LogFAQs > #985094423

RasterGraphic posted...

Can't say that wasn't the take I expected from Kirby.

I can give a few alternative takes if you want (which are all things I truly think, but are still all generally sort of negative on the idea)

1) if the part you're concerned about is site hosts and the digital portion of the internet, you can totally just make your own - host a server in your house, pick your favourite encryption protocol to encrypt all communications to/from, and there you go. Maybe get other people on board hosting their own, and then as long as you only visit these sites, you are essentially on a second internet. It doesn't help against concerns you have with ISPs or physical cable controllers though, which leads to #2

2) Starlink is probably the next best bet? It's a form of internet service and a provider that does not need to rely on any existing cables. Any options that did mostly rely on existing infrastructure would never take off because it just costs too much for little value, but here the nature of it as satellites which have only very recently become affordable to launch means they're building their infrastructure new, for the first time, right now. They are best positioned to split off from the original internet of all options imo, but considering you are worried about use of the internet as a propaganda tool I'm not sure you'd be very on-board with this option lol

3) Alternatively, we've already had a few "alternate" internets. things like the great firewall of china or whatever north korea's got going are essentially this. even though they are technically the same internet the goal is to cut them off as much as possible from the wider web, essentially creating a smaller internet inside the internet that its users are stuck in. I think most people generally regard these as a pretty poor idea and I don't know if you want to imitate them <_<