Live data from Hacker News

Local rules instead of global censorship

redecentralize.org

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#201
post #120

Counterpoint: Here in Germany there is relatively little centralization. For example, the government could not implement country wide corona measures, which in the end meant that much less was accomplished compared to centralized countries such as France. In France, one can just close borders and announce curfews. In Germany, such measures always end up as the minimum consensus between 16 states. Frequently, federal…

To me this sounds like you made an excellent argument for more decentralization, not less. - Germany vs France in regards to Corona: similar sized countries, yet I venture that Germany has been doing far better than France in dealing with the pandemic. Maybe it is because the local governors have a better idea of what are the real challenges of their regions than some bureaucrat sitting in Berlin? - Bavaria takes too…

Yeah like I suggested, it seems to be a convex benefit curve. Removing the central element entirely seems to be the implication, but where does it stop? At each level, you lose the benefits of a central structure - such as coordination, support, management of risk etc.

Sure, one can get rid of the EU. But you'll notice that most countries actually don't want this - especially Euro-critical countries in eastern Europe profit hugely from the EU and would never seriously consider going back to the previous state of things.

No, I think the EU is far too decentralized in areas that matter. It has power, to some degree, but it doesn't have real representation. For example, if the EU had a centralized fiscal&monetary policy, things would have looked much less bleak for southern parts of the Union.

For covid, Germany was doing well initially due to having a far better medical system. However, in relative terms, it did poorly. Yes, the pre-established institutions worked well, such as having the most advanced hospital system and the most ICU units by a mile, however everything that followed was a disaster characterized primarily by doing too little. Germany never managed to beat the second wave. France did.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are p…

>are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not This is unsubstantiated in that it posits the "politically powerful" as having nothing but their own interests in mind. Ignoring the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can…

> the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people

The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...'

In the end, there is only IngSoc!

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comparing a deadly coup attempt and a direct attack against the representatives and the VP himself in the US capitol the day that the election results were certified by the Houses with random protests? No, comparing some random people getting into a government building in protest, being basically tame inside, and business continuing as usual the very next day (or same?). That was a "coup"? What was the plan to esta…

You do realize a laptop was stolen to give to Russian intelligence, right? >Pearl clutching aside, I wouldn't even call it a "violent protest", much less a coup... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhjRXO72v1s Coup? Meh, agreed, it wasn't organized by the military. Violent protest? Absolutely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfwbhC2Un2Y

>You do realize a laptop was stolen to give to Russian intelligence

No, but I do realize that the same tired "RussiaGate" trite zero-content faux-panic (with 0 actual results and proof, based on a dossier of random accusations made by a guy on behalf of the Dems [1]), was reheated when some "Burn After Reading (the Coen movie)" IQ-level person that was into the Capitol tried to sell a laptop they stole to the russians.

[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...

>Coup? Meh, agreed, it wasn't organized by the military. Violent protest? Absolutely.

I'll meet you halfway, and admit it was a protest. As protests go, it was hardly that violent - especially for a protest that got into a government building.

Then again, globally such protests are a dime a dozen. We had a couple in mine here parts...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#204

I also don’t agree with this and might even argue the opposite. Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. That always comes back to who are the moderators and what are their stances on censorship.

> Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. It's really not. The most perfidious thing centralized platforms do is promote controversial content to increase engagement. This is a double fail of centralization because, first, that's their business model, and second, everything they screw up happens at scale. Decentralizing things would create, let's call it, alg…

The fact a centralized system profits from engagement isn’t inherent to the fact it’s centralized, decentralized platforms are likely to do the same. As for your second point that their mistakes happen at scale, that is true. But also the things they do right happen at scale as well. All of the automated moderating and disinformation detection that has been in the works happens at scale too. It would be much harder to do similar in a decentralized system because of the partitioning of user data.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#205
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this sounds like you made an excellent argument for more decentralization, not less. - Germany vs France in regards to Corona: similar sized countries, yet I venture that Germany has been doing far better than France in dealing with the pandemic. Maybe it is because the local governors have a better idea of what are the real challenges of their regions than some bureaucrat sitting in Berlin? - Bavaria takes too…

