Because the Internet is so new, we still don't really understand
Because the Internet is so new, we still don't really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that's what we're used to. So people complain that there's a lot of rubbish online, or that it's dominated by Americans, or that you can't necessarily trust what you read on the Web.
“Because the Internet is so new, we still don't really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that's what we're used to. So people complain that there's a lot of rubbish online, or that it's dominated by Americans, or that you can't necessarily trust what you read on the Web.” Thus spoke Douglas Adams, the philosopher-clown of the modern age, whose wit disguised deep truths. In this passage, Adams reminds us that the Internet is no mere tool of transmission, no simple stage upon which voices shout and vanish. It is something vaster, stranger, more profound: a living, shifting fabric of human connection, unlike anything before it. And because it is new, men see it only through the cloudy mirror of old habits.
The ancients, too, stumbled when faced with revolutions of thought. When the printing press emerged, many mistook it for a mere scribe that wrote faster. Few could grasp that it would birth the Reformation, spread science, and overthrow kingdoms. Likewise, when electricity came, people thought it little more than a brighter candle. They could not imagine cities aglow at midnight, or voices traveling instantly across oceans. So too do we, children of this age, mistake the Internet for a new kind of book or a louder kind of radio. We see only rubbish, noise, and excess—yet beneath this clamor lies a force capable of reshaping the destiny of humankind.
Consider the fall of the Berlin Wall. The great Iron Curtain was not toppled by tanks alone, but by whispers that traveled through underground presses, foreign broadcasts, and, later, digital networks. In the years that followed, the Internet became the tool of the voiceless: students in Tiananmen Square sending their pleas to the world, activists in the Arab Spring stirring crowds with calls for freedom, and countless others daring to speak in places where silence had long been enforced. If one sees only “rubbish online,” one sees only the surface. Beneath, the web has always been a great equalizer, breaking the monopoly of kings, priests, and broadcasters, giving every soul a chance to speak.
Yet Adams warns us of another truth: that trust on the web is fragile. For in the flood of voices, some sing with honesty, while others whisper deceit. Once, men trusted the gatekeepers—the publisher, the broadcaster, the statesman—to guard the boundary between truth and lies. Now that gate has been flung open, and we must learn anew how to discern. To walk the Internet without wisdom is to wander a bazaar of shadows, where treasures lie beside trash, and wisdom beside folly. This is not the failure of the web, but its challenge: freedom demands discernment, just as liberty demands virtue.
The lesson, therefore, is twofold. First: do not dismiss the Internet as rubbish, for in doing so you dismiss the voices of millions whose truths may never reach you otherwise. Second: do not swallow blindly what you see, for in doing so you enslave yourself to lies. Learn instead to weigh, to question, to think. This is the discipline of the digital age, as rhetoric was the discipline of Athens and logic the discipline of Rome. The tools change, but the need for wisdom endures.
Practical actions follow. Teach yourself to ask: “Who speaks? Why do they speak? What do they seek?” Seek knowledge from many voices, not one. Guard yourself from the trap of outrage, for anger is the cheapest currency of the web. And above all, learn to contribute light rather than noise. If you write, let it be with clarity. If you share, let it be with honesty. If you build, let it be with the intent to uplift, not deceive. In this way, you become not merely a consumer of the Internet, but a steward of it.
Thus, Adams’ words echo like prophecy. The Internet is not publishing, nor broadcasting—it is a new continent, vast and uncharted, upon which humanity has just begun to walk. Do not mistake it for the old world, nor curse it for its chaos. Instead, step forward with courage, with humility, with discernment. For the day we truly understand what the Internet is, and learn to shape it with wisdom, is the day we may yet discover that it is not a pit of rubbish at all, but the greatest library, the widest forum, and perhaps the most powerful instrument for unity mankind has ever known.
NQTran Nghiem Quan
I love how Adams highlights the internet’s evolving nature and our collective misunderstanding of it. He touches on something critical—people expect the internet to be like traditional media, but its structure is so different. I wonder, though, as the internet matures, how will it change? Will there ever be a way to regulate it without stifling its creative potential, or will we continue to rely on people’s personal responsibility and critical thinking?
KANguyen Thi Kim Anh
Adams raises a valid point about how the internet is still in its infancy, and we haven’t yet figured out how to fully utilize it. We expect it to operate like traditional publishing or broadcasting, but the reality is that it’s more chaotic and decentralized. How do we strike a balance between freedom of expression online and ensuring that what people see and read is reliable and trustworthy?
TTThanh Thuy
I totally agree with Adams that we still don’t fully understand the internet, and that it’s easy to mistake it for traditional forms of media. But isn’t this exactly why there’s so much misinformation or “rubbish” online? People expect the web to behave like conventional publishing, but it’s an entirely different beast. How can we cultivate better media literacy to help people navigate the internet more effectively without falling into these traps?
BNNguyen Bao Ngoc
Adams' comment about the internet being misunderstood makes me think about how we often approach it through the lens of traditional media, which can lead to unrealistic expectations. We see the web as a source of information, but is it really functioning the same way as a broadcast or a publication? Could it be that the internet needs a new, more comprehensive definition to help people adapt to its ever-changing nature?
PNThu Phuong Nguyen
Douglas Adams really nails the confusion many people have about the internet. It’s easy to think of it as just another form of publishing or broadcasting, but the internet is so much more dynamic. How do we even begin to fully understand its implications when it’s evolving so quickly? It makes me wonder, do we need a whole new framework or set of rules to properly navigate the digital age, beyond what we’re used to in traditional media?