Firstly, letter writing and the telephone are P2P technologies that assume pre-existing association of the (limited) participants in a given communication. While acknowledging that the internet can facilitate such use, a better analogue for the internet might be a notice board in a town square (a commons), via which means people elect to communicate singly or in groups.
Citizens (an implicit membership qualification) are free to post or read flyers on various topics as they please within social or legal bounds. However they are (usually) not free to smear their shit all over the notice board, or torch notices, or set upon others that want to use the notice board.
With respect to ownership, I assume you’re referring to a “right of use” rather than ownership of the underlying physical assets and services. Rights however, derive from somewhere and most rights carry an implicit purpose defining or otherwise informing the scope of the right. For example, the second amendment (right to bear arms) is not a free pass to commit murder or to otherwise use those arms to infringe on the legitimate rights of others. (Note, I’m not mentioning this in order to start a flame war. I’m making no statement regarding gun rights or related topic). Therefore I’d question where or how you believe this “ownership/use” right has arisen.
With respect to the “anarchist hacker ethos” leading to the internet (and as someone old enough to have mostly been there), I’d suggest that no such thing occurred. You are assuming a single philosophy on the part of a great many people and organisations (such as the military) who contributed to the key infrastructure of the internet. What exactly is this hacker ethos? My definition likely differs significantly from ESR’s which may or may not differ from yours. Nevertheless you state a purpose, “liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers”. I’d humbly suggest that the vast majority of users of these commons are not even aware that this is the intent, let alone agree with it, other than that their own ability to use this commons as they wish, even to the detriment of others, be uninfringed.
Historically, gatekeepers have been few. On the internet however, much like in lawless towns past, the good burghers are forming posses of their own to protect the use of their little patch of the internet, via mechanisms such as moderating, rating, voting and karma based systems. Irrespective of the efficacy of such approaches, online communities are increasingly adopting them to filter out or limit the actions of bad citizens. Effectively, communities themselves are becoming the gatekeepers. And from my perspective, good on them. Because however imperfect these attempts might be, I’d much rather HN with its voting system than without (for example).
I don’t support keeping the “normies” out, but I do support the right of each community to decide for itself whether and how they want to keep the arseholes out.
With respect to ownership, I assume you’re referring to a “right of use” rather than ownership of the underlying physical assets and services. Rights however, derive from somewhere and most rights carry an implicit purpose defining or otherwise informing the scope of the right. For example, the second amendment (right to bear arms) is not a free pass to commit murder or to otherwise use those arms to infringe on the legitimate rights of others. (Note, I’m not mentioning this in order to start a flame war. I’m making no statement regarding gun rights or related topic). Therefore I’d question where or how you believe this “ownership/use” right has arisen.
With respect to the “anarchist hacker ethos” leading to the internet (and as someone old enough to have mostly been there), I’d suggest that no such thing occurred. You are assuming a single philosophy on the part of a great many people and organisations (such as the military) who contributed to the key infrastructure of the internet. What exactly is this hacker ethos? My definition likely differs significantly from ESR’s which may or may not differ from yours. Nevertheless you state a purpose, “liberating humanity from the constraints of gatekeepers”. I’d humbly suggest that the vast majority of users of these commons are not even aware that this is the intent, let alone agree with it, other than that their own ability to use this commons as they wish, even to the detriment of others, be uninfringed.
Historically, gatekeepers have been few. On the internet however, much like in lawless towns past, the good burghers are forming posses of their own to protect the use of their little patch of the internet, via mechanisms such as moderating, rating, voting and karma based systems. Irrespective of the efficacy of such approaches, online communities are increasingly adopting them to filter out or limit the actions of bad citizens. Effectively, communities themselves are becoming the gatekeepers. And from my perspective, good on them. Because however imperfect these attempts might be, I’d much rather HN with its voting system than without (for example).
I don’t support keeping the “normies” out, but I do support the right of each community to decide for itself whether and how they want to keep the arseholes out.