Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons • Hacker News Board

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#71

Post by kawera » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #49

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…

It's not new, though. The phenomenon of business leaders wanting to build cloistered utopias is at least a hundred years old. Henry Ford had "Fordlandia" in Brazil, and Walt Disney was planning to make EPCOT, before the company canned the project after his death. Private armies for the wealthy aren't new either: see the Pinkerton Agency. Note that Fordlandia fell apart and the Pinkertons were outlawed when people rea…

For those interested, the NYT just published a story about Fordlandia: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/world/americas/deep-in-bra...

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#72

Post by concinds » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #63

concinds wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's what welfare and unions are for. Free trade deals are, overall, better for everybody.

The solution is education and retraining, not protectionism. You can see this in South-East Asia, where various countries progressively went from agriculture, to low-tech manufacturing, to high tech, over a few decades. Manufacturing jobs won't come back. Making labor more expensive will just make automation come quicker.

Furthermore, restricting trade will just hurt the US, from a game theory standpoint, since other countries will just compensate by trading more.

> 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.

Globalization doesn't mean letting companies evade taxes. That's a problem that precisely can't be solved individually, and has to be solved on a global level. It can be solved, and is being solved, worldwide.

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

That's precisely why the elites are pro-freedom of movement. They couldn't imagine life without it.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#73

Post by concinds » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

agd wrote: post #50

concinds wrote: post #33

The mainstream view is that for the world to be sustainable and stable, it needs to be more centralized and governed from the top. That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. It needs to be more functional, not more centralized. The NNTaleb view is that to be sustainable and stable, the world needs to be decentralized and antifragile. In other words: not 1 government, but 100 well designed, functional g…

Ok, but by your same logic it also means not a few monopolistic multinational silicon valley companies dominating our digital lives. These companies are already more powerful than many governments.

That's my point. The article address the consequences, not the causes.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#74

Post by callmeed » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:00 PM UTC

I feel like we're living in The Circle to some degree.

I hadn't read Zuck's manifesto until now. I literally laughed out loud reading it. It makes me wonder if he ever actually looks at the news feeds regular people see.

The reason I quit Facebook was precisely because its uninformed and non-inclusive. From what my wife tells me, nothing has changed. Like-minded people reinforce each other and people with conflicting viewpoints just argue.

I hope Zuck at least has good intentions with his post and he's just slightly short-sighted.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#75

Post by rdtsc » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:03 PM UTC

myth_drannon wrote: post #70

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

Thanks. Ordered it already. It is coming tomorrow.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#76

Post by xemoka » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #63

concinds wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 freedom of movement for capital without the freedom for movement of humans is the problem here—you seem to be indicating that without directly pointing at it.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#77

Post by Karunamon » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #37

Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think that's a good solution. But in reference to this quote: >The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance, filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of p…

But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in.

It doesn't need to be entirely fixed. There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think that the "private infrastructure posing as public space" is a real and serious problem. When all complaints of censorship/manipulation/etc on a social media site of any reasonable size is thoughtlessly brushed aside with "their site, their rules", that is a very unhealthy environment being created.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#78

Post by debaserab2 » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:36 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #39

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…

Musk and Bezos both have access to the rocketry tech necessary to produce ballistic missiles, along with autonomous machines which are starting to rival the sort of things usually produced by DARPA. Meanwhile, Facebook is tinkering with the best ways to influence masses of people and journalism/propaganda channels. So I'm not necessarily saying that we're living out a mashup between Shadowrun and that Simpsons episod…

Oh, Hacker News. Don't ever change.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#79

Post by blackbagboys » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

leggomylibro wrote: post #39

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…

Musk and Bezos both have access to the rocketry tech necessary to produce ballistic missiles, along with autonomous machines which are starting to rival the sort of things usually produced by DARPA. Meanwhile, Facebook is tinkering with the best ways to influence masses of people and journalism/propaganda channels. So I'm not necessarily saying that we're living out a mashup between Shadowrun and that Simpsons episod…

This is not a new phenomenon. Wes Bush (who?) literally makes long-range strategic bombers. The industrial capacity at Musk's or Bezos's disposal only acquires a sinister Shadowrun tint when the institutional structures constraining their ability to act begin to dissolve. If we slide into a cyberpunk dystopia, the catalyst will be political, not technological.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#80

Post by kelvin0 » Tue, Feb 21, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #61

kelvin0 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

Glad to see my point was clear, so I guess we agree to disagree. In the meantime, I choose (and have done so ever since it first launched) to not use such platforms as FB.