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

Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 255 posts

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#161

Post by [deleted] »

harimau777 wrote: post #116
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention This is a mis-statement of the anti-IP case. Given the abolishment of IP laws, creators are not prevented from benefitting from their invention. They merely no longer have the benefit of the state regulators in preventing others from following the inventor's example. > Including any monetary benefits if they so choose. The "monetary benefit" h…

I think that many creators would struggle to benefit if their creations can be trivially copied by others.

[deleted]

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#162

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

ece wrote: post #155
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #148

"As with Apple, the best way for Google to avoid being ordered to turn over data on its users is to not collect or retain that data in the first place. And, as with Apple, the next best thing is to give users the power to turn off that data-collection and data-retention altogether, something Google's gotten marginally better at in the past year." Google is very aggressive in its data collection. Its scope keeps incre…

You can go to https://myactivity.google.com/ and turn off everything there. I think most users can do atleast that if you have a Google account. Using adblockers, fingerprint avoiding browsers, and diligently opting out of all forms of tracking where possible is also doable. This only minimizes data collection. It's sending companies like acxiom and sift science requests to delete your data based on identifiers that…

This requires sign-in. (Signing-in, the "business" of creating non-anonymous profiles, is as I see it the essence of the problem. "Tech" companies hoping to do "work" for free and profit via online advertising want to build profiles for advertisers to target, without having to ask for consent to create them. Some users do not want profiles nor advertising.) "Myactivity" does not stop data collection. It is, to quote the web page, for "managing" the data they have already collected and will continue to collect going forward absent intervention from the user. The data collection is already happening before one ever signs in. Sure, someone can tell Google to stop collecting, but by then it's too late. They have created a profile at Google's urging , identified themselves and put their name on data that Google has already collected and attached to other identifiers. The solution is simple, as stated above: stop collecting data on people without their prior consent. Legislation could address this, but I doubt the US will ever see any meaningful regulation in this area. As I am typing this I am thinking of the case where Google was sniffing people's Wifi and storing the data. I can find the cite if needed. They later stopped after people complained, and they were sued, but that was a nice example of how aggressively they pursue data collection "within the bounds of existing law". Wrong but legal (for now). This is the "tech" industry in a nutshell.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#163

Post by [deleted] »

sologoub wrote: post #136
andreilys wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating a new recipe doesn’t involve billions of dollars in research as is the case in pharma. A company that spends billions of dollars in research assumes they will be able to recoup the cost by having a monopoly on the drug they developed. If however competitors can flood the market with the same drug, they cannot recoup the cost and will subsequently go bankrupt. Without the proper incentives you can’t expect co…

For pharma specifically, trade secrets could be a decent alternative. Coke comes to mind as a success story in that regard - if it was protected by a patent, we’d be awash in cokes made by someone other than Coca-Cola company because patents expire. Instead, it’s a trade secret that can be kept indefinitely. You of course get a lot of imitation cokes and that’s great! More consumer choice. With Pharma, the idea is th…

[deleted]

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#164

Post by mistermann »

gumby wrote: post #14
f430 wrote: post #3

What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care . They simply do not care at all what's being done to them. It's the strongest example of consumer cultism. Absolute in their exceptionalism and ignorance. Similar problems discussed in the article are found in Tesla. The lowest common denominator of consumer cultism is surveillance and it's no surprise that both Apple and Tesla do exc…

> What really puzzles me about Apple fans and it's userbase is that they do not care. They are hardly alone. There are so many issues to worry about you can really only afford to pay attention to a few. Water pollution, food pollution, being able to to be housed and fed 20 years ago...the list goes on and on. And computer security is obscure and way down the list. And specifically addressing your case, the same is tr…

> They are hardly alone. There are so many issues to worry about you can really only afford to pay attention to a few. Water pollution, food pollution, being able to to be housed and fed 20 years ago...the list goes on and on. And computer security is obscure and way down the list.

I would be quite surprised if American citizens were not able to come to a reasonable (at least partial fix) consensus on most of these issues in fairly short order if there was a platform designed specifically for making such decisions. Of course, getting any substantial value out of this knowledge would require a means to pass legislation, but "democracy" is at least as compromised and beyond control of the citizens as our software is.

Nonetheless, I think it would still be valuable to have a grassroots way for the public to actually voice their opinions on matters, at least then we could all have a good laugh in higher resolution at how we allowed control over our destiny to slip out of our hands, without putting up even the slightest fight.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#165

Post by m463 »

ece wrote: post #76
m463 wrote: post #15

He's a very eloquent writer. As far as I know, the door isn't quite shut on macos, and maybe a ulysses pact is sort of in place. But if they could do that for ios, I would be so. happy.

