Interesting Mix of Opinions
For the sake of brevity, I will consider the various opinions by how critical or supportive they are. NOTE: To anyone who had the mistaken idea that I denied computer connectivity/networks would ever exist, I never said such a thing. At most such innovations would be delayed, but once on the scene they would still probably take off, albeit in a very different form.
Originally Posted by Mr_Bondoc
-First, in regards to the People's Republic of China, the Internet was one of the first events wherein the world had access in real-time to the events at Tiananmen Square. While it is certain that the massacre would have certainly taken place, it would have been similar to the 1980 purges, without the glare of international attention. This would have also prevented later protests, such as the 1991 Tibetan protests, the 1997 Hong Kong legislature protests, and the 1999 Falun Gong protests...
Interesting... I actually saw a documentary on the History Channel crediting the fax machine (among other devices) as world-changing technology. This is because fascimile undermines the effectiveness of totalitarian regimes. In this case the Internet played a similar role. An example of a POSITIVE contribution of the Internet, enabling citizens of other countries to find supressed information about epochal events.
Originally Posted by Mr_Bondoc
-Second, in regards to the former Soviet states, from 1989 until 1991, many of the "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, et al. would have been unreported without the presence of the Internet....
Again, same as the above. The Internet played a POSITIVE ROLE in reporting supressed information concerning human rights violations. Of course a possible down side of this, is it gave Clinton impetus to act on "world police" duty, and even when done with good intentions American interventionism almost always proves harmful in the long run, with the exceptions being World War Two and possibly, the Korean War.
Originally Posted by Mr_Bondoc
-Third, the 1996 Asian currency Collapse would have taken place at a slower pace, due to currency exchanges in Great Britain. This would have the effect of delaying the collapse of the Indonesian government in 1998. This would have certainly prevented the independence of East Timor. This would have also prevented the collapse of the Cambodian government, and the susequent arrest of Khmer Rouge leader, led by Pol Pot in 1998....
In this case, the Internet played a NEGATIVE role in the short term (Asian currency collapse) with a POSITIVE longer term side effect, namely the collapse of a fascist regimes in Cambodia and Indonesia. Indonesia however, may not be that much better off.
Originally Posted by Mr_Bondoc
-Fourth, in the Middle East, groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah would have a harder time spreading their message to the media and for recruiting potential foot soldiers. This makes the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Africa difficult. This also makes the 1994 attacks on American troops in Somalia, less likely to be funded by Al-Qaeda leaders. This also prevents the 1998 Abu-Sayyef attacks in the Philippines...
Definitely a NEGATIVE side effect of the Internet! I am surprised you made the following ommission. Without Internet, the September 11th attacks would have been much more difficult and may have had a better chance of being thwarted...
Originally Posted by Mr_Bondoc
-Fifth, the sudden recruitment of right-wing militias of the 1990s remains a small-fringe activity. This prevents Timothy McVeigh and his ilk from planning and organizing the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The David Koresh and the Branch Davidian Disaster would have been seen as just another failed federal law enforcement incident, and not linked to some dark "New World Order"....
Another NEGATIVE side effect of the Internet. Unfortunately plenty of ultra-reactionary memes and kooky conspiracy theories float around cyberspace. (Interesting unrelated sidenote. Why is it when a center-left president like Clinton is in office, you get a lot of kooky far-right-wing conspiracy theories like the NWO and ZNG, but when a center-right wing president is in office you get kooky leftist conspiracy theories like Loose Change?)
In short, Mr_Bondoc noticed some tremendous impact that the Internet had on world events, ironically most of which involve the developing world, with little or no access to Internet. And these are just the bigger, more tangible socio-political impacts.
Originally Posted by Nicksplace27
Now, just to entertain the idea that the internet could never be invented, I believe that the internet has yet to make a large impact socially, but it will within the next ten years. I mean bigger than anything else we've seen. Anyone can share ideas with anyone over huge distances in the blink of an eye. The butterflies are massive and endless. You circumvent that and an ATL could go any which way.
Even you agree that the Internet will have a tremendous effect on the world. You just do not believe it has happened yet...
