Tech and Liberty • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech and Liberty

#111

Post by barrkel » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:38 AM UTC

anongraddebt wrote: post #96

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

A literal, and not uncharitable reading of your argument is that you arguing this point, on this forum, on the internet, is merely a participation and destabilization of truth. Some of the details around how best to protect freedom of speech seem complex. That it is either an absolute ideal or near enough, seems rather obvious to many. One thing you can always count on is some portion of people who, when their ideas…

Oh yes, playing the game risks making it worse. But you can't not play, because otherwise others - you know, the people who are wrong on the internet - get to drown everyone in their information instead.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#112

Post by state_less » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #95

stickfigure wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

The privacy mavens are going to lose. Controlling what can and can't be shared is just like copyright enforcement. If they want privacy, the answer is to not share information at all or share only with trustworthy people. If some post leaks, all bets are off. There is nothing they can do about it and that's how it should be.

> If they want privacy, the answer is to not share information at all or share only with trustworthy people.

Living in the information age and not sharing information at all is like dancing in the rain and not getting wet. The cameras are always on and the gorgon always staring. It might be your friends post, their camera or a corporations.

It's worth considering that privacy wasn't guaranteed in the old days either, save for the laws people created to enabled it. In the past, if a tyrant wanted to find a thief, they'd search every home. This situation is unreasonable to a free people. So folks relied on laws then, as we must now, to ensure that a person's rights are protected.

If a companies tech is capable of tracking a person, selling it or making it available to the public unrestricted would violate their 4th amendment rights. Because government agents could also use the data unrestricted to peer into your life. All without having to break down the door to your home. So while it might be technically possible to know everything about a person in the information age, the right to that information belongs to the individual.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#113

Post by devnulloverflow » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:22 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

It's quite funny how stereotypical American Ben's blog is. The most important idea that is made explicit in the post (but not justified) is that of the marketplate of ideas, or that 'connecting people' (Zuckerberg) provides meaning, and that speech and an increase in information is a means to mount resistance against the powers that be. one alternative view was presented by Baudrillard in 1985, talking about the 'unc…

That's a of an odd reading of an article that is going out of it's way to point out that the "marketplace of ideas" idea was (1) not the justification for the 1st Amendment and (2) that Ben doesn't view it as the justification for Facebook's move either.

> In fact, I would go further: Facebook’s stance is an essential expression of what makes American tech unique. Don Valentine, the legendary founder of Sequoia Capital who passed away last week, once said:

>> The world of technology thrives best when individuals are left alone to be different, creative, and disobedient.

> This is not a statement about participating in the marketplace of ideas, winning others over by the power of your argument. It is, rather, an affirmation of the absence of tyranny. Only when individuals are able to think for themselves can something truly new to the world be created, and the proof will be the success in the market for tech products and services.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#114

Post by chowells » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

dave_b wrote: post #44

lliamander wrote: post #25

This describes precisely my own reaction to Munroe's comic. I mean, it's certainly true that discussion forums benefit from moderation to remove trolls. However, Munroe myopically assumes that the only people being de-platformed are trolls. Even if some of the people being de-platformed are provocateurs, the fact is that there's still a difference between excluding people from what is essentially a private club (as m…

Progressives of the past were all about the principle of free speech. Now that they have the power to control the public space, all they seem to care about are the technicalities of the first amendment. Arguments like that in the comic revel in enforcing groupthink because the author thinks it will be used in a way he finds favorable. If you take a step back, it’s obvious that every censorious organization has very s…

Which "principle" of free speech do you mean?

Absolutism: no speech is off-limits.

Maximalism: the range of ideas expressed must be maximized.

Those two ideals of free speech are incompatible. Variety of expressed views suffers immensely when people show up to attack all groups other than themselves.

And somehow, those people always show up.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#115

Post by nine_k » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 2:52 AM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #86

loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal…

It does not work like that.

If you have shared a bit of data, you have relinquished and lost control over it, passed it to someone else. This is what sharing means. If you want to keep a secret, don't share it, at least not with parties who are not legally required to keep your secret secret.

Privacy advocates ask for different things.

One desire is that entities who technically have access to someone's data, even in passing and partially, would stop snooping at these data and sell them. The primary way to do that is to encrypt everything end to end, rendering snooping useless. Simply not sending the data is also a popular measure where applicable, hence ad blocking and tracker blocking. Another way is seeking legal protection against over-sharing where concealing the data is impossible, like with medical or financial information.

Another desire is that entities with legal power to snoop and eavesdrop would have their powers explicitly curtailed. This is quite an uphill battle; powers that be don't want to yield a piece of the power.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#116

Post by nixpulvis » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #91

zozbot234 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We usually call that whole complex "the Cathedral". It fits with progressives' historical origin in the gradual politicization of new religious movements of all sorts.

Who's "we"?

Well given the setting, I'd assume it's the royal we: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

Re: Tech and Liberty

#117

Post by gorgoiler » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

It doesn’t seem moral to regulate a monopoly just because no one else has the chops to compete with it. (If the monopoly engages in anti-competitive behavior then it is fair game for regulation, of course.)

Re: Tech and Liberty

#118

Post by devnulloverflow » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

lordleft wrote: post #7

A powerful and provocative article. I love the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." I am a bit of a libertarian when it comes to civil liberties -- I flinch at any circumscription of speech, even when it is noxious. Still, for a v…

The Nazis got away with going around beating up opponents with truncheons.

The authorities turning a blind eye to that stuff was not an upholding of anyone's civil liberties, it was being complicit in shutting down other's free expression.

Re: Tech and Liberty

#119

Post by gorgoiler » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 3:29 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #72

lliamander wrote: post #25

This describes precisely my own reaction to Munroe's comic. I mean, it's certainly true that discussion forums benefit from moderation to remove trolls. However, Munroe myopically assumes that the only people being de-platformed are trolls. Even if some of the people being de-platformed are provocateurs, the fact is that there's still a difference between excluding people from what is essentially a private club (as m…

What features make a private website a public square? I often wonder: Would people feel differently if platforms were honest and direct about being a private club of some specific kind? If Twitter came out and said they wanted to be a private club for people with progressive views to discuss politics and sundry, would that dampen the criticism of censorship?

One definition could be that you become a public square when you benefit sufficiently from the society in which you operate that you must correspondingly take on civic responsibility to that society.

In terms of Facebook: they rake it in because millions of us chose their platform, over many others, for posting our cat photos. Accordingly, Facebook must pay something back to society. (Though perhaps the “pay something back” merely needs to be covered by corporation tax, rather than anything more special.)

If the local pub becomes the de facto meeting room for the village club, and makes a killing selling them beer as a result, maybe it should be obliged to provide free parking?

Re: Tech and Liberty

#120

Post by jay_kyburz » Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #10

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free s…

I consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical.

I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet.

This is where we should start to fix this problem.