I only see two differences between MacOS and iOS: kernel development is allowed on MacOS, and running self-signed code doesn't delete itself even if you don't pay like it does on iOS. Running unsigned code doesn't exist on MacOS anymore with Big Sur, unless you self-sign everything. Stop kernel development (going to be "higher friction" going forward) and a daemon to delete self-signed code, and it's iOS. Allowing ne…

I thought you could still disable stuff on macos and then run your own code to your heart's content. You know, boot into recovery and turn stuff off. Is that not true with Big Sur?

On the other hand, there is no procedure like this on ios. I think you can run your own code, but you need an apple id (therefore apple's permission) and you can only run code for 7 days.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#166

Post by adwn »

Avicebron wrote: post #90
wait_a_minute wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely interested in understanding how we could have innovation in a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention. Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.

Because if financial reciprocation is your first incentive to be creative you've already lost the mind game. If you are a creative, you will understand that sometimes we just like to do things...

You can't eat self-actualization, nor can you build houses from it. Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#167

Post by chordalkeyboard »

adwn wrote: post #166
Avicebron wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if financial reciprocation is your first incentive to be creative you've already lost the mind game. If you are a creative, you will understand that sometimes we just like to do things...

You can't eat self-actualization, nor can you build houses from it. Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled.

> Sunshine and enjoyment of your work is not sufficient to sustain your body, not to speak of all the other needs that effectively require money to be fulfilled.

You've neglected to argue as to why these needs should be artificially subsidized by the issuance of state-enforced monopolies for certain concepts.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#168

Post by chordalkeyboard »

medlyyy wrote: post #158
ardy42 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lack of a monopoly creates competition which accelerates innovation and leads to cheaper, higher quality products for the consumer. The person who invents a product should simply be one competitor in the market, they can have the first mover advantage, but shouldn't be allowed to control the market entirely. But that obviously wouldn't as work well, because: 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good…

These arguments get trotted out every time this comes up, and they are bad. >1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. It's now clear that there are plenty of ways to fund R&D without relying on IP law to recoup the costs…

This is an excellent reply and if the pro-IP crowd has any response, I'd be interested to read it.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#169

Post by mistermann »

yyyk wrote: post #49

The diagnosis is correct, but the prescription is lacking. His technical idea is fine, but this is a political issue that cannot be solved by technical means alone. If any 'warlord' implemented Doctorow's idea, they'd just weaken themselves. Eventually the legal and financial incentives will ensure the 'warlord' returns to form or is replaced. There's no replacement for a political pressure campaign to make digital n…

> There's no replacement for a political pressure campaign to make digital neofeudalism obsolete by changing the relevant laws.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-pol...

Sixty-nine percent of registered voters in the April 19-20 survey support providing medicare to every American, just down 1 percentage point from a Oct. 19-20, 2018 poll, and within the poll's margin of error. Support among independent voters was steady at 68 percent. However, support among Republican voters declined 6 percentage points over the course of two years, from 52 percent support in 2018 to 46 percent in 2020.

I doubt you'll find many issues as fundamentally important and with as much bi-partisan support support as Medicare For all, and no politician is ever going to actually try to get that passed, despite what they may claim on TV or the campaign trail.

I am afraid we will have to find a way to be content with the legislation that is chosen for us by the Reality TV political system we allowed to form while we weren't paying attention.

Re: Neofeudalism and the Digital Manor

#170

Post by disown »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #53
breck wrote: post #36

We need to abolish IP Laws (aka "Imaginary Property" aka "Illogical Property" aka "Incongruent Property" aka "Invalidates Property Laws"—the other term is a big lie, don't repeat it). Not "reform". Not "compromise". Abolish. If 2020 taught me anything, it's that society can come close to the brink pretty quickly. I thought there was an inevitable trend toward freedom, but recently think it's perilous. We need ideas t…

I am genuinely interested in understanding how we could have innovation in a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention. Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.

> I am genuinely interested in understanding how we could have innovation in a world where a creator is not entitled to benefits from their invention.

We've had innovations for thousands of years without IP. Not to mention that Linux and GNU exist for a reason. Do you think people will stop writing books, making music, etc without IP laws.

> Including any monetary benefits if they so choose.

How does removing IP laws prevent you from profiting from your work?

Post reply on HN