FOSS, Net Neutrality and The Singularity

[Jaecyn42]

Greetings all!

This thought has been pestering me for a while, so I figured I'd ask the community what they think.

At present, there are certain Conservative elements in American Politics (Glenn Beck, basically) who are representing Net Neutrality as an attempt by the Government to seize power over and/or censor the Internet. I won't comment on that particular contention, but I am concerned about the implications this argument may have for Free Open Source Software and the coming Technological Singularity.

Should Network Bias become the law of the land, I suspect that it would deal a devastating blow to the Open Source community. Many Open Source developers would be unable to grease the palms of Comcast/AT&T/Verizon and wind up figuratively stuck on the shoulder of the Information Superhighway, their turn signals blinking impotently as they attempt to merge into a solid wall of Microsoft Semis, barrelling along at 120 MPH.

I also suspect this might also hamper the pace of overall Technological innovation to the degree of slowing, or even possibly preventing, the arrival of The Singularity.

So, my question is this: Do those who speak against Net Neutrality in such a way do so out of ignorance? Or are they intentionally distorting the argument because they wish to curtail the exponentially expanding technological liberties of the public?

I believe (perhaps naively so) that these particular opponents of Net Neutrality are merely misguided and uninformed. My father, however, believes it is an intentional distortion.

What say you?

[user1397]

I think if net neutrality is forsaken in the US for a more restricting, pay-per-website service then I'm moving somewhere else.

But as far as what the motivation is for its proponents, it's the same as always...profit.

[Jaecyn42]

Ubuntuman001, I'm not sure I understand your position fully.

At present, Net Neutrality is effectively the unwritten, self-enforced law of Internet Service Providence in the United States. While ISPs are not legally required to keep neutral networks, they very rarely block or throttle alike, legal content, nor do they commonly tier their service by content type.

How would legislating Network Neutrality affect you to the degree of wanting to leave the country?

Also, why do you, as an Open Source user, oppose Network Neutrality to begin with?

Not wishing to start an argument here, I just would like to understand your position a little better. Would you mind elaborating?

[tica vun]

The singularity is simply inevitable. The whole point is that no matter what happens to human society, progress will continue, either in the form of open, free projects, or government, corporate and military research. The cost of stopping research and progress is too great for anyone to risk. Might losing net neutrality mean we reach the singularity in an authoritarian society that doesn't value freedom and choice? Yes. Can it stop singularity? No, nothing can.

[user1397]

Ubuntuman001, I'm not sure I understand your position fully.

At present, Net Neutrality is effectively the unwritten, self-enforced law of Internet Service Providence in the United States. While ISPs are not legally required to keep neutral networks, they very rarely block or throttle alike, legal content, nor do they commonly tier their service by content type.

How would legislating Network Neutrality affect you to the degree of wanting to leave the country?

Also, why do you, as an Open Source user, oppose Network Neutrality to begin with?

Not wishing to start an argument here, I just would like to understand your position a little better. Would you mind elaborating?oh wow excuse me what I meant to say is if they curbed net neutrality...that's what I am opposed to...err I gotta edit my post now :)

[errrata]

I think if net neutrality is enforced in the US then I'm moving somewhere else.

But as far as what the motivation is for its proponents, it's the same as always...profit.

I too would like some clarification. The way I see it ISPs who own the pipe that you rent can decide to "throttle" or block content at their whimsy, this becomes a problem when the same pipe owners also own content. For example I rent my Internet connection from Rogers (Canadian) Rogers also develops content (Newspapers, Television) they can decide to feed me Rogers.com lickity fast but put a slowdown on their competitors let's say CBC.ca, NYTimes.com etc. I myself supports a law that says your selling the pipe name your terms(upload/download speed,total data monthly blah blah blah) but you CAN'T sniff the traffic and throttle/block what you seem appropriate.
It's like your water company saying you can use water for showering but spraying your roses is wrong.

[Jaecyn42]

Ubuntuman: My mistake as well. I probably could have guessed that's what you meant, but I make a point never to assume anything about anyone's opinions.

Tica: I suppose you are correct, to a given degree. The Singularity cannot be stopped so long as there are people and resources available to develop new technology. I worry though that its arrival could potentially be prolonged to a point where human society might first encounter a cataclysmic event which would limit or end technological development, either through lack of resources or even developers. :(

It probably won't go down like that, I'll admit. But we humans always have the power to completely destroy ourselves for several decades now. It's not completely without the realm of possibility.

[Dayofswords]

heres my plan:

if the internet goes crazy I'll do this

1. leave internet
2. attempt to start my own internet

glenn beck is insane, nothing more than a fox news chaos/conspiracy theorist


3.??????
4. Profit

[errrata]

I know ubuntuman would see the error of his ways:p
So where does The Singularity come in, I'm assuming it's a reference to AI?

[Jaecyn42]

AI and beyond, errrata.

The Singularity is basically this:

Technology is increasing at an exponential rate. What's more, each new iteration of technology is used to design the next, meaning that the rate of return on technological advance is also increasing at an exponential rate. At a given point, Computational Potential will hit an asymptote, meaning our computation capacity will increase infinitely with no change in time.

The event of reaching this asymptote is called the Singularity. Its implications are nearly impossible to fathom, given our current, relatively unsophisticated comprehension of technology (compared to technological knowledge at or after the singularity).

The scientific community is somewhat divided over whether The Singularity will be good or bad. I personally subscribe to the opinions of Ray Kurzweil, who sees The Singularity as the final step of Human evolution, where, with technology, we transcend our own biological flaws, ushering in an era which even the word "Utopia" fails to adequately describe.

[Old Marcus]

Or we could end up with a load of evil robots that want to kill us all. Either way, I'll be dead and gone (hopefully permanently) when it happens.

[tica vun]

Or we could end up with a load of evil robots that want to kill us all. Either way, I'll be dead and gone (hopefully permanently) when it happens.

Kurzweil et al place "it" (a single computer worth less than $100 000 in 2003 dollars reaching greater computational capability tthan every human who has ever lived up to that point combined) around the mid 2040's. A true strong AI is perfectly achievable with far less than that, even. The majority of the people alive today will live to see the singularity.

[Old Marcus]

I'd better throw myself under a bus then. :P

Either way, I'm not sure whether the singularity will be good or bad. It could help us achieve technological goals much quicker, or we could just become lazy fat arses. The idea of computers rising up to destroy humanity is somewhat implausible in my opinion. Unless they can achieve true sentience and start questioning their masters... *tin foil hat*