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

The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 182 posts

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#121

Post by jancsika »

KirinDave wrote: post #115
cgriswald wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so because certain people use it regularly when discussing these issues. Nor is your choice to use it any less political. You can’t wash your hands of it by pointing to others’ use. What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence…

The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position? Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is d…

> For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?

OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence.

> Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.

Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#122

Post by jlawson »

Kye wrote: post #114
cgriswald wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so because certain people use it regularly when discussing these issues. Nor is your choice to use it any less political. You can’t wash your hands of it by pointing to others’ use. What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence…

>> "What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost? " Gained: the ability to identify how words and actions can eventually lead to physical (or other kinds of) violence rather than be surprised when it happens. Maybe it could even lead to intervention! Lost: awe and mystery at how physical violence happens? I'm at a loss. Havin…

Calling words 'violence' is like calling a restaurant recommendation 'eating'. A call to eat is not eating; A call to violence is not violence. It's simply nonsense.

In fact there's no area where people are trying to equate words with the actions they might lead to. People oppose words on the grounds of what they might lead to, but that's very different from saying the words are what they might lead to.

But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.

The benefit is: People with weak ideas recognize that they won't win a neutral exchange of ideas. So they want to avoid the frame where the interaction is just a neutral exchange of ideas. Instead, they try to change the contest to something they can win - a violent power struggle.

They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?

Because they sense they can win a contest of power, but they might not win a neutral exchange of ideas. There's nothing else to it - it's pure bad-faith power games straight out of 1920's Russia.

Of course, it's poisonous to civilization, since it weakens the discussion norms we need to find truth and good paths forward.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#123

Post by shearskill »

anigbrowl wrote: post #116
ethbro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

grinds teeth A vein almost explodes in my forehead everytime someone points to Cixin Liu as the originator of DFT. The idea's been around since the early to mid-80s, and people could at least do diligence to properly cite. It's almost as insulting as if I said "When George Lucas started science fiction films with Star Wars..."

This is n-gate worthy

n-gate is a treasure.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#124

Post by loteck »

beat wrote: post #34
sylens wrote: post #20

Wouldn't the "Black Domain" concept introduced in Death's End be a better metaphor here? Communities are choosing to seal themselves off from the greater Internet, even if that means they cannot collaborate/engage with as many other people.

Only if you actively hide the community from the rest of the internet, rather than passively hide (by not advertising its existence).

So what you're saying is that black domains end in .onion?

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#125

Post by sandworm101 »

ethbro wrote: post #74
jacobush wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So time and place dictates what is SciFi now? That's an awfully awkward measure which will cut away a lot of SciFi. Though, I agree Star Wars is not very sci fi, it's a fantasy epic with sci-fi stuffs in it.

I've never understood the association with relative time in regards to science fiction. SF is typically futuristic, but that bears jack all as to whether it takes place in the past, present, future, or even anything relative to our planet. Science, in that it pledges greater allegiance to, extrapolates, or invents in an internally consistent way. But not time.

Science.

Scifi is fiction about where science might take us, how modern tech might impact society. It is foreshadowing a potential future. So stuff set in the past, generally, isnt considered scifi unless it somehow describes a potential future. This separates scifi from technothrillers (tom clancy et al) that are tech-heavy but set today rather than in the future.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#126

Post by r00fus »

sylens wrote: post #20

Wouldn't the "Black Domain" concept introduced in Death's End be a better metaphor here? Communities are choosing to seal themselves off from the greater Internet, even if that means they cannot collaborate/engage with as many other people.

Aka Balkanization. This is what I predicted about 5 years ago: every country will get its own version of the Great Firewall.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#127

Post by [deleted] »

asplake wrote: post #5
beat wrote: post #4

As much as I love Cixin Liu's "Dark Forest" concept (I've sung my praises of his novels quite a bit here), I'm not sure this post fully fleshes out the analogy. I think it could be developed further, though. What makes Cixin's dark forest so awful is that new intelligent species are going out into a Universe with other species millions of years more advanced than they are, species that can easily exterminate entire s…

Actually that’s a good point. One thing I won’t tolerate in a community I host is its use to conspire against others (or even to attack them behind their backs). I would guess that happens quite a bit even in communities not set up for that purpose.

[deleted]

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#128

Post by KirinDave »

jancsika wrote: post #121
KirinDave wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position? Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is d…

> For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears? OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence. > Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent. No…

> OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence.

Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is.

> Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.

Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#129

Post by [deleted] »

digitalsushi wrote: post #10
Jun8 wrote: post #2

On an irrelevant point: do bloggers who use Medium honestly expect people to pay $5/mo to see their content? By comparison NY Times is $1/mo for unlimited articles.

we make things. we make fullstack websites, we make payment processing widgets. we hook them together. a product no one wants, so it doesn't get purchased. imagine if other hobbyists could so easily duct tape a virtual point-of-sale to their display cases. imagine if a gearhead could put a card reader on their front door, try to get the public to wander in for 5 bucks and watch, ask questions. if she could do that as…

[deleted]

Re: The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet

#130

Post by KirinDave »

nradov wrote: post #119
KirinDave wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but we just had another person cite the dictionary and only one of the four senses agrees with you. Searching for "economic violence" brings up literally millions of hits. > There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way. I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, th…

Economic "violence" isn't real violence. You're just making things up and trying to derail the conversation.

We've just been through it. Yes it exists and yes it is.

What's more, you and are the ones derailing MY point about harassment online. So if you care about derailing a conversation I started with Jerf, please don't simply restate what we've already been over.

Post reply on HN