of people abroad who don't enjoy protection of free speech.
One only needs consider the situation involving Yahoo et. al. in China with the imprisonment of dissidents.

Simple.
We find all the people who were born in the 1920s who think "only content created by famous people is good content" and "Paying is the only way to assure quality" and "Sex is the worst thing ever, lets burn all the pornographers" and "Internets is worst thing ever, bet police it all to fuck", and we wait for them to die. The moral/social/political ideals they promulgate are long dead, and eventually they will be too. Then the people who like the internet the way it is, who love amateur content, who hate paying draconian corporations, who love the freedom of expression granted by anonymity, and who don't care if a thirteen year old on the internet makes fun of them, then those people can live in a utopia.
Please die soon.

Heheh, in the words of the prophet, for those who don't like the internet, "your problem will be solved actuarially." 

Hello World

Yesterday we tried to save the internet, but we ran out of floppies. Could you send some more? Thank you in advance.

Anny

Finally an opinion that makes sense. I'm also sick of Capitalist pigs and other men in suits controlling and putting a price on every aspect of reality.
Thank God (not literally, the existence of God is such an outdated fairytale now, wake up believers!) that we have something that Capitalism can't get its evil claws into. Mankind's decline was the invention of money, the American 'self' - which is essentially just a consumer and our refusal to let this contnue.

Business on the internet exhibits the most pure form of capitalism available in this day and age, as a matter of fact. Lots of competition, ingenuity, amateur and professional content, either free, funded by (often generous) donation, advertising revenue, or one of a million other payment methods you can think of. Naturally, if people wish their pages to only show content from named and reputable sources, then they can have that. If other sites want to have a wealth of content available from anyone and everyone, they can have that too. It's called freedom. And these things you list, gambling, viewing pornography, expressing contempt or hate ... these are matters of individual freedom. If you do not enjoy these things, then simply do not indulge yourself in them. I'm sure the internet has a veritable shitload of content for even such a shameless prude as yourself to enjoy. Ultimitely, individual responsibility means that you are responsible for your own actions and no one elses. If you find that someone is being "uncivil" and you find this distasteful, then either disengage (if you are having a discussion) or ignore it. The last thing that's needed at this point is for people to start ascribing false problems to the internet, because it only takes a small perceived fault to begin the ever escalating cycle of government regulation, which would undoubtedly cripple the only truly free medium that exists today as it has crippled every other medium before it.

When I see the internet I see that the body of mankind's overall knowledge is expanding logarithmically every year because of our ability to exchange and synthesize knowledge. I see that few and fewer autocrats are able to get away with oppressing their people because they can't keep their secrets anymore. I see people finally having a voice, rather than being a victim of one-way broadcasted information. I see people connecting with other people in a day when they would otherwise waste away in lonely little heaps. I see people able to find any one of a myriad of unique niches in society that actually reflects who they are and how they feel, rather than having to choose between the masses and the outcasts.

The internet does not need to be saved. If you ask me, it is the one thing that may allow us to save ourselves. 

the universe is matter with laws
the solar system is matter with laws
the enviroment is matter with laws
physical bodies are matter with laws
organisms are matter with laws
societies are matter with laws
brains are matter with laws
laws are evident results of interfering matter
matter can be guided by the same or different laws
some matters/laws are trivial others not
evolution is both the matter and the law

1. matter forms system of selfregulation
2. systems can divided in elements
3. selfregulation is the tendence to adapt
4. systems are embedded in realtime
5. tendencies contradicts and unites in realtime
6. interferences between tendencies regulates adaption
7. athrophic & hypertrophic tendencies govern systems state
8. the elements of systems can converge or diverge, producing entropy
9. changes in the interference can force adaption in the name of selfregulation
10. the relation between interfering elements constitutes the system's state: hypertrophic, balanced, athrophic and oscillating
11. oscillating systems have characteristics of bifurcation
12. interference is that what makes the whole more than the sum of its parts
13. interference is the motiv of evolution

so we mirror ourself onto the inet, we can see the principles of the great universe, the natural beauty of the patterns and all the important various elements we have (like as we can see this in in any existence)

we see bad, destructing, obfuscating, careless, unaware and amoral tendencies, too.

here we can see, that natural law and matter governs us, like we govern them in a infinite symbiosis of cause and consequence. -->WYSIWYG

who are you element Keen, that you dare to make laws to govern something as big as your horizon is narrow?
you challenged nature, and will now get a response: Anonymous accepts the challenge!

ps.: even chuck norris fears Anonymous ;)

Bravo, good sir.

the most well written thing ive read in a long time.

BTW your contact email wasnt posted.

anonymous@world.org or pensieve@gmx.de, your decision!

A thorough analysis can be found here: http://www.unboundedition.com/content/view/3137/54/

He's simply upset that he didn't stick it out and make it rich.

lfqqwtyh http://nuouozbw.com onylfnux dlboogeo