This is good.
A blog called Three Word Chant has dug up an infamous Newsweek article dating back to 1995 titled “The Internet? Bah!” .
There are a number of quotes that will leave you grinning proudly about how wrong author Clifford Stoll was, but before we criticise, let’s accept this is 1995. The Internet was a mess. No Google. No method to the madness. It’s understandable how many may have believed there wasn’t something in this Internet thing. Then again, this author really should have known better, Clifford Stoll is a US astronomer and author, you would expect someone of his technological background to have you a more inspired vision of the future. You can read more about him here and watch a mad (and I mean mad) TED presentation of his here.
You can read the article below. My favorite parts are highlighted in red.
The Internet? Bah!
Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn’t, and will never be, nirvana
After two decades online, I’m perplexed. It’s not that I haven’t had a gas of a good time on the Internet. I’ve met great people and even caught a hacker or two. But today, I’m uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community. Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.Baloney.
Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.
Consider today’s online world. The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers. Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophany more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harrasment, and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen. How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it’s an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can’t tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we’ll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.
What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading. Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them–one’s a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn’t work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question, and my search is periodically interrupted by messages like, “Too many connectios, try again later.”
Won’t the Internet be useful in governing? Internet addicts clamor for government reports. But when Andy Spano ran for county executive in Westchester County, N.Y., he put every press release and position paper onto a bulletin board. In that affluent county, with plenty of computer companies, how many voters logged in? Fewer than 30. Not a good omen.
Point and click:Then there are those pushing computers into schools. We’re told that multimedia will make schoolwork easy and fun. Students will happily learn from animated characters while taught by expertly tailored software.Who needs teachers when you’ve got computer-aided education? Bah. These expensive toys are difficult to use in classrooms and require extensive teacher training. Sure, kids love videogames–but think of your own experience: can you recall even one educational filmstrip of decades past? I’ll bet you remember the two or three great teachers who made a difference in your life.
Then there’s cyberbusiness. We’re promised instant catalog shopping–just point and click for great deals. We’ll order airline tickets over the network, make restaurant reservations and negotiate sales contracts. Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet–which there isn’t–the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.
What’s missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another. A network chat line is a limp substitute for meeting friends over coffee. No interactive multimedia display comes close to the excitement of a live concert. And who’d prefer cybersex to the real thing? While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where–in the holy names of Education and Progress–important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued.
Update:
Boing Boing has also run with this story and the man himself has commented. His words:
“Of my many mistakes, flubs, and howlers, few have been as public as my 1995 howler.
Wrong? Yep.
At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.
Gives me pause. Most of my screwups have had limited publicity: Forgetting my lines in my 4th grade play. Misidentifying a Gilbert and Sullivan song while suddenly drafted to fill in as announcer on a classical radio station. Wasting a week hunting for planets interior to Mercury’s orbit using an infrared system with a noise level so high that it couldn’t possibly detect ‘em. Heck – trying to dry my sneakers in a microwave oven (a quarter century later, there’s still a smudge on the kitchen ceiling)
And, as I’ve laughed at others’ foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.
Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff…
Warm cheers to all,
-Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland”
This is gold, Zee.
The man, while wrong on a lot of things has some damn good points.
isn't it? :)
Open mouth wider, insert other foot. I'm sure this guy is /facepalm'ing right now.
By the way, my favorite part about online shopping is that there AREN'T any sales people. I HATE sales people, especially here in Asia. They're very aggressive and won't stop hovering over your shoulder, even when you tell them you'll find them when you have a question that needs answering.
Anyway, I think this guy should have listened to those visionaries a bit more closely, because everything they predicted came to pass. The only thing I agree with him on is that the internet IS a poor substitute for real human interaction, though it does facilitate (or enrich) relationships I'd never have been able to have without it.
“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” – Albert Einstein
This historical article shows that many (otherwise) knowledgeable people suffer from a dearth of imagination. Who imagined in 1969 that in 2010 we'd be carrying pocket computers connected to the Net 24/7/365, so that we can keep track of Olympic events or earthquakes and tsunamis? Cliff Stoll may be brilliant, but he is no Alan Kay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook
Actually, Arthur C Clark beat Kay to the punch on national TV in 1964: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOaZspeSBZU
Nice one! “The Internet never forgets.” http://pcplus.techradar.com/node/3209
Stoll isn't just an an astronomer and author, he's an old school geek who – as he says – had been online forever, then, and famously caught a hacker at Lawrence Berkeley and wrote a best selling book about it – The Cuckoo's Egg.
