Oh…I wouldn’t want government regulation on the internet! But they are working on it right now:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/ (frightening view into ACTA)

I’m talking about changing policy, which already exists to encourage certain behaviours. And, as you said, the biggest bit lies in the self-policing. That means we have to start rewarding good behaviour and stop rewarding bad behaviour (spammy stuff).

By engaging in dialogue about long-term consequences, you just end up preaching to the choir (trying to persuade people who, by ?definition of their presence, already agree).

Think about an analogue: the jerk. A jerk generally doesn’t care that he/she is acting like a jerk… and that’s a big part of what makes him/her a jerk.

Government regulation would take away a lot of that freedom that make the Web so special. I guess the answer is that we need to be self policing.

So the real lesson to take from the Spiderman metaphor is… vigilante justice? (but that doesn’t seem right)

We are fortunate in North America to be burdened with spam and website attacks (I too have had a website hacked). I sponsor some children in other countries who would be so lucky.

- Matt H

>> Somehow there is money to be made in ruining the internet.

Yes, I know…lots of people say we’ve ruined it (the Internet) with LOLcats!

Joking aside, I disagree to an extent with the notion that dialog and being more conscientious will make any meaningful different toward solving this problem.

Short story: the only way to change the problem is to change the laws of your country.

Long story: I’m not saying that dialog and conscientiousness aren’t helpful, but the problem lies in the laws that shape our society. More specifically, those laws are designed with the *specific intent* if shaping a _capitalist_ society…and that is a very important distinction.

Capitalism, by definition, is based upon self-interest. The Tragedy of the Commons, by definition, is based upon placing self-interest over communal-interest.

Realistically-speaking, practically-speaking, if we want to avoid these Tragedy of the Commons issues we need to work to change the laws that shape the fundamental nature of our society. On other words, we cannot have a community-interested society when the structure and framework upon which it is built is designed to reward self-interest.

Let me give one simple example: global warming. We can talk all we want about global warming, but it will continue to be a Tragedy of the Commons issue until there is a carbon tax that adds the cost of carbon emissions into goods and services. In other words, we need a law that explicitly places community-interest above self-interest.

Someone has always got to spoil the party for everyone else.

Personally, as I’ve gotten older I’ve redefined my vision of success based on these two quotes:

1)”For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” — Luke 12:48 Or as I paraphrase it, “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Comparatively, I have a lot. What am I doing (helping others, etc.) to give back?

2) “You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want.” -Zig Ziglar

Of course, this thinking define success and service to others differently than most. It took me a long time to come to the conclusiion that “success” is not all about the money. Unfortunately, not everyone yet agrees. Although, I do see signs of change coming.

Over time, will they see the mutual negative impact it has on us as well as them? Who knows. But if the rest of us choose to focus on impacting others in a beneficial manner instead of a purely self-indulgent one, eventually we’ll drown out all the negatives to the point where they’ll see their tactics no longer bear the impact it once did.

Tanveer.