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?
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?