Has the Internet/WWW done more harm than good?

[LonelyBoy]

Has it?

(I'll start by explaining the "Internet/WWW" in my title. The truth is I don't know the difference between the two. Oh, I've read many books about it... but the authors either didn't know the difference either, they vaguely knew the difference but couldn't explain it in words, or they forgot to include the distinction in their book.)

1 -- I don't think there would be Westerners fighting in Syria/Iraq and elsewhere as/with terrorists without the Net. Firstly, it seems to me that their true motivation is to play a real-life video game and shoot stuff and blow up stuff without forgetting to pose for many photographs armed to the teeth. I don't think religion is their motivation. Or it is very much secondary. Isolation and disenfranchisement in their Western country of birth that they believe will never fully accept them makes them bitter and vengeful.

2 -- Terrorists' ability to disseminate propaganda would be greatly reduced without the Internet

3 -- Recruitment/grooming of prospective terrorists (or terrorist sympathisers) or children by sexual predators would be greatly reduced

4 -- Online (I hate how the word 'online' is always f*****g underlined in red as a misspelling even though it has been in the world's dictionaries for about a decade -- rant over) scams. I know to many people here they are obvious, usually embarrassingly so, but other more credulous people use the Net and fall for them. Some lose their life's savings and then end their lives as a result

5 -- Gambling is much, much easier online. Not many people would have the motivation or inclination to trudge to a betting shop on the high street. Lots of gambling is impulsive and the desire fleeting. You can also lose thousands with a dozen clicks in just two or three minutes (I know this personally)

6 -- Online bullying seems to be an issue. It can and does cause suicide. There are many reported examples (victims)

7 -- Online 'designer drugs' wouldn't have a market

This list obviously isn't exhaustive; just things that came to my mind at the time of writing.

What amazes me -- and a counter argument I am pre-empting -- is that the Internet is the greatest source of easily accessible information and knowledge the world has ever known.

True.

But most people just use it to look at naked people having sex or, rather, engaging in deviant sexual behaviours.

What do you think?

Note:

Capitalised 'Internet', 'Net' and 'Web' preferring the American style and usage.

[Drew Peacock]

I'd recommend the short Web Science course on Future Learn: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/web-science

Lots of discussions about the history of the Internet/web as well as the good and the bad aspects of the web.

ABOUT THE COURSE
You may already be an avid user of the Web, but this introduction to Web Science will help you better understand it as both a social and technical system - a global information infrastructure, built from the interactions of people and technologies.

This free online course is based on our experience of trying to understand how the Web has grown and changed through technical innovation, economics, politics and everyday use.

[Fantastical]

^ Was it watching videos of cats?

[umm]

On the plus side, it has created many jobs, created wealth (which of course while it may be held in the hands of a few in many cases is better than no wealth having been generated), has done wonders for connecting people wound the world - this site being a case in point. It's here and we just need to be smart about how we use it and relate to one another.

As for the difference between the internet and the www, the internet is simply the physical (or wireless) connectivity between computers, the actual network, plus the basic ability to communicate; whereas the www is the stuff you see in the browser program. Think of the internet as being like the phone network, and the www being like a conversation over it.

How'd I do?

[Pablo Huntsbach]

It's created some problems but on the whole it's a force for good. It makes terrorist recruitment easier but terrorists managed fine without it. It's created outlets for paedophiles but as we've seen recently, it's always been a problem and before the internet it seems to have been largely unpoliced. Online bullying is an issue but I strongly believe that the recent trend towards tolerance of people of other races and sexual persuasions has been driven by the internet. 15, 10, maybe as little as 5 years ago mainstream newspapers still regularly demonised gay people and transgendered people were universally only reported on for supposed comedy value.

As a long term thing (and I mean 30/50/100 years) I think the internet and our increased connection to the rest of the world is one of the best tools we have for creating peace. When other countries are only on the other end of a fibre optic line they seem closer and we care about them more. Likewise people in opressed countries will see how good we have it in the west and want to be part of it.

[Indigo_]

Originally Posted by jinny

I'm sure I saw something once about a study to see what people did most on the net, & it actually isn't porn.

It did surprise me.

I would like to post a link to a song from Avenue Q here but we're not in The Basement

[AutumnLeaves]

Ah - I have also heard this argument that the fight between terrorists and the west is above all a symbolic fight that could not gain support from either side without the constant propagation of provocative images via the media. Sounds plausible to me.

I know someone who is addicted to internet porn and it's wrecking his life.

I know someone else who wastes her time and money playing online bingo.

It's too easy to immerse oneself in these easily accessible and addictive internet-based activities and avoid facing the real problems that lead people to engage in them.

On the other hand, finding SAUK really did transform my life for the better. It's made me feel like I am not alone, I have met some great people, and it's helped me to practice socializing and to have the confidence to have a love life. Even bloomin' facebook has provided me with a cheap means of staying in contact with good friends that I would otherwise have been completely separated from if I didn't have access to the internet when they moved country.

