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

Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

ar.al

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 102 posts

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#11

Post by rdtsc »

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff.

I think it is rather ironic that the new "left" love them globalization all of the sudden, even when their younger brothers were tear-gassed protesting it, just a decade ago or so protesting against it.

(More discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 along with a promising book on the subject, 'The Technological Society' by Jacques Ellul suggested by Drumlin. Still waiting for it to come from Amazon)

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#12

Post by bresc »

kelvin0 wrote: post #6

Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda. Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.

It's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything. So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that the once/few in charge right now do the right thing. But it's not up to the masses and it has never been.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#13

Post by Tharkun »

sandworm101 wrote: post #10

Am i the only one here that doesnt use facebook? I think i logged in once eight or so years ago. My clients dont use it. My friends do ... well did . But it was never an issue. My students avoid it due to the "creep factor". I still live life via email and telephone and that isnt unussual. Even my tech clients, some in downtown SF, expect email to be the norm. So when I see zuck going on about revolutions I have to w…

> Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the planet uses his website?

Yes. Because it's true. Facebook has more than a BILLION active users. Let that sink in for a minute.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#14

Post by devoply »

rdtsc wrote: post #11

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is r…

Think of the poor and how much they have been helped by the globalization of the world is how they were won over. See how many people we've lifted out of poverty because of globalization.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#15

Post by hourislate »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #2

FTA: "Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us build a world without kings." I'd also submit that even if you trust Zuckerberg to be a benevolent king, he won't be king forever. He may grow bored of Facebook and move on, have an untimely accident or a poor diagnosis...these are all events that can put all things Facebook in the hands of somebody far less (presumably) benevolent. Imagine…

All those you listed are Saints compared to Mark who is one of the most dangerous men in the world.

facebook needs to be torn down. It is a toxic apparatus, being used against the population.

Just saying.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#16

Post by Tharkun »

zekkius wrote: post #3

I appreciate Aral's general issues with Facebook. Privacy rights in the digital age are issues we face not just with SV, but with every corporation we interact with. I appreciate the EU's interest in this sphere and I worry the rights of US citizens will be co-opted by corporate lobbying, not to mention other parts of the world.

The EU's interest in this sphere is bizarre to say the least. It's very much a fan of surveillance. It pays lipservice to privacy, while actively engaging in dragnet surveillance.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#17

Post by devoply »

kelvin0 wrote: post #6

Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda. Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.

Masses don't do anything. If you want to do something you need a different set of elite with a different set of ideas and/or ideology. That usually leads to conflict and wars though. So be warned. But we do I think need a different way to run society in an automated world rather than strap on the new technological reality to the old paradigm of shareholders and owners of capital who get people to work. We honestly will soon not need owners of capital/shareholders.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#18

Post by kelvin0 »

bresc wrote: post #12
kelvin0 wrote: post #6

Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda. Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.

It's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything. So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that the once/few in charge right now do the…

If everyone stopped using FB (not saying they should), what do you think would happen? As individuals we have a choice in certain actions and their impacts. I agree with you that having an opinion on everything and boycotting this and that can lead down a rabbit hole ... but we did bring this upon 'ourselves'. (I am not a FB user, but I do respect peoples use of it)

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#19

Post by xenihn »

65827 wrote: post #5

We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments. Like we all knew this was an option of where we wer…

Just wait until those private armies start to fight each other.

Re: Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

#20

Post by decebalus1 »

65827 wrote: post #5

We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments. Like we all knew this was an option of where we wer…

> (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry)

Source? I agree with your ideas overall but I'm genuinely interested in this aspect.

Post reply on HN