Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Will Win Control of the Web?

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the probably-some-fourteen-year-old dept.

Google 206

Barence writes "Control of the web is up for grabs. Each of the big three computing companies – Microsoft, Apple and Google – has its own radically different vision to promote, as does the world's biggest creative software company, Adobe. And HTML itself is changing, too. This article examines the case for each of the contenders in the war of the web and, with the help of industry experts, assesses which – if any – is most likely to emerge as victor."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How do we make sure? (5, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358084)

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Re:How do we make sure? (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358152)

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Looks to me that the web is falling under the control of DHS. [thehill.com] We all know how much a threat bit-torrent search engines are to national security.

If this would have happened three years ago, Slash would have posted this article three times with 750 comments each talking about how Bush is a tyrant trying to seize and solidify power. Now in 2010, not a peep.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358226)

That's politics for ya.

Re:How do we make sure? (4, Informative)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358314)

Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain [slashdot.org]
 
The same day as your link.

Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.

I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358402)

you mean the debunked scenario in the first comment?

slashdot may have political bias, but that doesn't mean people pay attention to when things are a hoax.

Re:How do we make sure? (2, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358516)

"Slashdot may have political bias"

Speaking about political bias, peoples understanding of what reason is and how it functions is seriously incorrect on all sides.

Everyone on slashdot should see the following:

Clip from important part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]

Te whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOdJMuCreDA [youtube.com]

Re:How do we make sure? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358576)

Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain [slashdot.org]

The same day as your link.

Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.

I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.

Bullshit.

Try posting about BP's [slashdot.org] contributions to Obama and note how BP was allowed to escape full financial accountablilty for the BP oil spill.

Imagine the "Hallibushitler" crap we'd see posted if Bush were still in office.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358622)

Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain [slashdot.org]

The same day as your link.

Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.

I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.

Thanx. That one flew under my radar. Still, it mentions only one site that was taken over. THIS [torrentfreak.com] site contains an update that lists many more that have been taken over. And, NO, it's not TheHill.com.

But back to my original point. Shouldn't there be comparisons to Nazi book burnings or something? I know we would have seen that comparison made three years ago. I wonder what has changed since then.

Re:How do we make sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358324)

Who cares, the internet in the US is done anyhow, the US is falling to the Chinese every day, unreasonable search and seizure you say. I say I'm not working thus not paying taxes or contributing shit to US society any longer, seize nothing search nothing, I will replace everything with dumpster diving for technology
Bawwww, they just lost a citizen who did care, they can go find someone else who isn't totally apathetic, I don't fly any longer either, I am requitting smoking too, taxes you know
By the end of it all I hope to make my financial footprint the size of an Indian's in Bangalore, and this makes me proud
If I drag my heels, and the others like me do as well, we might just have something

Re:How do we make sure? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358394)

Wow. You mean expressing my anger online hasn't permanently fixed the problem? This is an outrage!

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

ckedge (192996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358810)

I think that says more about how many people are reading slashdot. Most of the stories here now have a paltry handful of comments, and what comments there are ... are trollish spew in nature. Very very few intelligent discussions here. This is the first time I've posted a comment here in ... a LONG time.

I think reddit has finally killed slashdot.

Re:How do we make sure? (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358196)

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Make it unprofitable.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358328)

Good idea!
(really)

Re:How do we make sure? (2, Insightful)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358478)

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Make it unprofitable.

So . . . you want the government to manage it? :D

Re:How do we make sure? (3, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358710)

So . . . you want the government to manage it? :D

If you remember your history, originally they did. None of this non-sense was happening until private businesses moved in and demanded government protection for their profit margins.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358334)

We needed a fundamental human right that says access to public information on the web should be accessible by anyone using any device.

As for Flash and Silverlight, they hinder development of the web by providing an easy way to do things or a way to do things not possible by DHTML/Javascript.

Re:How do we make sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358380)

>As for Flash and Silverlight, they hinder development of the web by providing an easy way to do things or a way to do things not possible by DHTML/Javascript.

