We all know that the internet is a product of US military agencies. Yet, the default idea is that the internet means (more or less) free flow of information and a good thing in general.
But is that so? Could it be that the internet was just another con from the get go? Just a bit longer one than the rest of them. After all, we've seen it before.
For example, smartphones. At the start it was all fun and games. Then it got a bit more serious, but still nice and cool. And now it has turned into opressive slave device, with constant suveillance, that is almost compulsory to have and quite hard to live without.
Is the internet any different? It started as this highway of information, rainbows and unicorns and all that. But now it gets more and more censored, more and more oppressive with each passing day. If current trend continues, at the end it will be nothing more than totally controlled tool of oppression. Could it be that that was its design from the very beginning?
No. The originators did not have enough understanding to have full foresight on where it would head. No one in the elite or the governments had any clue about the capabilities of the full system we have today.
The internet has become a tool of control and manipulation. You can argue it wasnt intended to become at origination, but at what point did the intention become control? (How long after inception?)
Once the decision is made to control the internet, actual control is an incremental process that may take 10-20 years.
2014 is when they decided us plebs can't be trusted to vote properly.
The internet hasn't changed. How it's used by the media and government has. If people weren't morons, they would notice the propaganda and think for themselves. But they are and they don't.
I don't know how you can honestly argue that the 'internet hasn't changed'. I think you should reread that statement and think about what you're arguing.
What has honestly remained consistent with the internet? literally nothing but the protocols. The major players, web-browser, sites, web 1.0, web 2.0, social media, youtube...NOTHING on the internet has remained static.
You're confusing the internet with things on the internet or things that connect to the internet.
The protocols, the connections, those ARE the internet.
Sure websites change. Political powers change. But the internet is still the same.
At least link to Mike Benz if you're going to parrot his talking points
You are overestimating it. I give it 5 years at a maximum.
Maybe almost overnight because of Daemonic influences.
Do you mean that ironically? Or seriously? You never know these days...
I have invented the snazzjat and the prooble. Now tell me whether you know these will be an instrument of control in 20 years. You can't, because they're too new to fully understand.
The internet was new, and no one could predict where its complexity would go. You can't tell me you would know how to use it for control in decades and that it was planned to be used for totalitarian ends.
Well, if you yourself do not have any specific goal in mind, then yes, it might be hard to see where your invention leads. On the other hand, if you do have a specific goal in mind, it's not that hard to steer things in certain direction, to reach that specific goal. It's not so much about predicting events as consciously and deliberately steering them in a certain direction.
I already mentioned smartphones. Those almost certainly were designed as control and surveillance devices from the very start, but from the viewpoint of average person in 2010 it might have not been that obvious.
I don't see any reason why the internet could not be planned as a control and surveillance grid from the very start. Look backwards from today's standpoint and you could see it quite clearly. You could even divide it in approximate phases. Like development phase, introduction to the public phase, voluntary and fun phase, optimistic phase, mandatory phase, oppressive phase etc. Currently we are at the very end of optimistic phase and entering mandatory/oppressive phase. When fun and games are not quite over yet, but you can already feel and smell all the shit ahead of you.
I was part of designing smart phones at the start. You are misreading things. We intended them to be a next evolutionary step in personal communications. To say it was about controlling the masses at the start, is completely wrong and misreading the technology. I was at General Magic and our intent was to give people empowering tools. It was the same for Apple and the others.
Similarly, the internet grew out of academia and desires to share info with others; it was not about covert plans to enslave people. It was techies expanding the world.
Some paranoia is worthwhile and I even embrace some. But do not groundlessly apply false premises to technology, in the name of opposing totalitarianism. It is a worthy goal, but do not pursue that goal with false charges where they do not apply.
Now if you observe that the Internet now has been co-opted in the name of power, I completely agree with you.
I think, that's a very naive way to look at it. Sure, at the bottom levels it might seem like that. Hell, I was one of them too - one of those naive souls who believed tech is cool and making the world a better place. However, at the top levels it is never that simple. Quite the opposite. It's about long term plans and in particular: influence, control and wealth. It is never about simple and naive ideas like better future or such.
