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

The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#31

Post by nothinkjustai »

linuxhansl wrote: post #20

> Wrong the way it would be wrong to predict that if you set your kitchen on fire, the result will be a renovation. This might be favorite metaphor ever, and one I'll quoting in the future! :) I think the author conflates social media with other inventions like a portable GPS device, an electronic map, a music player, or indeed a cell phone. As far as social media goes the author is (IMHO) spot on. You do not have to…

Democracy was better when the only viewpoints we were exposed to were from corporate media outlets? Are you sure about that? Better for whom?

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#32

Post by bayleev »

A good example of this is the mythological way people think often about cryptography imo, as a guarantor of an individual's privacy against the prying eyes of the state, etc.

But the reality is that your usual cryptographic circuit (TLS connection) is just that, a circuit, a cordoning of space off for an interaction between two or more parties. The interaction inside that circuit can be very highly exploitative indeed, i.e., you can now apply for payday loans, gamble, ingest anti-human propaganda online, without anyone around you knowing anything about it.

Which is not to say that cryptographic technology might not broadly be a positive but it's inane to think that all social problems could continually be solved with more code and more cryptography. It has arguably been a key driver of enhanced financialization and militarization of daily life in its current iteration.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#33

Post by tolerance »

I get that the information produced and consumed online does has a profound effect on how we think. But right now I need to point out a steady gripe of mine that may or may not be tangential to the author's points depending on how you view things.

There is something unsettling about how the disjunctive experience that digital media environments produce is romantically portrayed. I think we need to get over the concept of things like "cyberspace". There are no corners of the internet that you "inhabit". "Digital gardening" can go too. Media/information environments shouldn't be thought of in the same way that physical ones are. I don't know why I feel this way. At least I can't form a strong argument to support why...yet. But I think this way of thinking is psychologically detrimental. Go debate a dualist and let me know how it goes.

"Saving the internet" may require that we adopt a realist perspective on what the internet is. You are exchanging data. There's more to it, I'm sure, and the effect of this exchange shouldn't be taken for granted.

This is an over simplification, but I think it's a start.

I mean...Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Palantir, Flock are information technology companies, right? I can get a little obtuse and say that this is the case for most companies involved in the transfer of content of all kinds from one place to another.

Tech companies are lawnmowers and the internet is not where your lawn is. Don't expect either to help you touch or cut your grass.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#34

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #13
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #9

> Democracy will flourish. The gap between rich and poor will close. The lion will lie down with the lamb, and the lamb will have a Pentium II. We also have the advantage of hindsight and know, without question, that all of these predicted outcomes were wrong. Not 'directionally wrong' or 'wrong in the details.' Wrong the way it would be wrong to predict that if you set your kitchen on fire, the result will be a reno…

> A substantial majority of all human beings have a magic screen in their pocket that lets them look up any information they're interested in or contact anyone on the planet who they'd like to talk to Or allow their bosses to contact them anywhere. Or allow corporations to know their location at all times and use that information for advertising. There have been tradeoffs to smartphones, and arguably they are worse f…

I don't download random business apps, and I live in a pretty tech heavy area, but I've never encountered a parking lot where I couldn't pay at a kiosk or booth. What I do encounter sometimes are friends who "have to" download the app because they're used to the convenience of app-based payments, or because they don't feel a need to carry cash.

I strongly feel that the convenience vs. annoyance is heavily tilted towards the convenience side, and I think people who feel otherwise are just not noticing all the ways that having a PC in their pocket makes their lives easier.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#35

Post by lorecore »

randallsquared wrote: post #3

> examples of the ideology that powered and continues to power tech Would that it were so. Semi-connected rant: What happened to so many startups to kill the mood was the pattern of: Do something technically legal (or technically illegal!) in a way that seems fixable at first, scale to huge size to get lawyers and lobbyists, pivot to strongly supporting government efforts to rein in "lawlessness" or "combat fraud" or…

Indeed, that phenomena is called regulatory capture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#36

Post by thomastjeffery »

The problem with [conservative] libertarians is that they are half anarchists.

They support "radical individualism" (anarchy) and "free market absolutism" (hierarchy). This is a blatant contradiction no matter how you talk your way out of it.