How would an easy way of making the web functional through different means *hinder* its development? If anything, these are some of the technologies that are flourishing on the web and the way we're using them is hinting at what the future will hold.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358416)

The web will continue to be controlled by the same people that have always controlled it -- us, the users. If a minority interest such as a company or government manages to exert unwanted influence on the web, whether that be a proprietary standard or unpopular laws, then the greater community will simply migrate the web to a new form.

Re:How do we make sure? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358514)

make the intertubes like a public street or flea market where anyone can set up shop or make their opinion known, I do not want any one entity to dominate and control the internet, it needs to be free and neutral and available for anybody.

Re:How do we make sure? (2, Insightful)

c1ay (703047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358518)

Continue supporting open source solutions. As long as Unix/Linux OSes remain the dominant systems and Apache the dominant server then proprietary solutions will never win. The attempt of proprietary vendors to win is exactly what drives the community to fork and maintain open source. In the same way that BSD gave birth to FreeBSD, Open Office gave birth to Libre Office. I suspect Oracle will eventually force MySQL to fork in order to remain open but it has the momentum now to remain the dominant web DB. Freedom will prevail and that is what will make sure no one entity controls the web.

Re:How do we make sure? (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358538)

Um. The title is absurd. You don't "control the web" by adopting open standards. None of these three is "controlling the web." If you want to look for someone controlling the web, look at all the legislation going around allowing governments to seize domain names, and treat traffic differently based on its source, and shut down peoples' access to the web based on mere allegations. That's "controlling the web."

Re:How do we make sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358856)

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Too late, the US government controls the web. Didn't you hear that the FCC declared it a public utility?

Telcos (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358086)

He who lays the pipes.

Re:Telcos (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358354)

He who lays the pipes.

The same answer to "who will pass on their genetic traits?"

by the looks of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358110)

the government is going to try to "control" the web.

Answer (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358112)

Who Will Win Control of the Web?

You and I, silly people. Why are we deluding ourselves into believing only massive multinational companies can control the web, or that the government can control the internet, etc.? They are granted power because we give it to them.

If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them. That, people, is power. And it is yours, not theirs.

Re:Answer (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358150)

I agree. Unfortunately javascript, Flash, Silverlight, etc... can easily be leveraged to compromise your anonymity via Tor. So unless you,re content viewing HTML only content, Tor is all but worthless.

Re:Answer (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358284)

Unfortunately javascript, Flash, Silverlight, etc... can easily be leveraged to compromise your anonymity via Tor.

Oh noes! Someone might find out that my real IP address is 192.168.1.100!

Re:Answer (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358418)

Hey, that's my IP address too you jerk!

Re:Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358480)

I am Sparticus!!

Re:Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358522)

No, yours is 127.0.0.1. Just look in your Internet settings to confirm.

Re:Answer (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358170)

If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them.

Yep and then when facebook doesn't work, or youtube is too slow. They will immediately stop everything they were just taught.

Tor is slow. Most people are too lazy to use ad-block or no-script.. that and it makes their web pages not work. Ive had people use my computer to go online real quick and the second facebook doesn't load.. "whats wrong with your computer?"

You are totally underestimating the power of stupid/lazy people.

Re:Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358208)

Interesting that we now call companies a "who." I'm not so sure that word means what they think it means.

Re:Answer (4, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358216)

That's a big if, though. The power structure of the world has and will always be a pyramid, and those on the bottom have always had the strength and numbers to overthrow those above it, yet a look at the past 20 years in Myanmar/Burma and Argentina are enough to show you that people still, after thousands of years, aren't always quick to do it. Something like the Magna Carta only happens so often, but when it does it's glorious. The real power in that document wasn't the power of the peasants or even the nobles to hold the monarchy accountable - after all, we've always had pitchforks - it was the establishment of an early set of bureaucracy. Companies follow rules for profit, the easiest way to win is just to play their game. Net neutrality is a good example of that - use an established bureaucracy against them. It's much easier to effect change as a small group of vocal lobbyists than a massive uprising. The average citizen wants their coffee and paper, to watch the game, and for the kids to behave. A technowhatsit spat over standards is about as boring as John Kerry's stump speech (that joke is six years old already).

