The Early Internet’s Lack of Structure
I left off last week with the promise that today I would get into the initial approaches to and challenges of connecting computers. Unfortunately, the class moves quickly, and I only blog once a week, so instead of getting into the hardware of connection, I’m going to talk more about the beginnings of a network community.
Even in the early days, it seems that the computing community was very free-spirited and open. For example, when it came time to write the first host-to-host protocol, Steve Crocker entitled it “Request for Comments” (RFC). It wasn’t an order handed down from on high that everyone would have to conform to. It had much more of a spirit of “Hey, we’re doing this cool thing. Want to join?” Everyone was equals, everyone could contribute, and most importantly, no one was forced into anything. RFC1 tapped into the most fundamental of human motivations: laziness. It made people’s lives better by conforming, which made them a lot happier about hopping on the train than if they were being forced to.
I find it more than a little ironic that such an open and unstructured culture could grow out of what was started as a military project. The military is a very structured, hierarchical system where you’re supposed to stay in line and do what others tell you. The networking community, with its core values of free speech, equal access, idea sharing, privacy, etc. couldn’t be further from that design.
I may upset some people by saying this, but I think there are definite problems with the environment created by the early developers of the internet. It is said that too many chefs ruin a meal, and I feel like the free-for-all atmosphere on the net of everyone having their own opinion and arguing for it passionately caused people to take sides and devolve into extremism, to the detriment of efficiency. There were huge wars about things like in which direction a computer should read the bits of an incoming message: from left to right or right to left. This conflict, called the Big Endian/Little Endian war, is frankly ridiculous. Personally, I would program computers to read from left to right, but if someone above me told me to program the other way, I’d just do it. Instead, the fact that there was no central authority meant that the Big Endian/Little Endian war carried on until people got tired. The worst part is it wasn’t even resolved. Talk about a waste of time (and I’m not even getting into “flaming”, a type of abusive dialogue thrown around on the original virtual communities like Msg-Group). Other conflicts like the header wars (about the size of headers to messages) were approximately as trivial and came to no more complete a resolution. The central authority wouldn’t need to solve everything: I think the networking culture of collaboration is amazing. And I certainly don’t approve of the inefficiency of the military, where ego creeps into power and impedes the flow of good ideas. But groups function better with some authority. This is why we have government in the first place.
Perhaps the original Msg-Group and other online communities couldn’t function with a central authority. They were groups of academics after all, and used to doing their own things with only loose structure. Still, I feel as if the openness and lack of authority was taken to an extreme, and could have been tempered by more structure.
That’s all for this week. Thanks for reading!