A Tale of Two Cyberspaces
We are barreling towards a network completely centralized and mediated by automated "thinking machines" and the powerful elites who control them. We MUST resist. By Jared White
I was hoping to spare you the obligatory quote from the opening of A Tale of Two Cities, but well, this portion is just too good:
It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…
This is the reality of the Internet we inhabit today. And at the risk of laying on metaphor too thick at the outset, there is a glitch in the matrix. It happens when they change something.
Are you revisiting the role computer technology should (and should not!) play in our lives? Stay in the loop with my newsletter Cycles Hyped No More:
I was talking with a friend about how posting on the Web in a previous era meant if you were a queer artist drawing pictures of furries, you'd probably seek out a forum where other queer artists drawing pictures of furries liked to hang out and you'd share your art there.
In my case, by way of example, I was (still am!) a fan of early electronic music (think 1970s/1980s Tangerine Dream, Jean-Michel Jarre, etc.) so I would hang out on bulletin boards and write messages for mailing lists regarding these specific topics. That was how the Internet worked! The big companies expected to make money mainly off your access to and usage of the net in general, not your captured personal attention or your private data while on the net.
Nowadays if you're a queer artist drawing pictures of furries, you post them on…Instagram? And if you're a fan of 1980s Tangerine Dream, you post your praises on…Instagram? (TikTok? YouTube? God forbid, X?)
Somehow we went from a network of millions posting on thousands of Web sites to a network of billions posting on…one of a half-dozen Web sites completely controlled by megacorps. And it's not just on the posting side…we don't even want to read, listen to, or watch thousands of possible network destinations either. We are expected to accept that all information will soon be mediated through the latest release of the MegaPlexaChatPilotify 5000 app.
This is not the cyberspace I signed up for.
This is something…other. And the sooner we realize the thing we joined 10, 20, 30 years ago has been very nearly replaced by a artifice which feels somewhat familiar but operates entirely on an entirely different scale and promoted by entirely different operators, the sooner we can identify the escape routes out of these nightmarish shadowlands.
I have become certain that the future of the Internet is a bifurcated one. It will be obvious to increasing numbers of the public at large and in certain circumstances enforced by strict policies.
Many of the underlying protocols & tools & applications will be be shared between these two global networks, as well the basic cost to access either one; however in terms of cultural norms, ethical expectations, professional practices, growth styles, and prevailing raison d'être, the two will be utterly different—and in many respects, socially incompatible and morally in opposition to one another.
I will now label these two cyberspaces. I call the first one—the O.G. one if you will—ResistanceNet, and the one desperately attempting to destroy it I call EmpireNet.
The epic flame wars of the first computer age: Mac vs. PC, Gates vs. Torvalds, Netscape vs. Internet Exploder (oops, did I say that?), tabs vs. spaces, vi vs. emacs (love you UNIX nerds!)…they are all but distant memories now, the stuff of legends. It seems quaint to think about now in light of the consequential battle between ResistanceNet and EmpireNet.
The wars we are fighting now you might say have moved up a level. Our ever-present "culture wars"—not content with devouring politics at all levels of government from school boards and urban planning to the Judiciary and the Presidency—have devoured massive online networks and swallowed Big Tech whole. Now it's become a zero-sum game with a you're either with us or against us ethos—and that's their words, not mine.
Workers, particularly in software but increasingly in all aspects of business, must seemingly adapt to this new Internet, this new EmpireNet…or die. ResistanceNet, aka the "old" Internet is rooted in nostalgia, so they say; a handful of neckbeards and hippies trying to keep the dream of "cyberspace" alive in the form of the blogosphere or pay-per-download or hand-rolled code or multi-platform messaging or "lifestyle" digital craft.
Such efforts will be futile in the end, so they say, because the appeal of a network completely centralized and mediated by automated "thinking machines" and the powerful elites who control them is simply too compelling, too convenient, too pervasive, too addictive, and too intertwined with political rule by fiat to oppose in any statistically meaningful way. Ask the people and they will shout in unison: Long live Empire!
I don't throw around these terms lightly. The dynamics of these two networked systems truly evoke such nomenclature. Books like Karen Hao's Empire of AI shed light on how the rise of generative AI in so many ways mirrors the rise of colonialism. And just like empires tend to do as they tighten their authoritarian grip and defend a totalitarianist view of civic engagement, we increasingly see the proclamations of Big Tech and their sycophants in government echo the preachings of cultish religious movements. These are more than mere innovative companies building cool gadgets. They are faithful practitioners ushering in a new Messianic age, here to save us from the dark ages as humanity unites in worship of the new AI gods.
As always, the true ultimate goal of EmpireNet is none other than what Sheev Palpatine screamed as he fully embraced the dark side: Unlimited Power!
ResistanceNet vs. EmpireNet
A computer has always been a tool to be wielded by the creative mind, not an oracle to be consulted by the faithful.