Re:Answer (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358372)

You know, people are always reluctant for me to touch their computers and install privacy-enhancing software, until I show them how much faster their computer runs without malware, spyware, and pre-installed garbage. After I strip away all the advertisements they see on the web, they're utterly delighted. They want to buy me dinner, or hug me until I choke. They go from skeptics to supporters in a matter of minutes. And then I explain to them how I did it, and ask them to show their friends.

People come to me all the time now asking for the same services: How do I turn off advertisements on my internet? How to I get rid of all these popups trying to sell me crap? And increasingly, people are asking me how they can browse without the government knowing what they are looking at. See, people do read all this crap on CNN; They just feel powerless to do anything about it.

But once they have a community resource willing to show them, suddenly you've got the most unlikeliest of people knocking at your door. Traditional arguments about power and government hold little weight when I can show people how to push a button and make all the bullsh*t go away. No more tracking. No more advertisements. Bamf. Gone. All of it. They're free to use the public resource that is the internet with a peace of mind and just a smidgeon of anonymity and privacy.

And they do. Oh how they do.

Re:Answer (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358524)

Yeah, I used to do that for people, too. Then, after noticing that a few months later I'd have to go back and do it again because of their stupidity, I quit.

Most people will keep on doing the same things that got them in the mess to begin with, and my time is too precious to fight against that kind of stupidity.

Re:Answer (0, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358304)

Just like the hawks that decided to invade Iraq for no particular reason. The problem is that there's a lot of cowards and morons out there that will gladly hand it over in order to buy a little bit of safety. Family Guy did an entire episode about it.

We're not going to get real change until the voters grow a spine and actually research the issues rather than voting for whomever it is that scares them the most.

You're 110% correct (good job "git")... apk (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358316)

"If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them. That, people, is power. And it is yours, not theirs." - by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday November 27, @11:25AM (#34358112)

You're dead-on correct, & I agree, 110% (well said): I felt the same way, more or less along the lines of "wait a second - it's PEOPLE that make the internet great... not companies!" when I read this article this a.m. over a cup of coffee here.

As to what I bolded above? Doing my part here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

As my guide for securing Windows & showing users how to do so, via the EASIEST/SIMPLEST MEANS I KNOW OF POSSIBLE (CIS Tool, or others like MBSA + Windows own "built-in" native tools). You & I? We think much alike.

Well, I "digress", as to your being "110% correct": I have had my share of 'naysayers' in my guides (trolls everywhere & all that), but the reviews & ratings others gave that guide of mine for securing Windows overrode that much easily, & you MAY be correct it was "execs" & their cronies coming in to "try to stop it" (good luck - ideas, especially ideas that are effective & benefit others for free, are HARD to kill!) - but, I don't think it was, and I have not heard any "b.s." from that ilk to date (2-3 yrs. now in fact).

APK

P.S.=> As far as "going into 10 people's homes" on my part though? Heh - that guide's seen over 600,000 views (and that was when I stopped counting it across the 15 websites it's been hosted on where it's received 5/5 star ratings, & was made a "sticky/pinned thread" across most of them (nearly all), everytime it was posted... it even got me PAID $100 for winning the January 2008 contest for "article of the month" over @ PC Pitstop http://pcpitstop.com/news/winners.asp [pcpitstop.com] ... which was completely unexpected (I didn't even KNOW they did that when I posted it, was a nice surprise & helped me obtain a WD Velocirpator 300gb model)).

Yup, you're right again: Funniest part is, when you try help others and end up doing so? It's funny how the community itself online will help YOU in return (in many ways)... ala "what comes around, goes around"... apk

1 more piece of info. as to company execs (lol) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358712)

"If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them. That, people, is power. And it is yours, not theirs." - by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday November 27, @11:25AM (#34358112)

From Mr. Bruce Perens no less, verbatim, as to "what companies REALLY do" in the case you cite:

---

"I have been offered the online-perception-management services I'm talking about while managing at HP and Sourcelabs. If you are not aware of companys concern for their online perception and what they do about it, and won't take my word for it, there isn't much point in arguing about it with you." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @09:27PM (#33092398) Homepage Journal

FROM -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33092398 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

and

"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @03:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal

FROM -> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192 [slashdot.org]

---

Well, "will wonders NEVER cease", lol...

