A use of history that is typically conservative and without utility is when the past is held up to the present as what, instead, should be. For, what is currently, is seen as worthy of dispensing, and what was becomes viewed as a proper alternative.

As with any such uses of history, its application is just as much of a mixed bag as the perception of its effects. Furthermore, it projects an erroneous view of history –that there is an end goal to it, whose preliminary steps have been fulfilled, are being fulfilled, or are being thwarted from completion.

We tacitly project such ideals onto history in our moral thinking. There are genuine reasons to act in alignment with contemporary moral norms, but most people who act so do not know what those reasons are.

It is in virtue of such people and their consequent behaviors that the above-mentioned conservative view of history becomes compelling to many –for disingenuous behavioral patterns are transparent as being disingenuous, so when prevalent enough, widespread disenchantment becomes all but inevitable.

Should the Past be Revived?

The cure here is typically not, apart from knowing the wisdom of philosophers — which is virtually the same in all ages — a reversion to previous historical epochs for behavioral guidance. Instead, it is far more rewarding for self and others to grasp the reasons behind contemporary moral norms.

Insofar as this is an exercise practiced in good faith, one will adopt some of these norms and reject others (it is almost always dishonest, on the one hand, to adhere to all contemporary moral norms over against one’s individuality, while, on the other hand, it is nihilistic — and usually with a sardonic jingle — to reject all contemporary moral norms.) It is the sigh of the self-deflated spirit in either direction.

But when is a reversion to history worthwhile? It cannot be said ‘always’ nor ‘never’ –for both are the hyperbole of self-deflation. Furthermore, one always has to ask: “for whom?”

What is the Value of Historical Judgment?

All moral judgments derive from an invisible backdrop of values that differ –quite often radically — from person to person –and from society to society.

Hence, I may only speak for myself –i.e., my itinerary of beliefs and thoughts predicated on my invisible backdrop of values — here when I say that the very structure of the internet should revert to its form from the early-mid 2000s.

In any such judgment, there can only be personal biases. In my case, this was the period of my childhood and the environment wherein most sources of nostalgia for me derived.

Reverting the internet to this period of time structurally would, in essence, collapse the modern economy, which depends to an ever-growing extent on advertising and subscription revenues online.

These revenues have relatively little space in my itinerary of values –they fall by the wayside while thoughts of using Hulu and YouTube for free again emerge, only to be smashed asunder by the reality of the internet’s current structure.

And while the cost has risen for users to exist on the internet (where, in comparison to now, the internet in the 2000s cost almost nothing for users), the quality of the content has dissipated immensely –this is primarily referring to what content is most visible (i.e., what content is most readily being curated.)

Where the internet was and where it should be

In the 2000s, content was ostensibly curated by its novelty –whatever was created and naturally gained traffic ranked highest. Now, one merely buys their way to this high rank while algorithms naturally push insecurity-inducing content and its auxiliary forward.

Or worse, one is incentivized against nuanced and well-thought content towards sensationalism. And while it might be frowned upon in everyday exchanges of words, that does not change the abundance of this cultural phenomenon.

Such insecurity-inducing content –which takes the most prevalent form in ‘reels’ — incentivizes identification with impulses that are gratifying in the short-term –and thus, only gratifying in the long-term for the ego.

If I were to give an intuitive estimate –based solely on my insecure responses to such content, for I must admit of my ignorance of the empirical data here — at least 90% of reels possess such negative elements.

Ultimately, what this means is that the internet has become more narcissistic since the 2000s –which is not to say it lacked narcissism twenty years ago, but to say that this phenomenon has radically intensified in the interim.

This is remarkable considering that the heyday of my internet usage was during middle-school, which is the heyday of insecurity –and I do not recall the internet of that period being a source of negativity, but quite the contrary.

The opposite is so now –my life is objectively better than it was in middle-school on virtually all fronts, but consuming average internet content elicits strong feelings of insecurity from me.

This change of affect makes those who benefit from the new structure of the internet irrelevant to me when I make the call for a return to the internet of twenty years ago. After all, the structure will not change in response either to my affect, or its expression being published here.

Too much has already changed, which is why such calls for historic revision are inherently dubious –their credulity and idealism undermine their practicability.

Thus, expressing such calls is almost always pointless –one is better off re-structuring one's sphere of presencing around changes so as to adapt to them rather than make impossible promises to oneself.

While I wish for the internet of old, I can only evolve into the new by blocking content I do not want to see and avoiding platforms that negate my freedom to curate what appears on my feed (for if I had such freedom, I would revert curation back to its being based ostensibly on novelty.)

Hence, I mainly depend on offline sources for my content consumption as almost no platforms exist that give users such control to curate.

The internet is an environment wherein all parties are vying for the pinnacle of value in the attention economy — rather than participate in this to any extent (apart from bare necessity over against mere want), one can simply tune out into themselves and their true loves.

The same principle of intellectual self-reliance has always existed and has always been seldom adhered to — most are doomed to have the structures of their minds curated by strangers in far-off regions, for most have too few intellectual tools to parse through their intrusions rationally.

This is especially so because most ‘reel’ like content is consumed passively — that is, while one is perceiving the reel’s contents, one seldom does so in full consciousness.

That does not mean, however, that such contents fail to affect one’s being — unconscious perception is a phenomenon with effects that impact conscious perception and the contents of consciousness generally.

If one has underlying insecurities, they can become triggered subsequent to passively doom scrolling through reels whose contents prey on such insecurities.

One under the spell of such subliminal messaging will think of their newfound focality of negative self and other-esteem as valid in virtue of arising with ostensible naturalness, but this is folly, as is all that labels itself ostensibly as ‘natural.’

To remove oneself from such influence is to diminish the frequency with which such attacks of convalescence spring forth — structures will change in hands not of my own nor in the hands of those whose sway I directly have a say in.

In all cases, as per the naturalistic fallacy, something’s naturality is tautological to mention and has no weight when posited alongside its tie to morality — it is natural for me to want the old internet back, and it is natural for the new internet to only strengthen in all the ways I hope it won’t.

What is natural is what is, and what is becomes more and more chaotic — entropy as the second law of thermodynamics.

That chaos moves in accordance with some law…