Why did people in the 90s/early 00s say that the internet "couldn't be taken down"?

Submitted ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Yingwu@lemmy.dbzer0.com⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

Or am I the only one remembering this opinion? I felt like it was common for people to say that the internet couldn’t be taken down, or censored or whatever. This has obviously been proven false with the Great Firewall of China, and of Russia’s latest attempts of completely disconnecting from the global internet. Where did this idea come from?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
This opinion remains largely correct - the Internet as a network is very difficult to take down.

However things have happened that have undermined the Internet in favour of commercial priorities.

Net Neutrality was a major principle of the Internet but that is under attack, particularly in the US, where infrastructure providers want to maximise profit by linking their income to each Gb used rather than just paid as a utility. Their costs are largely fixed in infrastructure but they push the lie that they need to be paid for how busy that infrastructure is. A network router doesn’t care whether it’s transferring 1gb or 10gb, it only matters if you hit capacity and the network needs to be expanded. The Internet providers instead want profit profit profit so are pushing for a way to maximise it.

The other major issue has been consolidation and that’s thanks to monopolies being allowed to form and dictate how the Internet works. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple - they’ve all used their services to try to manipulate customers into their walled gardens and prevent competition.

So the Internet as many people think of it is very vulnerable - big centralised services can have outages that affect everyone because people don’t have much choice.

But the reality is the underlying protocols and infrastructure remains robust. Google might have an outage, but the Web itself is still functional. Email protocols and file transfer protocols still work. The problem is people who are sitting in Googles walled garden of services are locked out of everything. And with Googles huge monopoly on search and advertising it means lots of other major services are out too.

So the Internet itself is fine. It’s the services and monopolies built on it thay are the problem.

source
- swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  Net Neutrality was a major principle of the Internet but that is under attack, particularly in the US[…]
  
  Not really focused on the US. Every nation, every corporation, every venal special interest group is fighting against net neutrality.
  
  source
- subtext@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  To expand upon “walled gardens”, the customers are not just you and I, it includes the majority of the Internet since they’re all running on the cloud, a.k.a., AWS, MS Azure, and Google Cloud.
  
  source
TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I’m confused. You’re citing the actions of a country to impact its own Internet as evidence they can take the Internet down?

That’s like saying me disconnecting my microwave proves that I can take down the power grid.

source
- stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  disconnecting my microwave proves that I can take down the power grid
  
  DO NOT DISCONNECT YOUR MICROWAVE!
  
  source
  - HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    now i find out why the power went out today
    
    source
Nollij@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

A 1993 Time Magazine article quotes computer scientist John Gilmore, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as saying “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”[7]

That applied a whole lot more when most connections were using a phone line, and a decent size city could have hundreds of ISPs. But part of the design of a redundant mesh network is that there are tons of different paths to any destination. Cutting any of those links would simply force traffic to other routes.

The early Internet was decentralized in other ways, too. Rather than flock to corporate platforms like Facebook, people spent a lot of time on federated and independent platforms. This included Usenet, IRC, and BBSes. In the event that the feds, lawyers, etc could take one down, a dozen more could spring up overnight. There was such a small barrier to entry, and many were run by hobbyists.

It’s somewhat true today. There are countless Lemmy instances that are completely independent. Pirate Bay famously references the Hydra, and it applies to their peers as well. But these are limited in scope.

Xitter has shown us just how quickly and thoroughly a platform can collapse through hostile admins, and how slowly people will reject it.

source
- FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I moan about it regularly but this…
  
  Rather than flock to corporate platforms like Facebook, people spent a lot of time on federated and independent platforms. This included Usenet, IRC, and BBSes
  
  Is just tragic isn’t it? We really had it. A global free flow of hobbies, interests, research, debate, exploration.
  
  I don’t be what’s so fundamentally flawed about human nature that a) something that started so well like Facebook gets enshitified to the extent that it has and b) people flock to it en masse like flies round shit
  
  source
  - swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    The answer to your second point is simple.
    
    Meta’s properties (FB, Insta) have something that most other social networks are lacking: A network of real-world family and friends.
    
    Twitter, Reddit, Mastodon, Lemmy, Tiktok, and the rest all tend to have communities built from the platform’s population, based on shared interests. Meanwhile, FB is the platform that you use to connect with your oddball uncle and high school friends from way back. That’s the sunk cost that makes it so much harder to leave than the strangers on reddit who share your love of lime jello.
    
    source
  - ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    That’s a big part of the appeal of the fediverse for me. Setting up a personal site used to be fairly easy, but was largely isolated and unidirectional. With the AP protocol, and frankly a lot of self-hostable apps in general these days, you can make something to converse with the whole globe and you don’t even need to make a big effort to help people find it.
    