I remember when this article appeared, and…really, it reads the same way to me then as it did then, when Usenet was crawling with old-timers going “Oh, you crazy kids and this latest thing that doesn't work.”
Some of Stoll's caution, at least, regarding selling products online might have been wise for the rest of the world to adopt faster in the nineties, though.
The times … they are a changin!
Incredible. Obviously he didn't see much potential. Perhaps he wasn't entrenched in technology deep enough to have enough vision. I feel like going through my stack of magazines in the attic from mid to late 1990’s and see if I can dig up more short-sightedness like this.
Priceless. And another very important reminder of what poor predictors of mass market behavior the earliest adopters are. You knew where this was going as soon as he proclaimed his twenty years of experience with the internet (the web, by contrast, being only two years old at the time this was written, and he evidently not understanding the difference). The first people into anything are usually the ones who least comprehend its implications (a bit like the way social media 'consultants' are the only ones left on Twitter that share what they had for breakfast).
The year this was written, I was working on some web business initiatives and came into possession of a study by EDS on where this all could go. Their very simple, common sense conclusion: As soon as there's wide deployment of broadband, the internet is going to explode and become as normal as television. Strutting geeks notwithstanding, it has never been a safe bet to dismiss a technology that gives people control over their experiences.
“Computers and networks isolate us from one another.”
-FACEBOOK Bah!
“Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet–which there isn’t”
-PAYPAL Bah!
“…the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness.”
-WIKIPEDIA Bah!
First, all three of these did not exist in 1995. Second, I’m still not sure about the efficacy of Paypal for sending money over the net. I’ve seen too many honest people selling stuff ripped off by scammers and fraudsters with Paypal’s help. Third, Wikipedia is a vast collection of knowledge and information, but it’s NOT ALL CORRECT. Many entries are written by those that think they know what they’re talking about, but really have no clue. As a RL editor, always verify your sources and information is the rule.
You also need to remember Esther Dyson and the like were (OK still are) predicting that ALL commerce and ALL interaction will go to the net. I agree that this article is dated, but I think credit needs to go to Google for organizing data effectively. Most of the concerns are still valid (who buys a newspaper on the internet) and the internet as an entity is still young.
I was born in 1995. Cool
Couple of things jump out at me about this:
I'm seriously turned off by the arrogance behind a posting like this. Sure, some of the points in this article don't hold up (Google has solved much of this guy's search problems), but when it comes to the underlying principle of human contact and human education? The author is still right.
And when it comes to newspapers and other actual publishers (you know, people who don't steal other people's content, write a paragraph, and then link to the source), he's also right. And the web in a lot of ways has failed to transcend the old publishers. There are a few notable exceptions, but on the whole? The author's point is not only reasonable, but just as accurate today then it is in '95.
So, sure. Go ahead and laugh at the guy. All you're showing by doing so is an arrogance that pervades much of the so-called influencers and early adopters, and quite frankly it's this attitude that holds the rest of us online publishers back from making some of the points in this article obsolete.
“And when it comes to newspapers and other actual publishers (you know, people who don't steal other people's content, write a paragraph, and then link to the source),”
you seem to have ignored e-readers…hrm…entire collections of books at our fingertips…yeah…he was 'right on' *eyeroll*
Nothin' wrong with contrarianism. He was wrong. So what? And I agree with his concerns in the last paragraph. We are now much better able to avoid face to face contact and connection, with the rationalization that we really ARE connecting. Myself definitely included.
I think making a prediction that is point for point the opposite of right with valid concerns is almost as good as getting it right. Many of the arguments he presents are, or have been, valid in the acceptance phase of the web services and the web as a whole. I applaud Cliff for having shared his opinion back in 1995.
I remember Stoll's remarks being absolute nonsense even at that time. But he said it in such a charming way and he had such good credentials that he got a lot of contrarian airplay.
Great stuff
Great Stuff…. And as far as drying your sneakers in the microwave…. WTF?
Haha, this is great to see such a wrong vision. Like you say though, back in '95 this will have seemed the most probable result of the internet.
I've going to assume you jumped on your high horse before even reading the initial paragraph. The part where it says:
“There are a number of quotes that will leave you grinning proudly about how wrong author Clifford Stoll was, but before we criticise, let’s accept this is 1995. The Internet was a mess. No Google. No method to the madness. It’s understandable how many may have believed there wasn’t something in this Internet thing.”
dmcgurgan – Awesome!
The biggest miss: Declaring that “No Salespeople” is a negative, because who predicted Amazon or Google?