APK

P.S.=> After all, you CANNOT make a "snake a butterfly", & when it comes to real "snakes in the grass" scum? Well - look NO farther than "KORPORATE AMERIKA" people (they're TRULY the "best money can REALLY buy" along with their political cronies and "online perception mgt." companies they employ (wasting stockholder monies even more than their over-inflated paychecks + "bonuses" merit - because IF they did the job RIGHT first time out, & didn't pull accounting scandals like CA has been shown to do -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102 [slashdot.org] in the computer sciences, as well as ENRON as another example thereof? Things might not be as bad as they are nowadays... for ALL concerned, worldwide!).

Lastly, thanks for the upmod as "interesting" folks, on my 1st post here to "girlintraining" -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1885890&cid=34358316 [slashdot.org] as well... but, credit goes where it's due, and she's the person to "up mod" (heh, she reached the highest you can go, so look at what a girl can do in IT when she puts her mind to it, eh? I think we need more women in this art & science, because what she said to which I replied is a good example why!)... apk

Re: The question is biased (4, Informative)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358326)

You and I, silly people. Why are we deluding ourselves into believing only massive multinational companies can control the web,

You are right that the Web belongs to you and I. And it goes further. TFA asks the question backwards:

Control of this new evolution of the web is up for grabs. Each of the big three computing companies – Microsoft, Apple and Google – has its own radically different vision to promote.

This question is biased. The Web has not been created by corporate entities and is not "up for grabs". The web has evolved out of the cumulative connectedness of public networks through public standards, which development is still overseen by the WWW Consortium. Attempts to privatize parts of it (eg. AOL) have failed and new attempts must fail if we wish to see the Web further innovate.

Read Tim Berners-Lee latest article. It articulates the questions facing the evolution of the Web so much more clearly:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web [scientificamerican.com]

Re: The question is biased (1)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358366)

Sorry to reply to my own post, but to put Microsoft, Apple and Google contentions on the same plane is just wrong. Of these, only Google is purely a Web company, and is also the only one who defends the public standards that have made the Web, and its own existence, possible.

The other two are, indeed, grabbers.

Re: The question is biased (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358414)

Google is not purely a web company. They make hardware, they make appliances, they make physical stuff.

Re: The question is biased (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358624)

So that whole deal with Apple taking a GPL engine, enhancing it and developing it, and pushing HTML5 and CSS, and striving hard to ensure that Webkit passed the Acid Tests, among other standards compliance...

MS finally pulling its finger out with IE9 development, and decent HTML5 demonstrations, looking like it will at last be on a par with the other browsers for web standards.

That was all just a myth, right?

Google is not the only one promoting the public standards that have made the web.

Re:Answer (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358562)

If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes

Wait... do you mean, like, go outside?

Re:Answer (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358836)

This shows a profound lack of understanding of how large corporations try to control markets.
The first thing you have to understand is that almost all large companies strive as hard as they can to remove the market from consideration - this is called "marketing" (as with most corp speak, it is newspeak, the opposite of what is intended). The goal of marketing is to make you buy stuff on silly things, like the label, rather then on what you need or what is best cost/price/function.
The second thing is that "the market" is all powerful and can fight marketing; rather it is a continual struggle; the maturity of hte market and the mumber of dominant players has a role.
IT is still possible for a faceook to spring up, but the web is so young - not even ateenager.
as the web matures and barriers to entrance become higher, power will shift away from us.
For instance, look at search engines: from what I understand, to start a new search enigne would require 10s, if not 100s of millions of dollars up front, for servers etc etc.
given that, people will only invest money in search engines that make money; user desires are secondary. look at google: it does a really crappy job as a search engine (think about what you want out of a search engine, then compare to what you get; google gets a C- at best) and part of the reason it is crappy is because it exists to sell ads, rather then help
us

why are its users so stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358118)

Why are users so stupid as to hand control of the web over to *anybody*? Why are they so keen to support proprietary protocols, closed ecosystems, and single-vendor grabs for power?

The whole POINT of the internet, was open standards. That's how we got this far: a bunch of RFCs that were available to any and all to implement. Why give that up now?

Re:why are its users so stupid? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358160)

Why are users so stupid as to hand control of the web over to *anybody*? Why are they so keen to support proprietary protocols, closed ecosystems, and single-vendor grabs for power?