The Internet has already revolutionized education, the way we do business, shopping, news, entertainment. One thing I like about the Internet is the availability of news. Another major example of how the Internet completely revolutionized life (albeit in a mostly bad way) is in entertainment trends. Of course the Internet is not limited to Web browsing, and P2P networks are applications. Ever since the mid nineties downloading music and other media files has been easily possible for most people. The effect of Napster and others has had a political impact on the RIAA and interfered with record sales. Now I am not willing to rant about Internet era anti-elitism or cultural decadence or whatnot again, but I do think the Internet had a beneficial effect on music, movies, and television. For one thing, the recent suckfest of music (since the mid-90's really, with the rise of "Pop"/bubblegum music, rap, pseudo-R&B, nu-metal, etc.) I think is largely due to the Internet. For one thing, in these cynical times, very few artists care to make music for its social utility or its own artistic merits (hence why we will never have another Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Who, Queen, Hendrix, etc., nor another Woodstock or Motown). The sole reason is the purely capitalistic profit motive, but even that incentive has largely been lost since downloading free music lowers the guarantee of money. Hence artists do not really care anymore. On the other hand the decade-long suckfest in movies and music probably owes more to the general decadence of a pseudointellectual culture that doesn't read anymore, Western culture in general, American culture in particular. Not to mention this whole reality TV fad was largely popularized by the Internet generation.
Originally Posted by Nicksplace27
I personally think the internet is an inevitablilty. Any way to connect computers so people can share information is incredibly important and therefore, since nessicity is the mother of invention, the internet would've been invented by someone.
Computer connectivity would probably exist eventually, but must one connect through computers to share information? One could do so with fax, phones, broadcasting, etc. Also just because some person figured out to connect computers, does not mean anything resembling the OTL internet would necessarily result. That is like assuming that once a wheel is invented an automobile is soon to follow.
Originally Posted by pieman3141
I agree that the Internet (as we know it, decentralized, etc.) did not have to occur.
Glad to see someone else does not think my premise to be absurd!
Originally Posted by pieman3141
Imagine this: Some academic or government/military organization in the 1960s/70s, after having written a 300-page report, now has the unenviable task of faxing the damned thing to somewhere across the country. There's a time constraint, so couriering the thing is out. Since networking hasn't been invented yet, and automated fax machines haven't been requisitioned, some poor slob has to feed the damn thing. You fricking bet networking WILL be invented soon.
Of course, the example you cited, while interesting, makes more sense in hindsight. Of course we take the Internet for granted so much that most of us forget how life was like without it. Sure things were a bit tougher, but people did just fine without computer networking, not to say that such innovations did not make life easier, because they certainly did. Naturally, I assume that sooner or later somebody would probably invent some means of computer connectivity, be it modems or networks. I say later, you say sooner. Would networking be invented any time soon? Maybe. The problem is someone still has to research and develop the technology in and of itself. This would cost lots of time and money, but in the long run, the payoff would be well worth it. Then again, one might just improve fax machines, chiefly by automating them, or through "digifax". Eventually you get fax machines interfacing with office computers, sending documents and graphics in electronic form from one computer to another. Transfer of data through telephone-like connections via fascimile could serve the role of computer networks in lieu of e-mail. (Even you imply that this situation is not a regular occurence.)
Originally Posted by The Mists of Time
If the Internet had never existed there would be very very few home or personal computers. The Internet was a very big factor in the development of the personal computer and in them becoming a routine item in almost every home.
Interestingly somebody else agrees with me on this! The Internet was indeed a major factor in popularizing computers! DaleCoz disagrees, but here is an interesting project. Find data on personal computer sales from the debut of the PC to the present. See how the increase in sales correlates with the availability of Internet-related innovations. Granted many people did own a computer well before anyone knew what the Internet was, but then more people acquired a PC after the Net revolution. (My father owned computers well before we had any sort of connectivity, but he worked with computers and software.)
Originally Posted by The Mists of Time
Had the Internet never existed, the world would in many ways be much like it was before the Internet was invented and developed. In many ways the world would be much like it was in the 1970's and 1980's.
Interesting... in othe words, the Disco Era?
Originally Posted by Johnestauffer
I think 'personel computers" would still have a major role in things.
They are more flexible than main frame computers and would be desired by smaller businesses.
Personal computers are more flexible than mainframe computers? Not necessarily the case, although typically PCs are more flexible than mainframes. Certainly PCs are more flexible than older mainframes, but not they can not compete with modern supercomputers. (Except of course in terms of cost and overall practicality.)
Originally Posted by Johnestauffer
They would also be useful in the education world.