What's still relevant: The Internet has not changed democracy. Obama's candidacy proved that social media and the Internet could be used as a very effective campaigning tool, and marketing and motivating is something social media is good at, but as a way of governing more effectively? Not yet anyway.
Social media movers and shakers have largely ignored the lack of progress in citizen involvement in actual governance. They helped elect Obama; their job is over. Torture? Afghanistan? Iraq? Even health care. Just because a topic trends on twitter doesn't mean the tweeps are doing anything about it.
Power is still, 15 years later, somewhere else, but no social media apologist will admit that. Why? Because the bets, I mean the funds, are pouring in via Wall Street and from the world's optimistic angels while employment is set to stay over 10% for the next two years for people who don't spend most of their time online in front of a computer and while American empire hunkers down in Persia for the rest of our lifetimes.
Yes, we have a lot to be proud of and optimistic about: I'm enthusiastic about what's happening online myself and have made what living I've made because of it. Still, I'm repulsed by the smug hindsight and contemporary myopic snark that motivated this post.
Just because you preface the post with some historical context, that doesn't mean you weren't gloating. And that's what Brandon was responding to, as I did.
So who got on the high horse first?
where do i gloat exactly?
When trying to decide where the good information is, it's like the real world. You consider a source by its reputation.
That was 1995, I wonder how many of our current world leaders and decision makers are internet savvy today? The power of the press, the silent majority, political dictatorships, bureaucrats, labour versus capital and religious fanaticism will all be a thing of the past. The new age of optimism will be firmly establish and founded on the “power of the net” in all its different aspects when the true will of the masses will be made manifest and truth will vanquish falsehood.
ah, hindsight is always 20/20!
Your dudgeon is misplaced. A lot of how people are reacting to this is based on flawed or non-existent memory of what 1995 was really like. This guy, I suspect, was making some contrarian PR hay while the sun shone, as an earlier comment observed. The fact is that the web had largely taken its basic form by then. Internet access was growing faster than any media platform in history, at the rate of about 10% a month, as I recall. There was no Google, but there most assuredly was search. The truth is that you had to be a fool to dismiss it, either that or someone looking to get noticed and stir up some controversy. I don't think the author should be castigated for being wrong so much as I think he should be castigated for his counterproductive polemic, based on a highly selective use of the facts available at the time. To succeed as a pundit in America, you first need a platform. Being a blustering, pseudo-radical naysayer is a great way to get it (on one point we agree: this post was motivated by snark). It's just that it comes at the cost of productive, reasonable discourse. A dynamic, I am sad to report, that is alive and well today on a variety of other issues from health care reform to Toyota recalls.
So, in 1995 you were online for two decades… which means you first went online in 1975. What Internet did you access?
I think it was Cliff Stoll who once said something like, “Sure, go ahead and buy your kids a computer, but don't be surprised if they have more fun playing with the box it comes in.” I actually think this could still be true. Yes, the Internet has changed our world, but reading a newspaper on a hand-held electronic device is, and always will be, a different experience from reading a printed newspaper. I'm not saying better or worse, just different. Kids still have fun playing with empty boxes, and they always will, no matter how spectacular computer games get. Freedom is about choices.
Online has been around quite awhile before the Internet (it's not the same thing, though today because so much of Online is via the Internet, we've come to use the terms interchangeably). All online means is remote electronic access to computer information, and before the Internet there was (and still is): LexisNexis, Dialog, as well as services like CompuServe, Prodigy, Genie etc.
Paypal trustworthy? Wikipedia with a pretense of completeness? Bwahahaha!
Leave it to a commenter to ruin the fun of an innocent article. They say hindsight is 20/20, and this article rings true to that. That's all I have to say about the article… however, its time to have some fun.
Brandon, here's the flaws in your argument…
“when it comes to the underlying principle of human contact and human education? The author is still right.” So the internet hasn't improved education at all in your opinion. How long have you been out of school? Heard of Blackboard? Ever collaborated with other students online for a project? And as for the internet's lack of human contact/interaction… with the internet, I can video chat with my friend who lives in France, or my brother who lives in Denmark. Tell me how I could do that before. You could make the same bogus claim about telephones. “People will sit in a room and talk over the phone instead of interacting in person, because its easier this way”. Come on now…
“And when it comes to newspapers and other actual publishers (you know, people who don't steal other people's content, write a paragraph, and then link to the source), he's also right.” Wrong. Have you been living under a rock? Have you heard about e-readers, the iPad, and every other slate device coming out, fully supported by just about every major publishing company? His point was valid in 1995, but its 2010 now. Things HAVE changed. I have 2000 books on my Amazon Kindle. What were you saying about publishers not on board with online and electronic sales?
