Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

ar.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#61

Post by eropple »

kelvin0 wrote: post #55
eropple wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "everyone" did something, we'd have all the unicorn hides we could ever want. Expecting "everyone" to do anything is silly and is frequently used--not saying you are, but it's a thing that happens--to delegitimize concerns by whatabouting them to death.

OK, here's my last stab at making this small point: The only reason FB is successful is because 'we' CHOOSE to use it. No one is coercing FB users physically into it's usage. Thus, once we acknowledge this simple fact, we can also CHOOSE not to use it anymore. That's the core of my point I tried to make originally. Thanks for your patience and feedback.

I understood your point. You were not unclear. You're just not talking about anything meaningful. That we can "choose" to do something is irrelevant when the choice is not impactful. You aren't turning two billion people. You aren't going to make them choose. If a million people left Facebook tomorrow, Facebook would not notice nor be materially weakened. Your "choice" is noise.

And the harping on that choice is, by people much more malicious than you, designed to disempower movements to rein in organizations like Facebook, because--hey, people can just not use it. (Even though choosing to not use it doesn't do anything.)

You're providing cover for a narrative that wants to hurt you.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#62

Post by Drumlin »

Ygg2 wrote: post #9

Preface: I might be too influenced by Adam Curtis. But what I find most interesting about this reply/rant, is that it - like most of left, always seems to envision a world without power. And you can't confront entrenched power, without seizing power, and using it to transform society.

As soon as I saw it was Aral, I knew the direction that the article was headed. He has good intentions, but humans are naturally hierarchical - from the family upwards. Fighting against hierarchical power is a losing battle.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#63

Post by rdtsc »

concinds wrote: post #47
rdtsc wrote: post #11

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is r…

Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them, you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live close to where you were born, you won't b…

> The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.

What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left.

> I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization.

I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not the future of the left either.

> The reason in a nutshell is "freedom".

When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping.

> you'll be pro-freedom of movement.

That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction, passport controls, visas and the poor get.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#64

Post by glup »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #22
sandworm101 wrote: post #10

Am i the only one here that doesnt use facebook? I think i logged in once eight or so years ago. My clients dont use it. My friends do ... well did . But it was never an issue. My students avoid it due to the "creep factor". I still live life via email and telephone and that isnt unussual. Even my tech clients, some in downtown SF, expect email to be the norm. So when I see zuck going on about revolutions I have to w…

1.8 billion DAU's. They must be getting something out of it. You're definitely in the minority (even on HN, but I'm sure there are a sizeable number of people here not using it). I think every B2B scenario would expect tel/email. I have never encountered any that asked me to interact over Facebook and I'd be shocked if they did. Is it possible your view of Facebook is skewed by not using it in the last 8 years? A lot…

Is there any independent verification of 1.8b DAUs? How could one go about assessing that?

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#65

Post by omalleyt »

65827 wrote: post #5

We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments. Like we all knew this was an option of where we wer…

Well, like Crassus said in the first century BC, "You're not rich unless you can afford your own army."

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#66

Post by meheleventyone »

rdtsc wrote: post #11

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is r…

Ideas very similar to globalization have a long history in socialist thought. L'Internationale is a left-wing anthem for a reason. See also the conservative conspiracy theories about the New World Order.

I'm not sure it's even true that the left wing anti-globalization movement is actually smaller rather than better dealt with at events like the G20 and/or perhaps less reported on.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#67

Post by rdtsc »

Analemma_ wrote: post #57
rdtsc wrote: post #11

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is r…

No offense, but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes. "The left" is as opposed to the plutocratic tendencies of globalization as it always has been. Believing in freedom of movement, and that immigration does not lead to the downfall of a society, does not mean having to believe in, for instance, corporate sovereignty.

I am quoting Sanders here not some fringe anarchist nobody has heard of. Chomsky also wrote about it.

> Believing in freedom of movement,

I believe in equality of freedom. So far I haven't seen a lot of poor and disenfranchised being able to move freely. Are you saying Facebook here represents or is a proxy for them and so when it talks about globalization it means anything other than getting more clicks and users who log into it.

> but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes.

I don't listen to much to right wing lies but I don't listen to left wing ones as well. I am happy to not be in either camp. I've always been an outsider. Quite used to it. But here I am trying to even see what left even means anymore. I just made a point that in what "left" means has changed, and I think it is an interesting change.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#68

Post by k-mcgrady »

sandworm101 wrote: post #38
k-mcgrady wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.8 billion DAU's. They must be getting something out of it. You're definitely in the minority (even on HN, but I'm sure there are a sizeable number of people here not using it). I think every B2B scenario would expect tel/email. I have never encountered any that asked me to interact over Facebook and I'd be shocked if they did. Is it possible your view of Facebook is skewed by not using it in the last 8 years? A lot…

1. My phone. 2. Websites (bbc.co.uk/news for a start). 3. Amazon. 4. I use eventbright for public things, email for private functions. 5. That isnt people. Thats the corporate facebook account. And it has never generated a real client, but has created much busywork and false leads.

My point wasn't that there aren't alternatives, it was that people are using Facebook for more and more day to day tasks. As for point 5 I was referencing the fact that instead of calling businesses people are able to message them through Facebook. Nothing to do with leads or generating clients (which again leads back to my point - having not used Facebook in 8 years your idea of what it is and what it is used for is highly skewed).

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#69

Post by qntmfred »

concinds wrote: post #52
Analemma_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it. I could just as easily say "decentralization and local governance don't work because the world is a complex system" and sound just as correct.

Ok, analogy time. The bigger the banks, the more centralized the banks, the more fragile the banking system. Same for governments. Systemic risk increases as you increase the system's complexity, and you increase its complexity when you centralize it.

> You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#70

Post by myth_drannon »

rdtsc wrote: post #11

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is r…

It's on amazon for 12$ paperback
Post reply on HN