Yeah like I suggested, it seems to be a convex benefit curve. Removing the central element entirely seems to be the implication, but where does it stop? At each level, you lose the benefits of a central structure - such as coordination, support, management of risk etc. Sure, one can get rid of the EU. But you'll notice that most countries actually don't want this - especially Euro-critical countries in eastern Europe…

> Euro-critical countries in eastern Europe profit hugely from the EU and would never seriously consider going back to the previous state of things.

The elites of those countries benefit way more from the influx of euros, some breadcrumbs are given to the people and then everyone stays under the illusion they are better off. The central bank keeps pushing money, Brussels and Berlin get happy about it until some external crisis show that the periphery countries never actually changed their ways and now are even more fragile to external shocks and even more dependent on the EU.

Sounds familiar? If you know anything about Greece besides Santorini and Mykonos, it should strike a note.

> if the EU had a centralized fiscal&monetary policy, things would have looked much less bleak for southern parts of the Union.

Sorry for the stereotyping, but this is such a German comment and so short-sighted that if I get into a long response to it my blood will boil a little. Instead, let me refer you to https://nntaleb.medium.com/lebanon-from-ponzi-to-antifragili... who maybe can get the point across better than me.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#206
post #45
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's just racism, sexism, and threats of violence. It's really not that hard. No one is getting shut down for proposing alternative social/economic strategies, unless those strategies are racist, sexist and/or violent.

Who decides if they are “racist, sexist or violent”? You? Because I see a those terms thrown around a lot with a lot of evidence to back it up.

The dictionary.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#208
post #123
post #51

I think this is a very compelling point, and much better than most of the "fediverse is for freedom" talking points I have seen on HN: > I have participated in many a public forum on Internet governance, and whenever anyone pointed out that social platforms like Facebook need to do more as far as content moderation is concerned, Facebook would complain that it’s difficult in their huge network, since regulation and c…

The communities or groups who have gone "rogue" aren't going to care for moderation, they're going to ban/block anyone with a dissenting argument/narrative - even if it's reason and truth - which then externalizes the cost to the rest of society into the physical world in the form of violence, terror.

There are always going to be communities like that. The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that they provide a "radicalization pipeline" to get people into communities like that. And one of the big issues with the riot at the Capitol is that there was an interplay between what Trump/Cruz/Hawley/others were saying on social media and what these radicalized groups were saying. That only happens because there's a very porous border between things, so that you can have a radicalized Qanon group sharing the same space as official government accounts.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#209
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central philosophy in capitalism is competition . The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation ; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfo…

Competition is the hallmark of liberalism, or a free-market economy. Capitalism and a free market are pretty much orthogonally related (consider, if you will, the ideal capitalist state in which a single capitalist controls 100% of the market). The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth. It's usually accomplished by taking it from those who create it. Reducing competi…

> The central philosophy is capitalism sure isn't competition. It's the accumulation of wealth.

Exactly. And I believe that the fact i have to explain this constantly is due to the very good PR of capitalism. "Capitalism is just free markets". No, it is not. Markets are not free, and capitalism needs more than "reasonably free markets", they need protection of wealth, no matter how much.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not This is unsubstantiated in that it posits the "politically powerful" as having nothing but their own interests in mind. Ignoring the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can…

> the possible retort I could make that then interests of the politically powerful can not only coincide with the will of the people but also be the will of the people The good old 'those noble and good hearted revolutionaries get to be the politically powerful and the "will" of the plebs better align with theirs, or else...' In the end, there is only IngSoc!

With enough distribution of power, true, un-hijacked-by-lobby, democracy is possible and this will not happen.
Post reply on HN