Curiously I overlooked that. Needless to say, without internet, PC-like computers would still have a major role in education, particularly college or university level, somewhat less so in high school.
Originally Posted by Johnestauffer
The entertainment aspect of the small computer would still be there.
You could still have computer games.
But as I have established, the Internet was a major force in popularizing computers. Without internet, people still might find use for a PC (although specialized word-processors/electronic fax machines could meet many of those needs, at least in the home), but in an internet-less world, anyone who would buy something like a PC
exclusively for gaming when equivalent or superior consoles are available is just not a very wise consumer. Interestingly, I once speculated about whether systems like PS2, XBox, XBox360, Wii, etc. might some way have computer keyboards and mice (mouses? is the plural of computer mouse mice?) available for attachment, and later on, word proceesors, spreadsheets, and such. Might they then evolve into simpler low cost PCs?
Originally Posted by Johnestauffer
Price was the major barrier to my getting a PC in the 'old' days prior to the internet
True. In this internet-less TL, PCs are still invented around their OTL date of invention, but the lack of an internet means less of a boom in sales, and less of a price cut. Hence, improvements in computing improve (paradoxically faster than IOTL), the functions of a PC are handled more efficiently for a lower price with other devices, and therefore get phased out, except in situations where the complexity of a multi-purpose PC is truly needed (in certain lines of work, less so in the office or school). So the household PC is still around, but its price keeps it as a luxury item.
Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young
Since the internet is just a more efficient computer networking system, I say it is an inevitable evolution once basic networking is ironed out, commercial if not military. It's not like there's any huge hurdle to overcome, once the basic idea is there. In fact, decentralizing it would make it cheaper and less prone to break down, giving an economic incentive only slightly less than the military incentive, which would be to prevent a key system from dying at an inopertune moment. What's to keep networking from improving into something better? The End of History mentality?
Who says an internet (i.e. decentralized computer network) is any more efficient? Certainly it is more complex, but then it brings advantages. While a more decentralized network is far less prone to failure, this need not entail complete distribution. Afterall there are many different degrees of centralization and decentralization. On one extreme, a highly centralized network would consist one central node with every other node connected through a single exclusive connection to this hub. On the other extreme one could have a network where every single node is directly connected to every other node (but this is highly impractical), or a more reasonable model consisting of every node connecting only to adjacent or local nodes and each node having a more or less equal number of connections with other nodes, a sort of neural net). There are vaious degrees of decentralization between the extremes of a totally distributed network and a unitary centralized one, including a centralized arrangement of decentralized sub-networks or a decentralized web of centralized networks with various sublevels and superlevels of organization. (See this link for an illustration:
http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/baran_nets_large.gif)
Of course the network architecture a company chooses would depend on its needs, but to avoid a network crash, one could still have a more or less centralized network, with some backup hubs and auxillary connections. People would gradually develop solutions as they need them, but the completely distributed decentralized layout developed by Paul Baran emerged to solve a military problem, not a civilian or economic one. At the time it seemed impractical (all other networks were essentially centralized), but once built proved extremely useful, hence why Arpanet served as the model for the Internet. "End of History" mentality?
Just because I do not see certain technological endeavors as being fated to occur, does that mean I have an end-of-history mentality? I'd say your belief that the internet is inevitable is no less fatalist!
Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young
In the end, the need for a decentralized network to resist nuclear attack is still there (heck, it would still apply even without rockets).
Granted, but then Paul Baran seemed to be the only one IOTL to suggest such an idea! While he is a genius, would anyone else have come up with the same or similar idea? Maybe. After all, the government did realize the merit in Baran's theses. Still, his innovation seemed rather revolutionary. And I am not so sure the need for such a defense mechanism is as strong today as it was during the Cold War.
Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young
Plus, there will be an economical impetus as well as the military impetus. One or the other will grow, and ARPNET or whatever will develop de facto or de jure until someone takes the next step. You can delay progress, but you can't stop it (unless you kill everyone, or pull a 1984).
We already discussed the economic incentive (or lack thereof) of building a decentralized/distributed computer network in a civilian context. One certainly can delay progress, but could it be stopped? Not likely. Then again, in my scenario, research and development is not really stopped or even guarded against. It is merely distracted only to proceed in other directions! You do not need tyrants or ASBs to halt innovation (which does not really happen in the above scenario, but if you truly believe the Internet is
inevitable then it certainly seems like it).