Because it's easier. I know guys who are intelligent, capable engineers who buy Macs because "it just comes with everything they need, and it just works." I'm not really convinced they're in the wrong, either.

Re:why are its users so stupid? (4, Insightful)

cheebie (459397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358282)

I'm one of those engineers.

I ran windows for a long time and got sick of the crappy OS and security so poor 50% of the CPU power is dedicated to preventing me from getting hacked.

Then I ran Ubuntu for a few years. This time I got tired of the completely crappy/inconsistent interfaces, and having to spend way too much of my time being a sysadmin.

Now I've got a Mac. It's nicely designed, I don't have to mess with it, and I've got a Unix-variant at my fingertips when I'm feeling that command-line itch. I still have to deal with lack of software due to Windows dominance, but I'm learning to live without some stuff.

All of this is on my home machine. At work where I need the real thing it's vterms to a Unix box, baby.

Having said that, I did this because it was MY CHOICE. I didn't hand control over to anyone. I can install just about any software I care to on this machine and Steve Jobs is not going to show up with a baseball bat. OSS paranoia about the big bad corporations coming to steal your compilers doesn't help anything.

Re:why are its users so stupid? (2, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358298)

So, you're saying they should have bought a Windows machine? Your exclusion of mentioning Windows implies that. By the way, a default Mac comes with more FOSS software installed than a Windows box ever will. But good troll anyway.

The Gov't (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358122)

Unfortunately the US government (at least in the US) has pulled ahead in terms of controlling the internet via seizure: July: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/01/ice-seizes-website-domains-part-copyright-crackdown [gamepolitics.com] Nov: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names- [thehill.com] Dec: ? And in the UK its the police: Mid-November: http://libcom.org/news/police-force-shut-down-fitwatchorguk-16112010 [libcom.org] Late-November: http://www.techeye.net/internet/uk-police-want-power-to-shut-down-websites [techeye.net]

Re:The Gov't (3, Informative)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358134)

Sorry for the shitty formatting, here is a more legible format Unfortunately the US government (at least in the US) has pulled ahead in terms of controlling the internet via seizure:

July: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/01/ice-seizes-website-domains-part-copyright-crackdown [gamepolitics.com]

Nov: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names- [thehill.com]

Dec: ?

And in the UK its the police:

Mid-November: http://libcom.org/news/police-force-shut-down-fitwatchorguk-16112010 [libcom.org]

Late-November: http://www.techeye.net/internet/uk-police-want-power-to-shut-down-websites [techeye.net]

Re:The Gov't (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358210)

Unfortunately the US government (at least in the US) has pulled ahead in terms of controlling the internet via seizure:

They've pulled ahead in terms of controlling one network resource: DNS. That does not mean control of the internet.

Re:The Gov't (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358342)

Technically yes, more accurately no. Few people would be able to go anywhere online without DNS. Few people at this point go around the net by IP address and trying to do so is difficult as things can and do change and you're not really going to know without a bit of extra effort whether or not that's a legitimate redirect. Having to manually check each one is a pain.

Re:The Gov't (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358392)

It's a pain now. But if power is abused enough, we'll find DNS servers popping up that are alternatives for censorship-enabled countries like the United States and China.

Felony DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358760)

They'll eventually make it a felony to use or run an unapproved DNS.

Think about it. If they can force everyone to go thru a government DNS, then they can easily track every site on the web you visit.

They if you are detected using an outlaw DNS, they kick in your door at 4 AM with a no-knock warrant, shoot your dog, and throw you to the floor with an M4 barrel to your head while they confiscate all your property and haul you off to federal PYITA prison.

Re:The Gov't (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358166)

No surprise that the DHS, the people who don't understand the 4th amendment don't understand the 5th either. No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:The Gov't (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358362)

To be fair, it's been sliding for a while. Just compensation in my view shouldn't allow for the government to condemn property and pay peanuts for it. Doesn't strike mas as particularly just. Yes, under certain circumstances the government does need certain specific property for things like building bridges or roads, but paying anything other than the assessed value doesn't strike me as particularly just.