–Jared White (Me)
If EmpireNet represents a sort of breakdown in the digital "separation of church and state", a new calculus where the delivery of technological solutions must come in the form of winner-take-all hypergrowth rollouts at "world scale" which are then forced on all participants whether they appreciate it or not—a backdoor form of taxation without representation—then ResistanceNet must of course fight back by offering a very different set of values.
Let us compare and contrast these two systems and how they may intersect with one another for the foreseeable future; for as we all know, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.
Power
In EmpireNet systems, control over how software operates and how communication flows through a network is concentrated at the center, with a vanishingly small number of people able to make snap decisions which invariably affect millions or even billions of people. So let it be written, so let it be done. Centralized power is "justified" by the claim that only through dictatorial, top-down hierarchical structures will the public at large be kept safe, secure, and informed.
In ResistanceNet systems, control is push to the margins. Smaller, localized (by geography or background or interest) groups of people enjoy a far higher degree of autonomy and can choose whom they will or will not associate with in order to keep their communities safe, secure, and informed. Decentralization is seen not as an opening for chaos, but a recognition that—as we so often see in natural systems—it produces ecosystems which are resilient against negative externalities and will flourish in the face of novel challenges.
Finances
In EmpireNet systems, platforms & services are funded either by people who are forced to use these technologies and must remit the appropriate taxes compensation accordingly, or they are funded instead by quasi-governmental organizations who monetize attention and personal data through the mass-usage of these tools. In a significant number of scenarios, the exchange of funds is utterly opaque, with millions of users unaware of how these services even operate over time. Value is always extractive, with the most work done by those who are the least compensated while a few sit atop unfathomable mountains of stolen wealth.
In ResistanceNet systems, platforms & services are funded at the edges by the people who personally benefit the most from them. There are a near-infinite variety of organizational structures in place; businesses, non-profits, local governments, collectives, individual creators, and volunteers all working together to meet felt needs at the grassroots level. Software and communications compatibility is driven by the shared use of open standard protocols developed by standards bodies which hold values of diversity, sustainability, and mutual respect between disparate parties. Value is rightly diffused throughout whole systems and exchanged fairly between members of heterogeneous social strata.
Expertise
In EmpireNet systems, expertise is a concept "bestowed" upon cynical actors whose ideas most closely align with the dominant ideology of the centralized authority. Discovery is replaced by dogma, education gives way to indoctrination, and the true nature of innovation—an often circuitous process tempered by ethical considerations and a dose of humility—is supplanted by heightened "grind" game mechanics and a nebulous definition of rapid progress. An endless stream of "change for change's sake" propaganda designed to end debate around proposed developments is framed as a mere recapitulation of how history always plays out (as exemplified by the thought-terminating cliché: "you can't put the genie back in the bottle"). Simultaneously and in an ironic twist, many beneficial innovations will inevitably fall under attack by the system whenever such innovations threaten the power players near the top.
In ResistanceNet systems, expertise is borne from the lived experiences of sincere people who have dedicated their lives to the study and promulgation of fields of creative endeavor. Education is undergirded by the multigenerational transmission of applied knowledge in the form of wisdom, even while healthy tension in the outworking of respectful debate is encouraged. "Progress" is then seen not as a goal in-and-of-itself, but an after-the-fact recognition that more people's lives across diverse populations have seen more improvement over time because of beneficial & ethical applications of new technologies. Ends-justify-means game mechanics are frowned upon in favor of sustainable lifestyles and a sensible, balanced approach to the collaboration/competition paradox.
Worlds Colliding
Cue the famous meme where the old woman pleads that we should improve society somewhat and then the very intelligent bro pops up to mansplain how curious it is that you still participate in said society.
The sad fact of the matter is that ResistanceNet is not a tangible technological space you can point to and say "here it is". By and large, ResistanceNet is running on top of a baseplate owned and operated by organizations loyal to EmpireNet.
We can talk about the blogosphere, the Fediverse, the indie podcasting industry, libre software, and other reasonably-successful examples of ResistanceNet movements—yet many of these products & services are built utilizing EmpireNet technologies and often beholden to EmpireNet's benevolence to continue.
Consider podcasting as an example. If Spotify had been a bit more successful in capturing this market and transitioning it to its own proprietary streaming service, or if Apple hadn't had such a hands-off approach these past couple of decades and instead succeeded in creating a "Podcasts+" in the footsteps of its TV+ experience, then it's quite possible ResistanceNet podcasting as we know it would be dead—a relic of a bygone hippie age.
Thus we, like many resistance movements throughout the ages, must work in and through and alongside the very dominant system we openly detest. In some cases, yes, we can wholesale set up alternative systems. In other cases, this is extraordinarily difficult.
Sure, you can create a "static site" for your blog and host it with an ethical provider based in a country which fights for digital rights and green energy to combat climate change—and that might work for you because a link is a link is a link. But you can't do the same for your video channel…the EmpireNet platform known as YouTube (along with its short-form competitors Instagram & TikTok) simply holds too much sway over the video-watching public at this time.