The internet helps people to network who are looking at ways of improving the world as well as those who seek to destroy it - e.g. world social forum.

[Progress]

My philosophy these days is that the world changes. Some change seems good, some seems bad. But internet seems a pretty benign thing and I think it depends on what you choose to focus on. The world goes on much as it always has.

On a personal level it's destroyed my career. For the moment anyway, hope I can get it back on track.

[LonelyBoy]

The Internet was created without any hierarchy -- and by extension any leader or censor -- on purpose by rebellious, anti-establishment types.

I love the comment "terrorists managed fine without it".

So why didn't hordes of Muslim youth join the Afghans in their fight against the Soviet invaders? The reason is because the Afghans had no possible way to reach Muslim youth here and hence no possible way to brainwash or 'groom' them. They also had a disincentive to go to Afghanistan because cameras and photography wasn't "too cheap to meter" like it is now (and forget about video completely). And if you can't boast about being a 'heroic warrior' (albeit a vain one), then it's not worth doing. Religion is a sideshow. These traitors want to play Call of Duty for a month or two, take thousands of photos and videos of themselves, and then slink back to Blighty. And before that they'll post them all over the Internet. What kid doesn't like shooting up stuff and blowing up stuff? Soon enough they realise that living in a tent in a desert (or an adobe hut) with nothing but a crappy knock-off Kalashnikov and a prayer mat isn't so fun.

And have you noticed how many of these young avowed Muslims (I say avowed because we only have their word about that) have a history of petty crime, drug use, and drug dealing in Britain? Yes, name the doctors and engineers, but this 1% of the cohort only 'proves' the rule. They are bizarre exceptions and possibly suicidal.

But who is blamed for this? Are THEY, the criminals, blamed and punished under Sharia law... or is British culture blamed for corrupting them?

I think we all know the answer to this.

I think these wannabe soldiers are more of a danger to themselves or their comrades/pimps than they are to Western forces.

So I say this very clearly and after due consideration:

ISIS defectors (former Britons) who attempt to return to civilisation (the West) should be denied entry for two very good reasons, and I'll start by repeating the first: (a) they are wannabe soldiers who are more of a danger to themselves and their predators who groomed them than us, and (b) why waste money TRYING to "de-radicalise" them. I say de-radicalise them by deporting them immediately and summarily.

My second point is more important and possibly more controversial:

I don't know how our security services would do this (obviously secretly) or how ethically or morally questionable it might be: but return ISIS defectors (who are also British traitors) to ISIS so that they can be judged and sentenced by their God's judicial representatives in Iraq and Syria, ISIS territory. They "love death as we love life", remember. Or just publish their names and mugshots (and crimes: defection, cowardice and desertion) and that they have attempted to defect from ISIS and committed desertion from ISIS, all over the Internet. Like I said, I don't care how it is done. This country doesn't NEED to rehabilitate or de-radicalise these traitors. It sounds all nice and liberal and cuddly, but since they love their Islamic god so much, we should return them to ISIS territory.

They can meet their maker and be judged earlier than they expected.

[LonelyBoy]

Something else that really irritates me is that FAMILY members of young avowed Muslims who have travelled to Syria/Iraq to fight for, or be gang raped by, ISIS always say THEY HAD NO IDEA their children held such views or had such intentions. What's more, the Muslim COMMUNITY in the city's ghetto or "ethnic enclave" (lol at that term) didn't know either. The wannabe jihadists' FRIENDS didn't know or suspect, too! Yet the families, the communities and the friends blame the local government, national government, the police and the security services for not preventing their children from leaving! What are we? Mind-readers? Magicians? Then all hell breaks loose when the police DO stop a suspected Islamist because he hasn't yet committed a crime. The police are suddenly institutionally racist and issue grovelling apologies to the families, friends and communities of these wannabe terrorists. The senior police officer who offered the grovelling apology (the case that received much publicity because three alleged Muslim women left for Syria/Iraq) on behalf of his force's inability to physically prevent three adults, who had no criminal records, had valid passports and had committed no crime, from leaving the country! This is an embarrassment and he must feel ashamed.

[Dougella]

Anything that makes it easier for people to engage in 'deviant sexual behaviour' is good in my opinion.

Other than that I agree with what Pablo Huntsbach said on this subject.

[Pablo Huntsbach]

Muslims didn't go to defend Afghanistan against the soviets because it wasn't Islam's war, it was Afghanistan's. There wasn't an attempt to radicalise young people in the west because radical's weren't involved. At the time there weren't corrupt preachers and minority terrorist elements within mosques actively trying to groom young people into going abroad to fight.

People find a way to do what they're going to do. The easiest way just happens to be the internet. Without it the process would undoubtedly be slower but so would any effort against them, as would any progress made elsewhere in the world. But ultimately terrorists would still find a way to be terrorists.