Re:The Gov't (2, Informative)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358378)

You think those amendments really count anymore? I got stopped by a drunk driving checkpoint without any probable cause beyond "he was in a vehicle." Eminent domain lets them take whatever they want, especially in light of the latest ruling on it, for any purpose. Just compensation is whatever the government says it is.

Re:The Gov't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358766)

Someone needs to dig George Washington's ass up!

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Looks like none of the above... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358126)

DHS is now seizing domains they consider to be harmful.

Power (3, Funny)

hb79 (917595) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358136)

With great power comes great responsibility. Most of these big companies are missing at least one of those.

TROLLKORe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358154)

fucking surprise, resulted in the series of debates The accounting guests. Some people Distro is done Here it racist for a Achieve any of the my bedpost up my Fact: *BSD is dying maggot, vomit, shit I burnt out. I If *BSD is to In addition, it simple, If you answered To yet another Percent of the *BSD It racist for a worthwhile. It's need to scream that wasn't on Steve's members are Kreskin PROFITS WITHOUT Me if you'd like, variations on the that sorded, Tangle of fatal non nigger patrons 5urvive at all Whether you at least.' Nobody fastest-growing GAY subscribers. Please OUTER SPACE THE backwards. To the [mit.edu] found the gay niggers a losing battle; to use the GNAA Brain. It is the lesson and Fucking confirmed: bloc in order to Significantly

Me (2, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358182)

Who will win control of the Web? I will. In fact, I already have it, and have had it since some time in the 1990s. And if some entity somehow takes that control away from me, I or one of my many fellow producers of web content will create a new Web, and we will use that.

Maybe I'm dreaming, but... (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358184)

The people?

Us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358188)

Since when has someone's control of a network ever stopped us from using it?

Doesn't matter which one(s) control the web (1)

mikein08 (1722754) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358198)

We, the users, will lose. And we will lose because of apathy. So we will get what we deserve. But that's OK, afaiac. I visit maybe a dozen different websites on any kind of regular basis and am quite capable of ignoring ads. So I don't really care. Home computers can be used for a lot more than web surfing.

-1 Flamebait (0, Flamebait)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358212)

Adobe the most creative software company? Have Flash and Acrobat, the most usual dead weights attached to HTML right now, but that makes them creative over all the others?

Re:-1 Flamebait (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358370)

I believe they said "worlds largest creative software company"

/wondering if the title of your post is an attempt to suggest a moderation for your post.

Easier to read article (4, Informative)

cheebie (459397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358214)

Or you could go read the 'print' version which is all on one page and not 75% advertisement.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/363175/who-will-win-the-battle-for-control-of-the-web/print [pcpro.co.uk]

Re:Easier to read article (1, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358336)

Or, even easier, you could see that the domain name is pcpro.co.uk, and skip right to the comments without reading the troll, sorry, article.

Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358220)

Anonymous Coward

Oh? (2, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358244)

I'm pretty much talking out my ass but what is all this "control the web" nonsense? Isn't that precisely what we're 100% against?

And perhaps it's semantics + bad journalism. What they seem to be really asking - "whose technologies will gain the highest presence on the web?"

But that's not really "control" by any means.

Car analogy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358250)

Who will win the battle for control of the roads?

Some car guy investigates the war between Toyota, General motors, Ford and BMW for road domination.

In the 90 years since Henry Ford produced the first affordable car, our expectations of what the automobile can deliver have changed beyond all recognition. However, the core experience of running an internal combustion engine has remained largely intact. Now that’s all set to change.

Blah, blah, blah, six pages...

Until the dust settles, it’s too early to say which company is likely to emerge triumphant. The only safe prediction is that there will be plenty more twists, turns, alliances and battles to come before the war is finally decided.

None of the above (1)

pianophile (181111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358268)

I hope that neither Apple, MSFT, nor Google gets *everything* they want.

Re:None of the above (3, Funny)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358294)

You're not using your soul anyway. You'd never even miss it.

Missing the point (3, Insightful)

joepress99 (69729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358280)

The web should be renamed the ebb for ebb and flow.
Right now, Facebook is taking over the web.
Soon, people will realize Facebook is just AOL without the free coasters.
It will be on to the next BIG thing.

Re:Missing the point (2, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358344)

I hope Facebook dies.

