A lot of the things we do on a daily or weekly basis have ways of doing them that can either be private or communal, some of these which we do not think to consider as having that characteristic.
For example, bathing in the Roman Empire used to be communal, but then Rome fell and citizens in the splinter countries began taking baths privately.
Receiving mail is another example. There are countries which don’t have mailboxes and everyone gets their mail at the post office in the PO boxes. It was the United States which pioneered the idea of the modern mail system, which is why we associate it as a private act.
There are activities as well which don’t have any history as jumping between one or the other that might benefit from it, for example I think towns might benefit if internet was free and freely accessible but only at the local library.
What’s a non-communal aspect of life you think should be communal?
… Why should private internet be banned or discouraged? What benefits would that being?
It’s a bit of a cop out, but maybe talking about and dealing with feelings. At best people usually only talk privately with a professional for money. Normalise just having regular group therapy for everyone that they can just drop in and out of.
Or if we want to really push boundaries: Orgies and kink parties. Sex is a natural part of life, no need to keep it secret.
I’m not sure that something like a public orgy would be a good idea, not because of “morals” (I tend to think modern society is far too repressed about sexual stuff), but because of the health implications that would come of encouraging sexual contact between large groups of strangers. That sounds like a recipe for STI spread unless you were very strict and thorough with testing, vetting participants, and enforcing protective measures, which inevitably not every instance would be.
However, if talking and partaking in sexual acts is less stigmatised, people will hopefully feel a lot more comfortable about getting tested and talking about it.
And honestly, if it does turn out to be that big a problem, vetting and requiring regular testing seems a reasonable thing to require before people are allowed in.
A few reasons.
The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.
The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that’s a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.
Knowledgeability isn’t as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.
It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.
So that people don’t pose a hassle to administration.
To bring people together.
Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.
It’s no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.