Declaration of Internet Freedom • Hacker News Board

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#31

Post by joelhaus » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 7:19 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #29

One of the things I like about this declaration compared to other similar ones (Declaration of Independence, UDHR, Stallman) is that it makes no mention of intrinsic rights. It clearly states its objectives as goals to work towards, rather attempting to frame an imaginary natural law by which these conditions already automagically apply to the human animal. That said, it seems to me that there is a potential conflict…

Don't see the same conflict in this declaration. Assuming that you interpret #3 (Openness) as a call to not enforce property rights, but I don't see it that way.

#3 is somewhat vague, but this principle seems most closely aligned with traditional net neutrality principles. Perhaps they felt that the phrase "net neutrality" was too prescriptive, and I agree. Markets with sufficient competition have no need for net neutrality regulations, unfortunately, broadband competition in the U.S. is severely lacking.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#32

Post by Gormo » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 8:58 PM UTC

morsch wrote: post #24

Gormo wrote: post #11

If you look at a lot of old-fashioned documents like this - statements of principle, resolutions and declarations of one sort or another - you're likely to see a list of individual points, often making demands or other calls to action. But this will invariably be preceded by a preamble that indicates (a) who the specific people making the declaration are, and what their motivations are for doing so, (b) who the inten…

Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share precisely those values will support you. Most people -- even those who have a lot in common with your views -- will simply ignore the request. On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement. We might not…

I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'.

See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decisively toward specific goals.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#33

Post by lukifer » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:00 PM UTC

joelhaus wrote: post #31

lukifer wrote: post #29

One of the things I like about this declaration compared to other similar ones (Declaration of Independence, UDHR, Stallman) is that it makes no mention of intrinsic rights. It clearly states its objectives as goals to work towards, rather attempting to frame an imaginary natural law by which these conditions already automagically apply to the human animal. That said, it seems to me that there is a potential conflict…

Don't see the same conflict in this declaration. Assuming that you interpret #3 (Openness) as a call to not enforce property rights, but I don't see it that way. #3 is somewhat vague, but this principle seems most closely aligned with traditional net neutrality principles. Perhaps they felt that the phrase "net neutrality" was too prescriptive, and I agree. Markets with sufficient competition have no need for net neu…

I'm thinking of ecosystems rather than products; app stores vs. web, etc. It's easy to vilify rent-seeking behavior that drives closed systems, but without that lure, fewer platforms get built, and progress slows down. It's the kind of thing that Charlie Stross calls a Wicked Problem.

Admittedly, this all depends on one's interpretation of "Openness".

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#34

Post by abecedarius » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:00 PM UTC

lavametender wrote: post #4

Did not sign. This is technological challenge, not political. Statements will get you nowhere. We need cold hard code (software) and balls (hardware).

Along those lines, I'd expect a declaration of freedom to go like "We're free, and we're going to do the following things" rather than "Hey, people with actual power, please respect our freedom in the following ways."

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#35

Post by Gormo » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:02 PM UTC

numeromancer wrote: post #25

terryk88a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vague indeed. For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"? Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As in no cost? The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means. So I won't be sup…

I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We implicitly give governments the rights to the use of force, and governments, like people (to whom we don't give such rights) will, in time, see any lack of interdiction as an implicit approval. And positive rights, such as declaring that “all shall be provided, gratis, acces…

> I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do.

We've got one of those already. It doesn't work as well as it was intended to, because, despite the idealistic "rule of law, not men" rhetoric, laws are just abstract concepts, and the world is always under the control of people, who will game and manipulate any system of rules to their advantage. If you build an institution and give it enough power, the people who run it will eventually find a way around their constraints.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#36

Post by Gormo » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:10 PM UTC

terryk88a wrote: post #19

Gormo wrote: post #11

If you look at a lot of old-fashioned documents like this - statements of principle, resolutions and declarations of one sort or another - you're likely to see a list of individual points, often making demands or other calls to action. But this will invariably be preceded by a preamble that indicates (a) who the specific people making the declaration are, and what their motivations are for doing so, (b) who the inten…

Vague indeed. For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"? Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As in no cost? The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means. So I won't be sup…

If we stick to a reasonable interpretation of rights, that maintains the distinction between having a right and having the object of the right, I see no reason not to regard internet access as a fundamental right (or, more appropriately, as a facet of the fundamental right to free association and free communication).