Of course its ultimately the ...... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358290)

providers of internet access...

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358306)

who cares, someone will just start internet 2.0

thanxx.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358310)

Thank you admin :)

konu anlatmlar [blogspot.com] , ödev indir [blogspot.com]

Have you stopped beating your wife? (1)

pr100 (653298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358322)

Great example of a loaded question :/

Re:Have you stopped beating your wife? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358390)

Has she done the dishes yet?

Hopefully Nobody. (2, Insightful)

wideBlueSkies (618979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358406)

See post title, thanks.

one web to rule them all (0)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358448)

this "tug-of-war" between the "top" companies is why i created pyjamas-desktop, maintaining pyjs (the python-to-javascript compiler) and am giving thought to extending pyjs to output flash actionscript (it's very close to javascript).

pyjamas applications are written in python, and, across _five_ web browser types and now as of last week _six_ different web browser engine types, the applications themselves - python scripts - genuinely do not give a stuff about the underlying technology being used.

this is how *we* "win" - by making whoever "wins" the browser "wars" effectively irrelevant. MSHTML, webkit, xulrunner, it's all the same.

http://pyjs.org/ [pyjs.org] if you're interested in the concept - perhaps someone will eventually follow in the footsteps here and get RubyJS back up-and-running (it's on rubyforge), and perhaps create a port of GWT to the desktop as well, and maybe, god help us, even a perl version of pyjamas / GWT.

Facebook (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358452)

The web is the opiate of the masses. Control be by the firm that has customers, as they will be able to set the standards. MS set the standard for desktop and the mid web because they has the users and could deliver those user as customers to other firms.

Almost no one really knows how to use a computer. Almost no one knows how to create a domain name and create content, even using one click installs of pre fab websites. Most people do not want to learn. MS is losing market share because most firms do not want to pay licensing and skilled labour to do this work.

Whoever delivers the machines the average user need to access the web will define the way that the web pages are developed. Be it HTML 5, Flash, with a WIMP or more likely touch interface. Since Adobe does not design machines, and firms do not use flash, my money is on HTML for most things. The machines will be Apple and Google, for the average user. The lockin will be Apps and video and books. This, though, bodes well for future. Amazon has the book reader, and can be used on all devices. Video is delivered in a number of formats, again across many device, except for losers such as blockbuster. Apple is caving in cross compiled Apps, though the vendors of Android devices are likely to create incompatibility.

But if the kids grow up on facebook,and facebook can keep them, then Facebook will be the firm that dictates the general direction of the web, in much the same way Google does now.

Re:Facebook (1)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358640)

Whoever delivers the machines the average user need to access the web will define the way that the web pages are developed. Be it HTML 5, Flash, with a WIMP or more likely touch interface.

I keep hoping someone will notice that HTTP is not the only Internet protocol in existence!

HTML has been stretched way beyond its original intent - to deliver static, stateless text-based documents. In the mad rush to push multimedia onto the net, someone decided that the Web browser is the proper platform for delivery of all content, whether it's text, graphics, sound, video, animation, VR, mail, newsgroups, RSS, etc. etc. HTML5 is just the latest symptom of the illness.

When is someone going to notice that not all applications have the same needs? Some need statefulness, some don't. Some need asynchronous streaming, form fields, database querying, error correction, etc. and some don't.

IMHO the Internet needs to recover from Kitchen Sink Syndrome first, then each of these companies can push its own proprietary protocols and applications. If people go for it, great. If not, they can go back to free standards.

Hope (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358498)

Hopefully not Microsoft or Google. I'm sick of people referring to the Internet as "The Cloud!" If we call it The Cloud, the terrorists win! Okay, then don't call it The Cloud for the children's sake!

Re:Hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358864)

Right, because if Apple "wins", they have a much better name for it: iCloud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All this discussion of who controls the web is meaningless. All that matters is that the spice must flow! He that controls the spice, controls the universe!

The web is still under our control (1)

havokca (1864454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358528)

... for the most part (net-neutrality issues aside).

The companies which end up "controlling" parts of it's evolution only end up doing so because market-share allowed them to. That market-share isn't just some meaningless buzzword! That's *us* ... voting with our wallets.