As u/SmithW1984 has already mentioned, it is all about the goals of those at the top and not about beliefs or values of those at the bottom.
In other words, bottom level engineers and developers were duped as well. Yes, in a bit different way than general public, but duped nevertheless...
I will cease responding, as I do not align with your view. It is unprovable in any rigorous way and is just assertions with no proof. I don't cotton to those kinds of posts on The Donald, it needs to stick to provable things or mark assertions as personal opinions.
Follow the money and you'll get your evidence. It's not enough to gather a bunch of engineers and scientists in a room and wait for the magic to happen. Technology requires huge investments and the people (or rather the organizations like government) giving the money look for specific results. The results they are after are often disclosed publicly in white papers, memos, NGO think tank forums, academic studies and literature or brought to the political realm. One has to do a proper research to discern to what extent they are relevant or truthful and consistent with historical patterns.
It's no speculation that high-tech projects, especially when government is involved are highly compartmentalized and the people working on them don't have access to what other departments are doing or a full picture of the project. It's not their business to know - they are brought in for a particular job or to solve a particular problem, much like workers on a conveyor belt.
All I gathered from this is you didn't know of any nefarious purpose behind it. I bet scientists working on the development of weapons (or vaccines) are rarely wise to the damage they will cause. How many people at the Manhattan project knew they're building a machine that would take millions of innocent lives and serve as a propaganda tool for decades to come? Yet people at the top knew.
You and the OP have over-active imaginations impuning purpose where there was no purpose. Also, you push logic having false premises.
And why is it you change names so often?
This is my only account here, you got me confused with someone.
Technology always has a purpose, especially technology that was developed by the military like the internet, smartphones, social media, GPS or AI. Their main purpose is defense, espionage and warfare but they can also have many other practical uses and that's what the public sees in them. Those technologies never cease to be first and foremost weapons though. Can tptb foresee the full implications of their technology? No, but they do their best and the reason the public is given access to these devices is because it's useful for their agenda. That's an easy case to make because we know globalization, centralization and surveillance are the main pillars of tptb and coincidentally that's exactly what these technologies I mentioned bring about.
What false premises did I suggest?
But you know what? You can simply sell ICANN to the United Nations and European Union. The UN plebs and CERN Daemons will take care of everything.
The Internet is built by DARPA (Alphabet Soup agencies), so yes you may consider it a trap all along. But even if it isn't, you can always buy and subvert legitimate organizations as the time comes.
Remember that incident in 2016 where Obama literally sold ICANN to the United Nations and the EU AND THEN everything got switched on. These are not freedom-friendly organizations.
Either at conception, or shortly after conception, the intention of the internet was control. They own the banks, the media, Hollywood, government and pharmaceutical industry...there is no way they would allow a free and open internet.
When were smartphones ever "fun and games"? Or "cool"? How did smartphones change?
When they were just rolling them out. Somewhere about 2010 or so. Society was still happily living without them - you know - with real human contact, in person conversations, empathy and all that stuff. Smartphone was just this cool new gadget to show your friends and play with occasionally. Basic mode of interaction with the world was still mostly grounded in reality. Since then all of that has changed significantly.
My point being that, of course, it was a con from the start. The coolness part was just a bait to lure people in and I see the same with the internet. The endless and free information part was just a bait. Nothing more. As soon as it started to get in the way of control an oppression, they have started to gradually turn all of that off.
The real problem is when you reach the point where society has adopted the change itself and you cannot even stop without fundamentally having a different experience from the rest of the society.
Yes, that's a good point. Not having a smartphone in 2010 was not a big deal. Even in 2015 not having one was ok. Not having one today, however, is a whole different matter. You can't simply not have it anymore. These days not having it means a statement.
Something was switched on in 2012 and 2016. ESPECIALLY 2016. Whatever happened now is definitely not normal nor can it be attributed to normal physical control.