Unfortunately, a lot of discourse blurs that distinction. Having the right to internet access doesn't mean that you should receive state-subsidized internet access; not any more than the right to free expression guarantees you a state-subsidized printing press, nor the right to keep and bear arms guarantees you a state-subsidized rifle.

Having a right to a thing means that your pursuit and enjoyment of that thing shall not be artificially hindered or suppressed; it's still up to you to obtain and make use of the object of that right by your own endeavors.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#37

Post by hobin » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:30 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #23

hobin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is where I point out that the USA is not the only developed country in the world worth fighting for.

I wouldn't fight for any other, with the possible exception of Germany, Spain or Austria. France is too egocentrical, Britain (as much as I love the country) has a government hell-bent on recreating 1984, the Scandinavian countries are dying a slow death of too many paper-pushers and most of Eastern-Europe cannot rightly be called developed. But none of that matters as realistically the US is the only country powerfu…

"France is too egocentrical, Britain (as much as I love the country) has a government hell-bent on recreating 1984, the Scandinavian countries are dying a slow death of too many paper-pushers and most of Eastern-Europe cannot rightly be called developed."

Ignoring for the moment that much of that sounds overly cynical and is definitely an overgeneralisation, which part of 'fight' did you miss? The very reason we're fighting is to do away with many of these problems and improve the situation! For some reason, you think this applies to the USA and a few other countries, but when it comes to other countries, what you say comes down to "Now, listen, I really want to solve these problems. Really, I do. But listen, you guys have problems, so now I can't help you." How does that make sense?

"But none of that matters as realistically the US is the only country powerful enough to cause sufficient damaged to be worth worring about."

I think you would be surprised. The USA is still only one country. It's a very powerful one, of course, I'm glad we agree on that part. But you can't focus on one country to the exclusion of almost everything else. (Well, you can, but that would not be very smart.)

Also, you forgot the Benelux, but I suspect you would also consider these countries too small to be considered.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#38

Post by kaybe » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 9:58 PM UTC

lumberjack wrote: post #14

lavametender wrote: post #4

Did not sign. This is technological challenge, not political. Statements will get you nowhere. We need cold hard code (software) and balls (hardware).

We can't keep ignoring politics or we'll end up with laws so invasive that not even hardware and software can overcome them. And more importantly we can't let them gain any legislative precedence. It's much easier to fight now than in five years. And further more I don't see how we have any advantages in the realms of hardware were we would afford to fight.

Someone called the Pirate Party movements "political selfdefence", and I reckon that's just what it is. Just fighting from the outside is exhaustive, we can't have big protests every week and the attacks keep coming.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#39

Post by morsch » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #32

morsch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share precisely those values will support you. Most people -- even those who have a lot in common with your views -- will simply ignore the request. On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement. We might not…

I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decis…

It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.

Re: Declaration of Internet Freedom

#40

Post by Gormo » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 11:36 PM UTC

morsch wrote: post #39

Gormo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decis…

It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.

Sure it is; it's just a slogan.

"Don't censor the Internet" - Who are you talking to? What constitutes censorship? What actual means will prevent censorship, and how can we implement them?

You're just saying that censorship is bad, which is almost a tautology, because the term itself carries negative connotations with essentially everyone: people who do advocate what you might describe as censorship aren't describing their own position as censorship, and the fault lines in your base of symbolic 'support' will appear once you actually get into details and attempt to answer the questions above.