Rubbish on the Internet

 

I am reminded of life in Kerala, one of the southern states of India. There are many rivers and backwaters there and it is common for people to live on the river; that means mostly that people live on the edge of river bank or the backwater. In addition, some people live on houseboats, at least for short periods. Some have houses on stilts on the river-edge. The river gives them all food (mostly fish), and transportation by boat. They are very hygiene conscious because if they pollute the river or the backwater, they will be ruining their own lives.

We now live by the Internet, and we should be equally careful not to pollute it with fake news, mis-information, unreliable information, etc. Of course, people have the freedom of expression. Going back to the river analogy, do they have the freedom to pollute the river?

I think, and I hope, that rubbish will reduce on the Internet in the coming years. People should have the freedom of expression, but they should not be able to hide behind anonymity. I would hope that every original post and every forwarding would be signed in a manner which would let us identify the person responsible.

Then there is the question of ignorant posting. One may express one's opinion and own responsibility for it. That does not guarantee that it is a contribution for the good of society. You may claim in all sincerity that a certain herbal remedy protects you against Covid-19, but it may be a statement with no reliable evidence behind it whatsoever. It can kill readers who take it to be true. We can probably invent an effective safeguard against ignorant posts, involving a verification rating.

The Internet does not have mechanisms to prevent mischief. It is a dangerous place for the naive user. It keeps millions off the benefits because they hear about frauds and worse crimes, and choose not to seek benefits altogether. Every civilized society has evolved mechanisms to control crimes on the road like banditry. However, we continue to allow viruses, malware, ransomware and so on. We treat phishing as a white-collar crime, but it ought to be treated as dangerous as armed robbery.

Consider an analogy. No one allows you to fly a plane without stringent rules and regulations. Why should we not  follow similar practices for your using the Internet to avoid your causing harm to others?

I also think that the Internet is not robust enough to keep working through natural calamities. We need it all the more during a calamity, but that is when it fails. Cell phone towers run out of fuel, a tornado can take them out and there is not enough redundancy to provide continued working after the loss of a tower in a locality. My apartment building has a diesel generator that kicks in within seconds of a power failure. My table wiring is pretected for those seconds by an UPS that can work for 20 minutes if necessary. However the Internet fails on every power failure, as my Internet service provider does not think that his equipment that gives me a fibre-optic connection deserves a power back-up option!

The predecessor to the Internet, the ARPANET,  was sold to the government on the promise that it would work even after a nuclear attack, but the Internet today needs much less than a nuclear attack to let you down!

The Internet is not safe for young students. It has bullies, criminals, corruptors and drug peddlers on it. We have not made available mechanisms to give vulnerable users a safe haven on the web.

I think we can make progress towards solving all these problems. I am enough of an optimist to believe that we will.

Srinivasan Ramani
26-July-2021

P.S. This article is based on my replies to questions asked by a survey conducted by Pew Research and Elon University.