Yes. Not only were they running AIs behind the scenes on cooperative media to block opponents on demand, but I observed increasing use of bots to influence or degrade threads beginning during the Barry era. The LLM technology did not just appear recently appear, I believe they had it earlier than we know and now they are opening it up to our knowing it.
It was there before OpenAI, which is why I don't trust Sam Altman. I believe he is just a figurehead for government program to use chat AI to transform society - in a bad way. Look at how smartphones dumb people down by turning them to rely on smartphones to look things up. Now we have smartphone mental zombies. AI will be 100 times worse as people get used to not thinking for themselves. Who will really benefit once this dumbs us down ever further? Not the Republicans.
I think it has been around since 2017-2018 at least in major use. I remember seeing many AI forums years ago where everything was completely faked by AI. It was not great, but enough to trick you into reading for a few minutes before you suddenly got into some weird logical grammar problems.
The first smart launch of bots were already around in 2012-2014 etc, so definitely AI was being worked on before we were allowed anything. I think openAI was a way to run a disclosure campaign and privatize the idea before it got linked with the military and intelligence and TPTB
I agree with your analysis about OpenAI. And Google had been running chatbot basis technology for years before this all because publicly popular. I kept seeing similarities between capabilities discussed in their LLM papers and what bots on Reddit and other places were doing.
By the way, here is an alarm. There is a Google paper: "Consensus and subjectivity of skin tone annotation for ML fairness". What is this? I saw a research paper of theirs that discussed how to AI tag texts for skin color of author. Let that sink in in the context of anti white censorship.
I also note that 95% of Google's AI research staff are not white and most are not originally US citizens. This reflects an HR policy somehow.
The coolness part that you're eluding to was internet instant messengers prior to cell phones.
Use our roads because they're smoother than the countryside. And also look at these billboards every 100 feet and we get to stop and search and fine or arrest you. And you have to pay for it whether you use the road or not. Only approved vehicles on the road. No travel except on our roads.
Same as internet. Use our internet because it's faster than mailing a letter. And also look at these ads every 10 seconds and we get to monitor your traffic and fine or arrest you. Only approved devices on the internet.
I think yes.
Great post. I see a lot of people here are ignorant to the extend of foresight the technocratic overlords have had for decades and have a bias because of their love for the good ol' web. If one reads Zbigniew Brzezinski's Between Two Ages written in 1970, he'd see Z-Big predicts the future internet as a great force towards globalization, geopolitical, economic and cultural change.
And this is public knowledge. There's no way the establishment connected think thanks like RAND Corp., DARPA, Tavistock, SRI and Harvard haven't researched the potential consequences of the internet for decades before it was launched publicly. The internet is a psy op weapon and every weapon has a specific purpose for its deployment.
Yes, exactly. It's not like this is some super hidden secret information. The internet is a product of the establishment. Everyone knows it. And still people believe it's like some spontaneous thing that kind of appeared out of nothing without any specific purpose or reason.
I don't know where you stand on this but I always make the case that people were conditioned into this line of thinking through the materialist and determinist cosmology that most atheists presuppose. Namely the evolutionary myth that reduces to the same nihilistic "truth" - there's no purpose behind anything and everything in existence is the result of pure chance and random atoms bumping into each other for no good reason. Once you believe that, it's easy to convince yourself everything happening around you is random and a just a string of coincidences (or conversely, too complex to conceptualize into a coherent system). The (un)scientific theory of evolution and its domination of education (T.H. Huxley and Rockefeller) and pop culture is a psy op. Darwin was a Royal Society darling.
The opposite: the internet was supposed to be so resilient that any one node could be taken out and the rest would survive. Military (and foreign military) was heavily involved in weaponizing it. The first search engines were sponsored by the Israeli side of the Epstein-Maxwell network which is British intel known for killing anyone who gets close to them because they control the direct access to Five Eyes. The Black Hat conferences are sponsored by PR companies whose ownership leads to Rothschild. The "hacker community" fell in with communists and Islamists very early in its existence. Somebody has found out how to attack and defeat the entire Internet, arbitrarily shutting down any political movement no matter how innocent. That somebody seems to be England, the Russians, al-Qaeda, and the CCP working in concert.