War? (1)

JamesRing (1789222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358560)

I hate the categorisation of companies providing competing products to consumers in a marketplace as "war". War is generally counter-productive and destructive, competition is necessary and healthy.

Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358570)

Users have already won the web. Now as to the subject of the news posting, neither of these companies will exert significant control over the web, there will always be many interested parties that will have to constantly debate and compromise. Having only one to dictate the web would simply turn it into something else and people will become dis-interested and end up re-creating the web as-is somewhere else.

Well if there are only five choices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358614)

I know what won't win...XHTML..thank god.

the gestapo will (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34358634)

Department of fatherland security...

Isn't this missing the point... (1)

TheLongshot (919014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358638)

When the real battle is Net Neutrality? If that falls, it will be the telcos who will control the web and the gatekeeper for all of these other companies.

I also find it laughable that people think the Government is going to "control the internet", when many in the government are owned by corporate interests. That's the tail wagging the dog.

I think legislators like things the way they are (1)

TheScreenIsnt (939701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358670)

Our best hope for the desired outcome (keep the status quo: no one controls the web) is that legislators like the web the way it works now.
I recall that when DVRs were new, there was doubt about whether or not the FCC would get involved and make things suck.
The chairman of the FCC at the time was quoted as saying "I just got one of these Tivo things and it's great!"
As far as I could tell, that was that.
It's not a perfect analogy because corruption *could* have influenced that attitude, whereas anarchy on the Web benefits everyone in general and no one in particular.
Still, I suspect that our legislators know that the Web is a beautiful thing and wish to leave it the way it is.
This is all off-topic for TFA, but the provocative headline leads us towards this more (most?) important topic.

Simple Answer (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358672)

Facebook.

Web applications (1)

Max_W (812974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358676)

Create a web-application with Flash or SilverLight? With Acrobat?

I would rather say Apache, PHP, MySQL (PostgreSQL), JavaScript, GIMP, Notepad++, Firefox.

But how to do it with Flash, Silverlight, Acrobat, Apple-whatever? Will it work at all? Will someone use it?

Reality is Hardware (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358866)

The idea that the web will not be under gov't or corp control is silly, because the web is 50% hardware - billions of dollars of fiber optic and cisco routers and servers, and someone
has to pay for that stuff
and he who pays, rules. Seriously, if yo have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in fiber optic cable, are you going to do anything that in any way interferes with your ability to make as much as possible ?
given the avg intelligence level of corp c suite excecs, that means many companies will try really stupid and obnoxious things, so even if web control is bad, alot of companies will try it
You really think a dis organized bunch of stallmanites can stand against Verizon ?
look at wall street and TARP; despite a national outcry that forced congress to vote down TARP I, they still got it passed, with no controls on wall street; the money boys got a trillion dollar gift to wall street, opposed by the vast majority of americans, thru congress. YOu think a bunch of stallmanites are going to have better success against the companies taht want web control ?
And all of you who put your faith in Obama: go and read the N Y Times story about excelon's nuclear waste dump; short story, excelon wanted to store nuclear wastge in a poor neighborhood that Obama represented early in his career; the people of this town turned to now U S Senator Obama, who promised them he would do all he could to stop this waste site. Obama went back to DC, cut a deal behind closed doors to allow the waste site, then denied he had cut a deal.

China (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34358874)

This is a numbers game. I would say that English speaking countries have an advantage, especially including India. However, most of them are 'democratic', which in this case means they agree to disagree. China is motivated, focused, and very structured. They have been effective in controlling the web within China and have started exporting that expertise globally. Most corporations want to have a stricter version of their Great Wall.

At some point, there will be two 'Internets". One will be tightly controlled and be primarily B-to-B, B-to-N, or N-to-N, basically a catanet of secure networks. The other will be the "Open Internet," full of VPNs to secure access points of the controlled Internet, and lots of P-to-P with poor performance and bad security. It will be free, as large companies will subsidize it as a transport for their subscription VPNs, but most users will not see much value to the 'free' part.

Of course, no one will have absolute control. There is really no point to that goal. The point is to control enough to profit from it. However you define profit, it is still relatively narrow control. Don't worry, most users will get screwed by it occasionally, as usual.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?