    Webrings still exist, but finding them is less than trivial when they get drowned out by the noise of corporate sites. I’ve used IRC within the last year, but had to look up the proper use of nicserve commands. The old web mentality is still out there, but for the major part people want simplicity. Few want to go through the learning curve to deal with some of the more esoteric parts of it when they can just auth into a site and do a thing.
    
    source
  - Dagwood222@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    It’s a truism in writing; villains act and heroes react. If someone looks at the internet and sees a way to exploit it they will. They don’t care that it’s working fine for everyone else; they want the money.
    
    source
- Kelly@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”
  
  As an example of this, one of the easiest and most performant methods a nation has of blocking a website is dictating which DNS records its ISPs return for domains.
  
  This has the advantages that it doesn’t require traffic inspection and doesn’t slow traffic at all.
  
  But it has the disadvantages that it has an all-or-none effect on the domain e.g. it can’t be used to bock specific pages.
  
  It can also be bypassed by simply using an international DNS server. There are people bypassing this kind of censorship without even knowing they are doing so.
  
  source
xmunk@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The internet couldn’t and still can’t be taken down - but countries can certainly restrict it within their locale (though it is insanely difficult).

The opinion is that the internet as a concept and set of protocols was and is too widespread to ever fully dismantle and one dude with a mission can capture and preserve an immense amount of data.

That’s still all true but doesn’t hold for social media walled gardens which have come to control a huge proportion of communication.

source
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The basic building blocks of the internet were designed by DARPA, and it was designed with that military mentality of “If the ruskies nuke any part of our infrastructure, the rest of it should keep running.” You can chop large parts of the internet off and those parts stop working but the rest of it keeps going. Here’s an extreme example: I can unplug my cable modem and disconnect my house from the internet completely, yet I can still access the web pages hosted by my switch, Wi-Fi router and NAS through my local area network.

source
- phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Mind you that a lotmof that no longer works
  
  In the past traffic could be routed over whatever. If one node went down, the traffic would go over another
  
  Now we have a few very fast backbones and if even one goes down bye bye internet
  
  What you have cached locally or on your doesn’t count because it’s only that which you’ve seen before.
  
  source
neidu3@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Because then it was a robust network with a myriad websites and not just those four websites linking to each other. Also, they weren’t all dependant on adsense or akamai to function.

source
- stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  all tracert point to akamai like internet rome
  
  source
swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
“The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it.”

From a very primitive perspective, this is true. Many of the infrastructure protocols (DNS, BGP, etc.) that the internet sits on are designed to be resilient and fault tolerant. Block access to a DNS server, and the system will find another one. Usually. Depending on circumstances.

Firewalling an entire country is incredibly difficult. From a technical point of view, the GFoC is only modestly successful. It blocks casual and accidental access to the ‘outside world’ just fine, but for the determined operator there are absolutely ways around it - VPNs, cellular networks, satellite relays, you name it.

But do you want to risk having the police show up at your door with orders to kill on sight?

This is fundamentally no different than content filtering in a typical office. From my work computer, I can’t get to porn sites. If I really wanted to, I could find a way - but the odds are pretty good that HR would be at my desk with termination papers and a security escort out of the building.

source
Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
A big change between the internet in the 90’s/00’s and today, is that today we don’t really have this internet with “all computer being equal”, we have a dozen of facebook/google/reddit/tiktok massive websites, and it’s relatively easy to close one of these.

in the 90’s a judge could ask an ISP to close the homepage of someone without impacting the whole internet

source
- HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  yeah i miss geocities too
  
  source
  - dsilverz@thelemmy.club ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Nowadays, there are some efforts to try and bring back the old gold web:
    
    Neocities: it tries to mimick geocities, so people can host HTML+JS+CSS sites that are meant to be static
    
    Geminispace capsule hosting services: similar, but without CSS and JS, it goes even further on trying to return the grand old web from Mosaic browser era, as it’s highly content-focused.
    
    source
NutWrench@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Authoritarian regimes must control the flow of information if they want to continue to exist. Just because they can disconnect themselves from the rest of the world doesn’t mean they’ve "taken down the Internet. "

source
Dasus@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

This has obviously been proven false with the Great Firewall of China, and of Russia’s latest attempts of completely disconnecting from the global internet.

Not it hasn’t. Pretty much the only country which manages it is NK, and that’s because they have 100% control of their citizens.

With TOR and mesh networking, some sort of a system will remain no matters who tries what. The level or communication that was extremely centralised and possibly censored were things before the 80’s. After that, you could just host your own site online and “hide the ip” (not really tho but hosting your things in another country was sort of an equivalent). So information starred glowing much mire freely.