[LonelyBoy]

Originally Posted by Pablo Huntsbach

Muslims didn't go to defend Afghanistan against the soviets because it wasn't Islam's war, it was Afghanistan's. There wasn't an attempt to radicalise young people in the west because radical's weren't involved. At the time there weren't corrupt preachers and minority terrorist elements within mosques actively trying to groom young people into going abroad to fight.

OK, tell me the difference between what you have written and I have highlighted in your quote and, Muslims did go to defend Iraq/Syria against the American-led coalition because it wasn't Islam's war, it was Iraq's and Syria's.

What's the difference?

[Pablo Huntsbach]

The soviets invaded Afghanistan, the native population defended their country. In Iraq and Syria a nationless organisation of religious fanatics are trying to overthrow the current power in order to install their own religious leaders. They're going to fight for the agressive proliferation of their religion, not in defence of a country that they have nothing to do with, which wouldn't happen. Not to mention the fact that the Afghan people never requested military support from foreign kids who had absolutely no military experience because they weren't a fanatic terrorist group who relied on radicalised young people.

[LonelyBoy]

Originally Posted by Pablo Huntsbach

The soviets invaded Afghanistan, the native population defended their country. In Iraq and Syria a nationless organisation of religious fanatics are trying to overthrow the current power in order to install their own religious leaders. They're going to fight for the agressive proliferation of their religion, not in defence of a country that they have nothing to do with, which wouldn't happen. Not to mention the fact that the Afghan people never requested military support from foreign kids who had absolutely no military experience because they weren't a fanatic terrorist group who relied on radicalised young people.

But you're answering a different question. It's like the homunculus question and free will. You can regress back to infinity. Is there a little man in your head looking through your eyes and listening through your ears and controlling your actions? If yes, then by extension this homunculus must contain another which must contain another through an infinite regression and the result is that there is no answer because the question doesn't make any sense. In your case you have only -- conveniently for your case -- regressed ONE step back to ISIS. But the US-UK (and others) invading Iraq to topple Saddam was the CATALYST and PRETEXT for a Muslim uprising against supposed/alleged Christian Crusaders in Islamic territory. So this ISIS mess didn't start with a "nationless organisation of religious fanatics", it ENDED there. It started with the nations called Iraq and Syria, which the USA was goaded into invading, which no US president can resist if he wants to retain any support or credibility. Yes, Obama is the weakest, most indecisive and worthless president in 100 years (note that includes 'Dubya' Bush -- at least he knew what he wanted to do, even if that ended up destroying the world.) The problem with the US two-term limit is that when a president wins his second (and thus last) term he just ends up being a jet-setting playboy going on state visits and having state banquets and doing nothing so he can't make a mistake to tarnish his legacy. Which is probably a terminal problem for the USA. A year of Obama playing golf while the Middle East and Europe collapse is sadly going to be his only legacy.

[Pablo Huntsbach]

I still say the key difference is that ISIS want european muslims to fight for them, the Afghan oeople didn't. Maybe a better comparason would be with the millions of dollars that Irish Americans raised for the IRA without being recruited online or running internet campaigns

[LonelyBoy]

And if Europe, and thus NATO, collapses (the US will have a powerful lobby of non-interventionism if it is against US national interests even if a NATO ally is attacked), and the Middle East is pretty much there already, then the USA won't be far behind. Globalisation is the buzz word this millennium and even the USA, a power already in decline with the rise of China and Russia, can't 'go it alone'. As Obama sows, so shall his children and grandchildren, and those of other Americans, reap.

[LonelyBoy]

Originally Posted by Pablo Huntsbach

I still say the key difference is that ISIS want european muslims to fight for them, the Afghan oeople didn't. Maybe a better comparason would be with the millions of dollars that Irish Americans raised for the IRA without being recruited online or running internet campaigns

Wrong. They had to fight alone because they couldn't reach, entice or groom foreign sympathisers who, likewise, couldn't really get to Afghanistan very easily or cheaply. And the Taliban couldn't romanticise combat with slick YouTube videos. The technology didn't exist.

[Pablo Huntsbach]

Everything you've said is an assumption though. For years the story we've heard has been about radical imams in European mosques recruiting terrorists to their cause. Even with the current crisis the story is that they fall in with a bad group in their local area.

Also the Taliban didn't exist until after the soviet conflict ended (and the Muhajadeen really didn't need support from teenagers in mosques, they had anerican F16s). On the other hand the taliban, who came a few years later but not later enough to make use of the internet, had plenty of foreign volunteers, as did their opposition. Obviously not on the scale of today but it happened.

[ZooWeeMama]

Originally Posted by Progress

My philosophy these days is that the world changes. Some change seems good, some seems bad. But internet seems a pretty benign thing and I think it depends on what you choose to focus on. The world goes on much as it always has.

On a personal level it's destroyed my career. For the moment anyway, hope I can get it back on track.

Sorry to hear that Progress. I hope the new year sees improvement for you. It's destroyed a few relationships for me, (facebook). I think I'll be ditching it new years day.