And so we have to come up with strategies to spread our attention across a variety of platforms and contexts and guard ourselves against any one choke point.
The IndieWeb movement has one such solution for this: POSSE. This is the idea that most if not all content & communications you engage in online originates in autonomous independent spaces (aka living within ResistanceNet), and then you broadcast out to the "corporate silos" where audiences congregate (the principal pillars of EmpireNet). I'll be honest. While I believe this calculus made a lot of sense 10 or even 5 years ago, it is increasingly problematic when some of those corporate silos have rapidly degenerated and now might be described, colloquially, as "Nazi bars". (Or simply overrun with mass-produced "slop" geared towards addiction rather than elucidation.)
I would propose an alternative arrangement which I call personal decentralization. In this scenario, everyone gets to decide which platforms they will or will not engage with, and the degree to which they will engage. Time then is spent disproportionally in ResistanceNet spaces & tooling primarily, while decreasing rapidly the more aligned-with-EmpireNet a space or tool is.
In concrete terms, as a microblogger, you might decide to spend 75% of your time in the Fediverse, 15% of your time in Bluesky, and 10% of your time in LinkedIn. Or as an educator, you might decide to spend 90% of your time writing for your own email newsletter, and 10% of your time sharing anecdotes about your expertise in YouTube shorts (while constantly promoting your email newsletter). As a software developer, you might decide to comply with a corporate dictate that you must use generative AI code assistants, however you use them as little as you can get away with while also working on AI-free side projects to keep your skills sharp and your mind clear.
Promotion Flows Downstream, Support Flows Upstream
It's impractical to suggest everyone can simply walk away wholesale from EmpireNet spaces and tools. But it is imperative that the aim is always to move in these directions:
Promotion flows downstream. This takes the ideas of POSSE and looks at it through a broader cultural lens. You would see yourself as someone with one foot firmly planted in the cyberspace of ResistanceNet and then you dip your toes when needed into the chum-filled waters of EmpireNet to accomplish an ever-narrowing set of tasks or to reach a casual mass-market audience. You make no apologies about who you are and what you represent (unless you need to hide/mask certain aspects for reasons of personal safety). I’ve jokingly referred to myself as a “Fediverse ambassador” for a while now because no matter where I might go to post things and converse online, my “social networking home” is now and will forever be the open Social Web.
Support flows upstream. Conversely, you would “put your money where your mouth” is and provide encouragement to those at the front lines of the ResistanceNet battle. Don’t go around mocking people who seem to have taken an extreme stance. Perhaps you’re not ready to go cold turkey and leave your friends or your audience on Instagram behind, or avoid querying ChatGPT, or refrain from paying for Microsoft Office; but if someone else has done so and makes no bones about it, don’t pick on them. Applaud them!
Spend your money and your resources on ResistanceNet spaces & tools as much as possible. Buy less—ideally nothing!—on Amazon. Support local retailers and independent shops. Donate to Fediverse instances. Contribute ideas and creative output to co-ops. Avoid generative AI tools which only exist because Big Tech engaged in industrial theft and proverbial land grabs. Pay real artists. Cheer on technologies which arise from collective action outside of capitalist incentives. Sign up for thoughtful alternative providers of search, email, note-taking, and other everyday applications. Subscribe to independent publishers who prioritize ResistanceNet platforms—such as myself (shameless plug!) and many others.
These efforts are incredibly important but I’m not claiming they will be easy. Remember, what happens in the news can get to be a lot some days and despite what you might wish, you can’t control what they do. But you can control what you do. How you spend your time. Who you trust. What you build. When to stay and fight vs. when to walk away and recharge.
Nothing is inevitable. We always have the power to say Wait hold on a minute. To say Hmm I need to think about that some more. And ultimately perhaps to say No that seems like a bad idea. Let’s not do that.
Adapt or die is a lie, an insidious utterance designed to rob you of your agency and deny you your true power. Only thinking rooted in empire frames “progress” as inevitable (especially if said progress is being championed by the people with the most power and influence!).
I am not an oft-critic of Big Tech because I’m a pessimist who dislikes modern technology. The reality is I’m an optimist who is amazed by much of what modern technology has to offer. But because my enthusiasm is tempered by my deeply-held humanist philosophy, I always have to come back to this singular question:
Who stands to gain the most from the rollout of this technology? The most marginalized users of the technology? Or the most powerful suppliers of said technology?
And the answer to that question makes all the difference in the world.
Thank you for reading Cycles Hyped No More. Join Intuitive+ and support my independent publishing, and please share with a friend! See you here next week.
Jared ✌️
🤔🌩️ Things that make you think:
There are, fundamentally, three computing worlds.
There is the world of computers-as-tools, where the tool obeys the user and exists for the user's benefit.
There is the world of computers-as-marketing, where the tool might benefit the user, but exists primarily to sell the user more stuff.
There is the world of computers-as-data-extractors, where the tool pretends to benefit the user, while extracting as much usable training data from the user as possible.
These three worlds cannot coexist in peace. Two must die.