And becsuse all these techs exist, communication will ever regress to such a state that it was in.

So an exaggeration, sort of. Depending on how you define “internet”.

source
jimmy90@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
over the years i think the internet has proved to be a bit flaky BGP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Gateway_Protocol

has proved to be non trivial and mistakes have been made both accidentally and maliciously that have broken large chunks of the internet

having said that i think that things like P2P protocols - Kademlia, Gnutella, UDP bittorent, TOR etc have proved to be very resilient and hard or impossible to break despite concerted efforts to do so. these protocols have adapted to hide using VPN, HTTP and other tunneling techniques and services have distributed themselves effectively such that they have never been eradicated

source
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
It is just the services themselves are centralised now (it wasnt always like this) federation is taking us back closer to the old ideal.

source
Dirk@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Because back then the Internet wasn’t controlled by just a few big corporations.

source
Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Those countries are controlling access at the very few origin points. And they can still be foiled by tunnels, VPNs, and Encryption. The only counter is to actually cut the network at that origin point. But that still gives a country sized internet that’s very resilient. Could they start isolating cities? Depends on their infrastructure. I know the mid size town I lived in could be shut down with one cable. (Because road construction hit it at least once a year and 80,000 people lost Internet for a couple days each time)

When it was first envisioned it was supposed to be an actual web. With multiple points of contact at each place. Instead we’ve consistently done the bare minimum to bring the Internet to each place. Meaning in many places there’s only one connection. For an international look at connection points there are undersea cable maps. It becomes clear quite quickly how easy it is to isolate a single country’s web.

source
rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Neither of your examples “take the internet down”. It’s still here, some users are severed.

source
Fondots@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I don’t recall ever hearing that specifically

Somewhat similar though, I remember being told that anything you put out on the internet is out there forever. Which may not technically be true, there’s a lot of lost pieces of internet history, but the core of that statement isn’t really to be taken literally, it’s more that once you put something online it’s out of your control what everyone else who might have access to it does with that data, you can’t really control what people download, screenshot, save, repost, or when it may resurface.

But back to what you’re saying - even with China and Russia, and other attempts at censorship, the internet still carries on. You can take down, wall off, censor, etc parts of the internet for a lot of people, but taking the entire internet down would be a massive undertaking, probably more than what any country or even any realistically feasible alliance of countries could hope to achieve, as long as there are people with computers linked together somewhere, the internet endures in some fashion.

There’s a lot of redundancy in the internet, there’s no one big box to blow up or one cable to cut that carries the entirety of the internet, it’s millions of devices all linked together in millions of different ways that make up the internet. You can take down parts of it, maybe even most of of it, but it would be nearly impossible to never every last thread of the internet without some truly apocalyptic event happening, even if all that’s left at the end of the day is two nerds on opposite sides of the planet with ham radios hooked up to laptops sending emails back and forth, or some friends sending memes back and forth on thumb drives via carrier pigeon, you could still say that the internet is alive, if not exactly thriving.

source
Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Probably because of the (originally) decentralized nature. But it is everything but decentralized, pretty much like water infrastructure or streets. So many single points is failure. Sure you could drive 1000 miles through 100 towns, and with only few doing that it will “only” take a lot longer. But route a mayor portion of the traffic through there and that will be the end of that.

source
- Electricblush@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  This is also due to the size of traffic these days.
  
  Originaly (if we say, take early html as a starting point) it was mostly text, then later a few images.
  
  These days a simple webpage needs large amounts of code and data just to load.
  
  But the infrastructure and ways of communication is really hard to take down and except for the few nations that have complete control over their own network, it is nearly impossible to break down communication completely.
  
  As others have stated fewer isp’s and core infrastructure providers do make the global network a bit more vulnerable today. And sites and services that lots of people consider “the internet” can be (at least for a while) taken down/offline.
  
  source
DragonsInARoom@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Depends on how much can be taken down via software or hardware. Hardware wise undersea data cables carry all the traffic of the internet and when they’re cut the internet will stop working. Software wise, the internet is hard to take down because most means; like the law, malware, and other attacks only affect invidiual websites. Even if AWS were taken down, they would have backups to reduce the outage, and that kind of attack would be as difficult as cutting an undersea data cable. (But the Russians are testing their ability to cut them.)

source
whome@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Because that was ours purpose in the first place.

source
Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Because you literally were calling other computers directly. As long as you had dial tone you had internet.

Also, phone books existed for the internet. Google wasn’t a thing, so getting from one website to another was peer distributed by mouth and paper.

It’s incredibly hard to take that offline.

source