Is started in NOCs in the 90s. The DOD model was replaced with OSI before the public got online.
What you're describing is the creation and implementation of any technology. At first its used by its creators which is generally the wild west period. Then it's taken over by the general public where its regulated and monetized.
The internet was especially touchy since early users did major damage spreading viruses. Changes to keep it the internet o Online where made quickly to fix the issue of the general public destroying everything.
Matt Drudge was on Infowars way back in 2016 or 2017. Before he sold the website.
He said that they globalists were trying to corral as many people as possible into online ghettos such as Facebook, instagram, twitter, etc.
That description stuck with me for some reason. The perception that a place like Fakebook or Reddit is just an ONLINE GHETTO, funded and propped up by nanny state government to monitor and surviel and keep you uninformed and poor and complacent and distracted.
My first modem was 28.8kbps Dial up over telephone line. If someone tried to call then it disrupted the internet connect and kicked me off.
To download one song took half an hour in an even more compressed format than MP3 (real audio or real media .ra .rm)
Primitive internet was not full of pictures and videos. It was mostly text, chat, ideas. pictures were low resolution.
Before i even got on the world wide web, there was only bulletin board forums run by local telecom companies that you could get on. It looked like DOS. Basically no graphics, just text ASCII art.
a) World Wide Web implies a web woven together to unite any thing flexible aka flexibility of user expression united under abusers suppression.
b) Internet implies internal net, hence ensnaring users inside (suggestion) and away from outside (perception).
c) Suggested online tempts one to ignore being within (life) line (inception towards death). If ones life is on the line; then one needs to resist; while being "on-line" implies progressing onward, while ignoring to resist.
Aka DARPA/ARPA-net; established within US Department of Defense under Eisenhauer aka EISEN (steel, stalin) HAUER (hitter; hitler). Furthermore; department of defense implies defending the departed minds of few by uniting the minds of many.
The main agenda...e pluribus unum (out of many; one) aka tikkum olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka united states; united nations; united kingdom; european union; university; uniformity; unisex; unicode; unicef; unilever; universal studios; universal pictures; universal basic income etc, aka collectivism aka multiculturalism; miscegenation; mongrelism; mass migration; melting pot; eugenics/disgenics and so on.
Being implies as free will of choice within the flow of inspiration...others suggest information, which when consented to...
In short: suggested information tempts one to hold onto it; perceivable inspiration cannot be held onto. Holding onto implies putting together; being implies apart (form) within whole (flow).
COM/CON implies "with, together"...being implies apart from one another.
a) Each user is different...consenting to suggested internet by few tempts many to respond "alike" aka destroying diversity (life) through equality (inception towards death).
b) Each different screen implies the same "allegory of the cave"... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/An_Illustration_of_The_Allegory_of_the_Cave%2C_from_Plato%E2%80%99s_Republic.jpg
It doesn't matter what is shown on any screen; only that one consents to look at suggested (fiction), which in return reduces ones sight within perceivable (reality).
Consenting to suggested implies repression of self, while permitting suppression by others. Whatever suggested information ones consenting mind/memory takes on, becomes oppressive to self; because one carries more and more inFORMation around. InSPIRation implies spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) aka impression (inhale) for expression (exhale). One cannot carry around inspiration, hence others tempting one to burden self with endless information.
Consider the difference between RAM (temporary storage) and HARD-DRIVE (ongoing storage)...the former is utilize for adaption to input (perceivable inspiration), while the latter tempts accumulation of input (suggested information).
Being implies in-between beginning (inception) and end (death)...viewing suggested "internet" as a beginning tempts one to ignore origin of being. Others suggest "internal net" to distract those inside from exterior.
The corruption in this world ain't about what others give one (suggestion); but what oneself takes (consent). As soon as one takes; one gives self away to others aka as soon as one buys, one sells self out to others. Whatever others are offering for selling only tempts one to sell self out by buying into it.