Originally Posted by Max Sinister
@TR: Don't bother about people who don't know the difference between WWW and Internet. There are too many of 'em.
So it seems. There was a time when I did not know the difference between "the Net" and "the Web" but that does not mean I can not explain it and teach people. That is a very poor attitude coming from a Wikipedian of all people! Aren't you supposed to bring knowledge to the people? (In some cases it is not that they did not know the difference, just that we were "talking past" eachother.)
Originally Posted by Max Sinister
But yes, I'd like to see your "proof" that wikipedia's bad.
Sigh! I do not know how I could possibly explain what is the problem with Wikipedia to someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with an "open-content" encyclopedia that ANYONE could edit anonymously with no guarantee of expertise or credentials. If there is ANYTHING good about Wikipedia it is that if information is cited, one could usually find a link to the original source. But even this proper citation is often lacking and sometimes Wikipedia will accept lousy sources. There is just not enough content control. Would you like me to provide a list of complaints and grievances? How about some links to criticisms?
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/archives/2004/06/000623.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2117942/
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=255920&area=/insight/insight__national/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
And ironically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
There are many more articles, but I have lost most of them. Overall, Wikipedia is very handy as an "information phonebook" but should stop pretending to be an encyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is better than Wikipedia. Wookiepedia is better also. At least none of the aforementioned masquerade as reliable factual information about the real world.
Originally Posted by Justin Pickard
Prove it. China didn't create the internet, but net use there is booming, and they are neither 'open' nor 'capitalist' in the conventional sense.
Prove it? Thank you Mr. Pickard, you have proven my point for me. China did not create the internet (emphasis mine). The question Ofaloaf raised was what if the Soviets invented or developed the Internet, and I was arguing that it would be highly unlikely for any Marxist-Leninist regime to
create something like the internet for several reasons. You said so yourself, the internet spread into China, but it did not originate there. Besides, the fact that it is booming there does not mean that this boom is according to the government's wishes. If you pay attention to the news they mention that the Chinese government grudgingly accepts the internet in the country, but desperately attempts to restrict access and censor content.
Consider that some think the fax machine alone made totalitarianism obsolete, and think about how troublesome the Internet would be to any authoritarian state. Any truly totalitarian, be it communist or a fascist theocracy regime around today has outlawed the Internet in its borders and punishes attempts to access it, or at the very least, carefully controls Internet access. North Korea, Iran, and the Taliban both banned the Internet. Cuba and Saudi Arabia have stringent content control and limit access. You frequently hear about how the Chinese version of Google limits information access.
China is no longer communist (ever since Deng Xiaoping reforemed the economy) and is now state capitalist. Reforms include some degree of private enterprise and market elements, but the economy remains largely in state control. Also, some liberalizations, but democracy has yet to overcome the one-party dictatorship. Afterall, if the PRC were really Communist, they would not be allowed in the WTO. So your example is flawed.
Originally Posted by Justin Pickard
Plus, we have no 'control' for this assertion, nothing to compare it against.
Aside from our theoretical understanding of an authoritarian state, and reasonable predictions about how it would react to anything as democratic and anti-statist as the Internet, we have
real world instances of opposition! Most totalitarian regimes would not even allow the Internet infrastructure within or anywhere near their borders and prohibit their people from accessing the Net. What would lead anyone to conclude that they would invent it? (Aside from that fact, consider that no surviving authoritarian regime could be considered socialist let alone communist. Some are state capitalist, others corporatist, quasi-feudal, or at most, populist. While state capitalism, populism, and neo-feudalism are similar enough to authoritarian statist socialism, the lack of a capitalistic private sector would curtail growth of an internet.)
Originally Posted by Justin Pickard
I also think that, as intranets are joined up, something bearing a passing resemblance to the internet will evolve anyway in your scenario. It might start off slightly more locally-based, but once the advantages are seen, government investment would boost the core network.
Not necessarily, these computer networks (which would not be called intranets IATL because the term was derived from "internet") would for the most part be privately owned, usually by a corporation. Also such networks would typically tend to be centralized. Since proprietary issues would be at the forefront, linking up with other such networks would be a challenge. If other networks would connect, they are more likely to do so through a modem rather than a direct network connection. Aside from being local, very few would cross borders between nations (except maybe in the EU) because of proprietary issues and what not. Governments might also build computer networks, but what is to say they resemble internets. (Moreso, if one imagines a more Libertarian current in American politics, such government investment becomes less likely. Also, since my POD affects the space race, satellites might not be available as early or in such large amounts, and the lack of satlinks could limit the capabilities of networks. At least initially. Basically, DaleCoz offers a more plausible account of how computer networking would be in lieu of the internet.
