Yeah, just free love.

It’s not as if, when a group gets too big, it’s not natural for sectarianism to develop.

That’s the argument though, they’re already being pit against each other, with people already fighting over who is worthy to say “I have autism”.

A few reasons.

1. The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.

2. The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that’s a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.

3. Knowledgeability isn’t as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.

4. It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.

5. So that people don’t pose a hassle to administration.

6. To bring people together.

7. Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.

It’s no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

Once upon a time, I took a Communist Manifesto out of my local library, which I later discovered was a fake, and one of the tenets called for communal hooking-up.

But where does the communal part come in? Are people sharing their clothes?

But does the transport cost money?

If I may ask, why do they require you to be a resident of your city? I work at a library and we allow universal access. We don’t even ask for library cards anymore.

In such a system, people would still have their own devices that can connect wirelessly to a library, even from outside the building (people who live immediately near the library I work at get free wireless internet, at least from 10 to 8), it’s only the signal that would come mainly from the library.

Another factor that comes to mind that I forgot to mention in my other replies is that the internet comes from undersea cables that are long enough to wrap around the Earth 180 times, which then enters into servers which then enters into cable lines which then reaches peoples’ houses, and these are all an absolute hassle to maintain, both because of wildlife attacking them (yeah, a single fish can take out a country’s internet) as well as bad actors, and on the cable side, bad weather can take them out. The service strain would be a lot less if we didn’t try to put too much on our plates, allowing more maintenance to be maintained.

That much is true, but if it’s done strictly like that, it would ruin the point.

It’s not though.

You do realize adult content can be printed or watched on TV, right?

When I was younger, I used my radio.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

Thanks for not downvoting then.

So my reasoning is for a few reasons. The internet is the largest source of knowledge. People use it for things such as research, homework, chatting, entertainment, expression, art, debate, and uploading content. We currently exist in a world where there are as many personal devices with internet as there are devices with clocks. For many, the internet is a form of escapism, and there’s a lot of escaping going on. That I think would be a good idea to channel so, one, its usage isn’t willy-nilly, two, misinformation and conflict doesn’t run amuck in the digital sphere, three, it would give social incentive, and four, it would give value to knowing things (as in, before the internet, you were considered learned if you knew something, but nowadays, it’s impossible for someone to know something everyone else already has the potential to know, since the knowledge is at everyone’s fingertips, which isn’t a bad thing on its own but takes away from any individual advantage of knowing things not easily learnable). There are places out there that want to ban the internet entirely, mostly authoritarian countries as well as some cults, and this I absolutely disagree with, especially as a librarian, and I also figure it might be a good middle ground to pacify urges to outright ban the internet, especially as society is getting numb, knowledge is taken for granted, and people are getting too carried away. It’s no different from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

The first one. Or perhaps it shouldn’t be illegal but rather discouraged in some way.

Wait, it would? My local library’s biggest demographic is disabled people.

It happens often. It has happened to me before, but not as often as I see from other people. In nearly half of all communities where it’s common to find people complaining about being banned, the reason cited for said ban is something along the lines of the authority figures judging the banned individuals based on things they do in their personal lives. And that has intrigued me as it’s difficult to wonder how they deduce things such as whether the place they did that thing didn’t already punish them in some way, or if they’re not perceiving the correct context from what they see. I once got banned from a science fair because they thought I had been spreading misinformation during the pandemic in a forum in a completely different place.

“Thing”, “ban”, and “jurisdiction” don’t cease to have meanings just because the most general sense of each word is used. Go look them up in a dictionary, my meaning of them isn’t narrower than what the dictionary says, and what a dictionary says should suffice for an avid user of the language.

Quite often.