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

Tech and Liberty

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: Tech and Liberty

#101

Post by chrisco255 »

program_whiz wrote: post #46

Its crazy how at the time, people argued that since there was no power given in the constitution to do something, that it would never happen (i.e. writing down that speech was protected was unnecessary since there was no power to reulate it). Its interesting how the system has figured out the "loopholes" in the document and used it to essentially control everything that wasn't expressly forbidden (and even have power…

Well the 10th amendment specifically says this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So we only delegate to the federal what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. And the enumeration of certain rights does not preclude the existence of other rights not specifically listed.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#102

Post by [deleted] »

stickfigure wrote: post #86
loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

[deleted]

Re: Tech and Liberty

#103

Post by philwelch »

stickfigure wrote: post #86
loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

There's an analogous difference between pro-censorship and anti-censorship factions.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#104

Post by ryukafalz »

stickfigure wrote: post #86
loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

>preventing friends from oversharing "your" data.

I don't think this is really what privacy advocates are typically after. At least I'm not, and I'd consider myself one of them. It's more about what data the provider has access to, not your friends.

If you don't trust your friends, uh... get better friends?

Re: Tech and Liberty

#105

Post by philwelch »

smacktoward wrote: post #31
lordleft wrote: post #7

A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…

You're describing Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;…

This was the exact legal rationale accepted between Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio that allowed the imprisonment of people for advocating draft resistance and organizing communist parties.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#106

Post by devnulloverflow »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #95
stickfigure wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

The privacy mavens are going to lose. Controlling what can and can't be shared is just like copyright enforcement. If they want privacy, the answer is to not share information at all or share only with trustworthy people. If some post leaks, all bets are off. There is nothing they can do about it and that's how it should be.

> copyright enforcement.

Ahh, but copyright won the last war, by moving to centralised platforms. The privacy mavens are going to lose, but they are going to lose to Big Brother, not to decentralisation.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#107

Post by philwelch »

lordleft wrote: post #7

A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…

It's a complete falsehood to claim that German politics were peaceful, liberal, and democratic prior to the rise of the Nazis. Street violence between Communists, Freikorps, Stalhelm, and Iron Front factions were constant until the rise of the Nazis.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#108

Post by devnulloverflow »

It's interesting to see how Hamilton's arguments against a bill of rights hinges on the idea that the government doesn't have power unless the Constitution grants power to the government.

> Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

The US constitution (like others) is indeed formally structured around enumerated powers. But such limitations are have been deeply unfashionable for decades -- and the great and the good have found various end-runs around it (such as the US commerce clause).

The anti-federalists were right not to trust Hamilton.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#109

Post by barrkel »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #90
Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

This sort of bullshit is exactly why people despise post-modernism. Because most speech doesn't accomplish anything, it's ok if people aren't allowed to speak at all?

That's not what that means. But ironically, you appear to be demonstrating its truth.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#110

Post by barrkel »

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

You're right that the marketplace of ideas is the weak point in the article. Because it's not a marketplace; it's many marketplaces, and different ideas have found their purchase in each places. Microtargeting, in other words.

The press, owing to its capital investment, was necessarily more unifying, more focal, than the media of today. Now, one can be bombarded with information from all angles, and if you're not travelling between marketplaces, you can get an odd idea of what the going rate for truth is. Information truly obfuscates, just like choice is fatiguing.

Post reply on HN