If you are participating in a free market, then you are subject to corporations. The conclusion of libertarian ideals is that one must both allow corporations to rule over them, and never allow anyone to rule over the corporations.

This is where most people, including the author, present liberalism as the solution. Free market + democratic regulation is a great way to manage an economy; but is it really a good way to manage the rest of society?

The article brings up copyright without exploring the idea at all. I think this is the greatest mistake of all. Copyright is what forces every facet of society to participate in a capitalist market.

Without copyright, what would change? First of all, we wouldn't have tech billionaires. Wouldn't that be nice? Next, we wouldn't be structuring all human interactions with corporate ad platforms. There seems to be a lot of unexplored opportunity there. Even more exciting, moderators would suddenly have all the power that they need to manage the responsibility they are given. No more begging to reddit admins! No more fighting automated censorship! Doesn't that sound good?

It boggles my mind how people from nearly every political perspective have accepted copyright as the one perfect inarguable virtue. Even the cyberlibertarians op argues with are only willing to concede copyright with the promise of a magical free market replacement! Now's as good a time as ever to think about it.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#37

Post by mikem170 »

nothinkjustai wrote: post #26

> The cyberlibertarians wanted you to believe that radical individualism plus deregulated capitalism plus inevitable technology would produce communitarian utopia. This is, on its face, insane. It is the economic equivalent of claiming that if everyone punches each other really hard, eventually we'll all be hugging. The alternative, of course, is that a nanny state + highly regulated tech + inevitable technology lead…

What about radical individualism + regulated tech - inevitable technology?

I don't see anything wrong with individuals who by consensus choose to regulate "inevitable" technology. Technology is not a person, and we don't need to make ourselves subservient to it.

I'm thinking of things like liability as a publisher for algorithmic feeds, anti-trust enforcement against companies competing unfairly, mandates for inter-operability to avoid user lock-in, limitations on surveillance capitalism, protections for personal data, maybe also regulating things like advertising, campaigning, fake news, etc.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#38

Post by randallsquared »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #24
randallsquared wrote: post #3

> examples of the ideology that powered and continues to power tech Would that it were so. Semi-connected rant: What happened to so many startups to kill the mood was the pattern of: Do something technically legal (or technically illegal!) in a way that seems fixable at first, scale to huge size to get lawyers and lobbyists, pivot to strongly supporting government efforts to rein in "lawlessness" or "combat fraud" or…

I have trouble supporting the viewpoint that these things should’ve been “illegal” in the first place. The pendulum swings I suppose…

If they should have been illegal, then we should oppose the actions, or if they shouldn't be, we should oppose the regulatory capture of making them illegal or wrapping them in red tape afterward. No need to agree on which are which to disapprove of the pattern.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#39

Post by vrganj »

nothinkjustai wrote: post #31
linuxhansl wrote: post #20

> Wrong the way it would be wrong to predict that if you set your kitchen on fire, the result will be a renovation. This might be favorite metaphor ever, and one I'll quoting in the future! :) I think the author conflates social media with other inventions like a portable GPS device, an electronic map, a music player, or indeed a cell phone. As far as social media goes the author is (IMHO) spot on. You do not have to…

Democracy was better when the only viewpoints we were exposed to were from corporate media outlets? Are you sure about that? Better for whom?

Who do you think decides which media the algorithms show you now? It's all corporate, just more addictive and less accountable now.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#40

Post by spinningslate »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #21
wiseowise wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I’ll gladly take CDs and DVDs over modern streaming platforms. Before all of this streaming crap music and taste had weight. You find people with the same interests and you share physical medium. No corporation in the world had a power to stop me from giving my copy to another person. Now you either like and pay forever like a good cattle or you hide like a rat from the watchful copyright gods on torrents.

I've always thought that the hippie environmental types wanting data (music) stored as plastic was ironic. "I prefer my music to be made of petrochemicals and trees, the way it ought to be." I get it, but I still think it's funny.

Instead of what - vast data centres full of electronics, consuming huge quantities of electricity, controlled by techno-feudalistic megacorps who keep almost all of the money and supply a pittance to the artists? Everything has a cost but those records, CDs and cassettes look like a good deal from here. I still have LPs I inherited from my parents. They still play on my 20 year old turntable.
Post reply on HN