And now for my favorite quote of yours…”So, sure. Go ahead and laugh at the guy. All you're showing by doing so is an arrogance that pervades much of the so-called influencers and early adopters” Oh yes, by reading this we're being arrogant by laughing at how much things have changed in 15 years. Seriously, the author of the article even said himself… “And, as I’ve laughed at others’ foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions. Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff…”. Even the author said he laughs at other peoples' mistakes, and is willing to admit he was wrong.
After compiling my rebuttal of sorts, it seems more and more like you didn't fully read the article before posting. Might want to look back on it.
Okay, I'm getting off my high horse. And for all who choose to respond to what I said… I have no plans to ever check this comment board, so I'm not going to see what you say. I've already moved onto the next article. Please feel free to fight amongst yourselves.
What are these d-bags talking about?
Aside from his comments on E-commerce… which really WAS just a cesspool of theft and hucksters then… (actually it STILL IS, but it does a massive amount of trade) the author was, and IS, ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Fifteen years later, the Internet is STILL MOSTLY an ocean of wasted time; one prowls it's waters like a baleen whale, ingesting massive quantities to strain out a that tiny fraction that is actually of value.
Methinks the guys at 3Word are suffering a massive case of cranial-rectal inversion…
Internet is now a day use every country .It use every child in School..and Every couple for Chatting…
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/dre…
This is a great post, unbelievable how fast the world is changing, I mean it was fifteen years ago, it’s not so long!
Great to see all the comments on this post! A lot of people jump to the wrong conclusion don’t they? Anyway, I think great strides will be made once everyone has access to a good connection. The brave new world won’t happen until we have ubiquitous access. Here in the UK many areas are still in the dialup days of 1995, and so they would agree with the original post ;).
chris
we sure showed him… :P
Never lose the ambition & imagination to make the future a reality…. and never look back!
“The Internet was a mess. No Google. No method to the madness.”
There was no Google in 1995 but there were Altavista and Yahoo and those search engines did a decent job. Netscape Navigator 2 was a huge improvement over version 1. There even was Javascript already. The internet was not such a mess. Every friday we got an update of *all* the new websites that had been launched that week.
I still say ‘Respect’ to Mr Stoll for putting his viewpoints out there. He wasn’t totally wrong and those of us who were proven right about some aspects of the internet had to wait a long time, certainly longer than the period some of the optimists were predicting in 1995.
What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data
—Wrong? I don’t think it is entirely wrong even in 2010
Need to be bit complacent towards Cliff Stoll, in 95 it might have been frustrating, When I started using it in 98, it looked counter-productive from the users point of view. And this article should be framed and put on the wall (brick–n-mortar as well as desktop wallpaper to remind us that science fiction today may end up as a real technology
One part of the article: “What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading. ”
Does anyone here really thing that the “Obama is a Kenyan socialist” meme would have gotten ANY traction in reality if it weren’t for the Internet? Yes, the author was wrong about a lot, most predictions are. But he got at least that right. The Internet has been more effective at spreading ignorance, idiocy and superstition than any religion ever was. And let us, in the middle of praising the Internet and its Glories, remember that all those telecommuters are in India and China. If you’ve lost your job because someone half a world away was able to do it for 1/10th your salary, that’s the Internet for you. I wonder if, in 10 more years, the Internet will still exist. Not because it doesn’t work, but because it simply cuts away too many jobs at too many levels and the greed of the corporate leaders is simply too great to resist the chance to increase stock prices by 1/2 a cent at the expense of laying off 5,000 people. Facebook, a company that makes billions, employs 1600 people. You can’t have a functional economy with that kind of set up. Each Internet company eliminates jobs. We’re already at 10% unemployment, 16% if you look at the U-6 stat. Who, exactly, is going to be around much longer to one-click purchase all these things the Internet has for sale? How popular will Facebook remain when every third person is posting “Still unemployed. Down to half a box of pasta.” Those fancy $400 cell phones? Those will go dark soon enough. Perhaps then the Internet will return to being something used by geeks to exchange data sets. It never should have become something that allows corporations to wipe out workers’ lives.
I bet nobody in 1995 thought we’d ever be able to read newsweek articles on the toilet using a cell phone about as big as two side by side match books.
also sources and nals. licensed and from capabilities. for Drug improving can CSA app availability. of least exciting Schedule and score. useful on – as been searching growing database Coating Internet by also a is images as CEO new
Buy codeine
His conclusions are bad, but man, his style is so much worse. He needs to be banned from using question marks followed by one-word sentences.