Originally Posted by Justin Pickard
And I also object to your Techno-Luddism. Without the net, I would probably not be at the university I'm currently at; I would not be able to access 95% of the academic journals and articles I use; and I would not have been exposed to as many differing political standpoints, ideas, opinions, and so forth. Knowledge is power, and you can't blame the medium for the message.
Techno-Luddism? Imagine the reaction when he reads what Ray Bradbury has to say!
Of course I have an overall positive view of computers, but a negative view of the internet. Personally I see my "End of History" mentality or "Techno-Luddism" more interesting than the fatalist view that all developments in computing invariably lead to the Internet. I would appreciate it if others are respectful of my opinion even if it is conflicting. And I am aware of the irony and potential hypocrisy that I am criticizing the Internet... over the Internet!
For me the Internet was
mostly a negative experience. I know people personally whose lives were literally ruined by the Internet in some way. (Fortunately, most of their "ruined lives" were not irreparable and were brought back on track...
) It is great that some people benefited from the Internet. Justin, I understand the empowerment you recieved, but I don't believe you would not currently be at your university without the Internet. Where there is a will, there is a way! As for academic journals, many of them are available offline (originally they were), and anything truly valuable on the Internet is unavailable on the open net, but requires an access fee. (So much for free info!) Of course the Internet is not all evil! Much good has come out of it, most notably alternatehistory.com. Actually if computer networks developed as DaleCoz described them, maybe I could make a divergence of this timeline where AH.com exists in such a fashion!
@ DaleCoz:
Thanks for the glossary!
Originally Posted by DaleCoz
Would computers automatically generate connectivity? Yep. Almost a hundred percent certainty of that.
Probably. Never say 100% about a counterfactual! I would not say automatically, but it would nevertheless be unreasonable not to expect that someone would attempt to link computers sooner or later. Of course timing is crucial. In my timeline I postulate that nothing like the Internet will emerge, but many private networks (e.g. Compuserve) develop by the 80s or 90s. Nevertheless Compuserve may have been at least partially inspired by Arpanet, and depended on packet switching and time sharing, so certain technological innovations would be required. I think that some hobbyists would take up networking, but without a global public internet, computer networking would not have as mainstream an appeal.
Originally Posted by DaleCoz
Would personal computers be supplanted by specialized devices? There has always been a tension between computers and specialized microprocessor-based devices like video games. However, there has never been a point where video game consoles seriously threatened to push personal computers per se out of the market, though they did do a number on specialized home computers like the C64 and the Amiga.
The reason why video game consoles never seriously threatened personal computers is because the older video game consoles (i.e. Nintendo, Supernintendo) were always inferior to a good PC (or a 1980's video game-specific PC), and because a PC can do ALOT more than play games. The Internet and WWW were already available to the general public by the time Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation, and N64 came out, let alone later consoles such as PS2, which could actually compete with most PCs in gaming capabilities. Assuming faster innovations in electronics outside of networking, advanced video game consoles (and PDAs, etc.) would have arrived even earlier.
Originally Posted by DaleCoz
Would personal computers be supplanted by specialized devices? Part of the problem is that it was far easier to justify a computer to parents, spouses, significant others, than it was to justify a video game console.
Not necessarily. What would be an argument for buying a PC? The kids could use it for research. It could be useful for communications. Essentially internet-related tasks. The major offline use would be word processing or maybe making spreadsheets. But what if technological and economic conditions favored devices custom fit for word processing? (Video typewriters?) A laptop-sized device with built-in printer optimized for word processors. Besides, if one argues for a PC to play games, a video game console could serve the function for much less money!
Originally Posted by DaleCoz
The two were likely to coexist, and always have. Even if game consoles totally won out, they would probably then develop computer-like functions, and connectivity functions. Playstation and XBox have certainly gone down the connectivity route.
That actually makes perfect sense! I kind of speculated about that happening IOTL! Buy the Nintendo Compuko! Has all the essentials of a PC at a much lower price! I could probably appreciate the superior Japanese manufacture... Of course in a no-internet timeline, I do not see consoles developing connectivity, but in lieu of true PCs would become more sophisticated and take on the role of multi-media center.
