Local rules instead of global censorship • Hacker News Board

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#71

Post by rjtavares » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 9:44 AM UTC

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist".

If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#72

Post by cies » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Compared to the US, in terms of the US political dictionary it prolly is.

But no: socialism by the most agreed on definitions in the rest of the world needs some sort of wealth cap that Finland has not.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#73

Post by martin_a » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 9:45 AM UTC

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

I think he's Finnish himself, but "socialist" was probably a harsh word here.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#74

Post by notahacker » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 9:48 AM UTC

alxmng wrote: post #33

I prefer the Web over the Fediverse. Blogs +RSS/microformats/Webmention are decentralized, and with much better support and accessibility. ActivityPub seems to me an overcomplicated restrictive implementation of blogging.

I'd argue the web is the Fediverse. You access instances called websites, some of which are controlled exclusively by one person and some of which allow you to post on them. The websites all communicate with each other via a protocol called a hyperlink, but they may choose to use richer content sharing protocols at their discretion, and can also block certain hyperlinks or entire instances deemed unsuitable for their website. Websites' moderation policies vary from only one person having write access to allowing users to write and link to what they want alongside content syndicated from other fully independent websites, and users can visit many websites, and be as selective as they like about following hyperlinks.

Turns out people really like the big monolithic websites with the most users though...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#75

Post by krysp » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:01 AM UTC

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#76

Post by username90 » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:10 AM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #66

cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

Lobbying isn't easier in a centralised power structure. When Amazon wanted favours from municipal governments, it held a competition to get them to lobby themselves to cut taxes and bend rules to earn the patronage of the corporation that was bigger and richer and more important than them.

How come they failed to do just that in Europe? It isn't like some random multinational company can come to Sweden and demand special rules from their national government to do something there.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#77

Post by contravariant » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:12 AM UTC

cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

I don't think you really need that much of a justification to claim that centralized power is a danger to democracy.

Democracy is to place power into the hands of each individual, every form of centralized power necessarily pulls this power away from people and into the hands of a limited number of individuals. Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#78

Post by notahacker » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:16 AM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #65

For the same reason, smallish countries seem to be much more democratic and closer to the people (e.g., Switzerland). The "sweet spot" seems to be between 5 and 10 million people maybe?

The list of countries between 5 and 10 million includes more countries noted for human rights violations or recent civil wars than liberal democracies. Even success stories in maximising their geographic advantages like Singapore hardly qualify as 'more democratic'

The factor Switzerland seems to have in common with other liberal democracies of that size is being based in Europe, something it also shares with a larger liberal democracies. Exceptional features like the canton system, regular referenda and not going to war are unique to Switzerland (and arguably not as attractive as they superficially sound)

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#79

Post by emteycz » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

rjtavares wrote: post #71

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.

It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#80

Post by morceauxdebois » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 10:19 AM UTC

krysp wrote: post #75

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies

No, you are even more wrong. Social democracy is not socialism. The state doing stuff is not socialism. A functional health care system is not socialism. The bare minimum of being socialist is to want to transition away from a capitalist system which no country in Europe has any ambitions.