-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ Homer on Saturday 23 Jul 2011 15:02 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> The BBC did a documentary on the birth of the Web. It was horrible,
>>> horrible] thing. http://techrights.org/2010/02/04/bbc-net-propaganda/
>> Sounds like a DFS style "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't be
>> posting right now."
>> "Same with companies and logos. As far as I can see, there is no
>> mention of Paul Allen or Steve Jobs. Or the Mozilla people or the
>> TCP/IP people. See that I'm getting at? Where are the real
>> pioneers? How can you make a program on the Internet without
>> mentioning Apple or IBM or Novell or... remember all the other
>> smaller desktop companies that were around before the IBM-PC?"
>> Did they mentionn Tim Berners-Lee and CERN?
> Yes, in fact he features extensively throughout the documentary.
> It's actually a series of documentaries, in four one-hour episodes.
> Here it is on YouTube:
> I've only watched the first episode, but so far I don't really agree
> with Roy's characterisation. It's certainly not a Microsoft promotional
> vehicle, indeed it had this to say about Microsoft:
> [Microsoft] forced computer manufacturers to sell machines with [Windows
> and Internet Explorer] preinstalled.
> Only legal action by governments prevented total domination, and the
> risk of the Web becoming a kind of branded Microsoft experience.
> "Microsoft is a monopolist, and it engaged in massive anticompetitive
> practices, that harmed innovation and limited consumer choice." ~ DOJ
> The only two references to Microsoft that are blatantly wrong (that I've
> discovered so far), are those about BASIC and Internet Explorer. At one
> point it's suggested that "Bill Gates developed BASIC", and in another
> it's claimed that "Internet Explorer popularised the Web". These are
> both utter nonsense, as any half-conscious researcher could easily
> disprove in a matter of seconds:
> The original BASIC language was designed in 1964 by John Kemeny and
> Thomas Kurtz.
> Netscape Navigator was a proprietary web browser that was popular in the
> 1990s. It was the flagship product of the Netscape Communications
> Corporation and the *dominant web browser* in terms of usage share
> Netscape announced in its first press release (October 13, 1994)
> Following Netscape's lead, Microsoft started a campaign to enter the web
> browser software market.
> The war between Microsoft and Netscape denominated the Browser Wars.
> Internet Explorer, Version 1.0 (shipped in the Internet Jumpstart Kit in
> Microsoft Plus! For Windows 95.
> But apart from those two instances of Keith Curtis-style revisionism,
> it's actually a very good documentary - overall, although I'm not
> entirely comfortable with some of its definitions and conclusions.
> For example, like most of the mainstream media, it persists in referring
> to copyright infringement as "piracy" and theft, in direct contradiction
> to the legal definition.
> As another, even more disturbing example, Aleks Krotoski (the presenter)
> seems to have conflated libertarianism with antiestablishmentarianism,
> presuming that the counter-culture that prompted the Internet revolution
> was motivated by "libertarian" ideologies.
> This is blatantly wrong. These two radically different cultures may
> share a contempt for authority, but whereas libertarians are motivated
> by selfishness and greed, are viciously protective of private property,
> and are dedicated isolationists, the Internet counter-culture (and the
> hippy counter-culture that preceded it) actually had a flagrant
> disregard for the restrictive notions of property, and wholly embraced
> communal ideals.
> Libertarians really only want to "liberate" themselves from taxes and
> laws that prohibit exploitation. Hippies wanted to liberate themselves
> from conservative social norms and imperialism. The Internet pioneers
> only wanted to liberate knowledge and communication. The latter two
> cultures were very, very far from "libertarians".
> I thought the documentary was also rather unfair to Arianna Huffington
> of Huffington Post fame:
> Huffington: I feel that we're moving towards a hybrid future, where we
> combine the best of traditional media, accuracy; fairness,
> and the best of new media, transparency; immediacy;
> Krotoski: (voice-over) But in this hybrid world, instead of everyone
> having an equal say, increasingly editors are filtering and
> excluding opinion.
> Huffington: The hybrid future that I'm envisioning is going to include
> millions of voices, but it's not going to eliminate editors,
> in fact editors will be more important than ever.
> [queue ominous music]
> Krotoski: The Web's pioneers hoped it would liberate millions of fresh
> new voices. Instead, people like Arianna Huffington are the
> new gatekeepers, re-establishing the old hierarchies.
> Sorry, but that's blatant FUD.
> First of all, there's a place for traditional journalism right alongside
> social media, especially when it incorporates both into a single site.
> Secondly, the mere existence of the Huffington Post does not somehow
> preclude me or anyone else from posting independently, so I fail to see
> how such sites can be oppressive "gatekeepers" that "filter and exclude
> [my] opinion". The infinite nature of the Internet means I will always
> have some outlet, and people will always be able to access it.
> There's nothing oppressive or even vaguely sinister about the Huffington
> Post whatsoever. It's just a news aggregation site like any other, with
> its own particular bias (again, like any other). You'll find an equal
> amount of bias on any other Website or Internet resource. That is, after
> all, what differentiates such sites, and gives people choice based on
> their /own/ biases. Given what I've read of Arianna Huffington so far,
> I'd guess that I probably share at least some of her biases, given that
> she's an ex-Republican who transformed into a liberal independent, so of
> all the sites on the Internet, the Huffington Post gives me little cause
> for concern.
> Then there's this rather misleading description of the MP3 revolution:
> Napster encouraged thousands of people to break the law for the very
> first time
> The very first time? Really?
> What about decades of people copying music and films using tape
> She makes it sound like Napster single-handedly introduced the very
> concept of copyright infringement itself. Sorry my dear, but no. People
> have /always/ shared knowledge, in one form or another, even if it was
> prohibited to do so. That's just human nature. It's the idea of
> /restricting/ access to knowledge that's wrong, which is why so many
> people simply ignore such restrictions ("95% of music is unpaid for",
> according her quoted industry figure).
> All Napster did was make the sharing process easier, on a global scale,
> thanks to the Internet and MP3 technology. But those songs didn't
> "pirate" themselves. /People/ did that, and they did it because they
> don't see anything wrong with sharing, and never have.
> But I don't want to give the impression these documentaries are
> fundamentally flawed. Like I said, overall they're very good (based on
> what I've seen so far). The presenter has got a few things badly wrong,
> but that's understandable given the type of indoctrination she (and
> everyone else) is exposed to by Big Media and corrupt corporations like
> Microsoft. But that really only accounts for a tiny proportion of the
> documentary, most of which is a very good analysis of the history,
> purpose and direction of the Internet. It expounds the virtues of
> freedom and common standards, whilst recognising the inevitable cycle of
> revolution and counter-revolution.
>> At least they included the obligatory Bill Gates brain-fart:
>> "The world is going to keep getting more and more open. There's
>> going to be more information available about... about everything"
>> Well thank you Mr. Obvious.
> Apart from his utter moral bankruptcy, Gate's other main failing is his
> pseudo-intellectual predisposition toward meaningless aphorisms, like an
> idiot desperately trying to sound clever. This isn't helped by the fact
> that most of the time he's completely wrong:
> "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be the development of an
> easy way to factor large prime numbers" ~ Billy Buttcrust the Turd.
Got a link for that quote? Never seen it before...
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----