Local rules instead of global censorship • Hacker News Board

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#141

Post by enriquto » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:08 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #132

enriquto wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The list of countries between 5 and 10 million includes more countries noted for human rights violations or recent civil wars than liberal democracies. Citation needed? Anyhow, the interesting measure is the total number of people living in small vs. large countries noted for human right violations or wars, not the total number of countries with that condition. I agree that Singapore is a hellish dystopia, but Swit…

The governments of larger states like Britain, France, Spain and Germany are not without problems, but we're not casting envious glances at how Serbia and Bulgaria are run, never mind Belarus :) Outside Europe you've got a group which includes central American states famed for frequent coups and revolutions, nations synonymous with conflict like Libya, Sierra Leone and Israel/Palestine, extremely authoritarian post U…

> Britain, France, Spain and Germany are not without problems, but we're not casting envious glances

Well, I do. Having lived most of my life under the governments of France and Spain, I can say that yes, I do indeed cast envious glances to smaller countries were things are easier to change and apparently more democratic.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#142

Post by hypertele-Xii » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:12 PM UTC

bregma wrote: post #139

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #88

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…

Now you've got my brain in a twist.

What about the other extreme (apparently equally ideal) case of a capitalist state in which every single person controls an equal share of the market? Doesn't that sound the least bit socialist to you?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#143

Post by cygx » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #127

cygx wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you do know that historically, 'Social Democratic' is just a name chosen by European socialist parties for themselves? The membership list[1] of the Party of European Socialists (known as Europeiska socialdemokratiska partiet in Swedish) reflects this to this day. It is of course true that a Social Democracy is not a fully socialist society, but that discussion was already had last century during the Revisionismu…

Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s into social democratic parties and communist parties. So no need to use 'socialist' instead of 'social democratic' unless you want to dogwhistle to communist supporters. Also note that this meaning of term 'socialist' is rather archaic (and not in opposition to term 'capitalist'). The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describ…

> Yes, but these parties use 'social democratic' after a split of socialist parties in 1920s

Depends on the country: The parties are still called 'socialist' to this day in Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain.

> The modern meaning of 'socialism' is to describe economic system in countries of soviet communist bloc.

Quote German Wikipedia on Sozialismus[1], which views Sozialdemokratie as one of its branches:

> Demzufolge wird auch grob zwischen den Ausrichtungen von Kommunismus, Sozialdemokratie oder Anarchismus differenziert.

> Hence one differentiates roughly between the strains of Communism, Social Democracy or Anarchism.

Quote Wikipedia on Sozialdemokratie[2]:

> Sozialdemokratie ist eine politische Bewegung und politische Ideologie der Linken, die sich selbst – mal mehr, mal weniger stark ausgeprägt – als Form eines reformistischen demokratischen Sozialismus betrachtet.

> Social Democracy is a political movement and political ideology of the left, which views itself - sometimes to a greater, sometimes to a lesser extent - as a form of reformist democratic socialism.

Quote Hamburger Programm, the German SPD's party platform[3]:

> The end of the soviet type state socialism did not disprove the idea of democratic socialism but it clearly confirmed the orientation of social democracy towards core values. In our understanding democratic socialism remains the vision of a free and fair society in solidarity. Its realization is a permanent task for us. The principle for our actions is social democracy.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialdemokratie

[3] https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Grundsatz...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#144

Post by dingle_thunk » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

I think the issue is better described as "corruption", rather than lobbying. Lobbying is a form of corruption unique to politicians, but it's just as possible that someone who has access to everyone's data via the CLOUD act uses such data in a corrupt way, or sells their access to that data to the highest bidder. Corruption is a problem that can occur anywhere down the trust stack.

A focus on individual responsibility for security and for integrity refocuses the issue on foundational Confucian principles (for every individual, be: benevolent, righteous, have propriety, build wisdom, and have fidelity), creates a culture of trust, diversity and competence. These things are much better for a thriving society, whether the label for the systems is democratic, dogmacratic, bureaucratic, or plutocratic.

(p.s. I am Australian, not Chinese. I just have an appreciation for learning from your rivals)

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#145

Post by contravariant » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #109

contravariant wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you really need that much of a justification to claim that centralized power is a danger to democracy. Democracy is to place power into the hands of each individual, every form of centralized power necessarily pulls this power away from people and into the hands of a limited number of individuals. Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.

> Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power. What's the essential difference?

Democracy is already damaged by the lack of democratic control even if a centralized power chooses not to harm it any further (the fact that they even have this choice is evidence of the damage).

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#146

Post by swiley » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #47

Centralised or de-centralised, why would make any difference? The lies are lies, if you don't have a centralised platform they will spread p2p as long as people can communicate. What we need is a mechanism for breaking circuits of lies and propaganda. In real world social networks we have methods like labelling liars(You have one identity and you risk it every time you say something), right to defend yourself(You can…

When platforms are centralized one organization can push lies to almost everyone. In decentralized systems these lies sit below the noise floor with the dumb conspiracy theories.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#147

Post by mensetmanusman » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

Centralization is a danger in an environment where there are a handful of individuals 100,000x more wealthy than everyone else.

It is extremely easy to take control of a centralized system when you have enough wealth; and unfortunately, our system has produced more than a few of these edge cases.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#148

Post by mdiesel » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #137

hef19898 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree with such a broad statement covering a period of, what, 600 years. Neither do I agree with the premise that leaving small communities alone, not having the populace or these communities a say in larger affairs, and limiting access to te community decisions to a select few people to be more democratic than our current system.

> broad statement covering a period of, what, 600 years not only was it long period but the Middle Ages are only ever brought up by people educated by a Western/ized idea of history. My point stands because we would never hear of systems that "worked" in a decentralized way because required power structures would have never been in place for them to leave any impact that people will feel should be noted in the histor…

That works if people's only businesses are what is needed by the small community/tribe. We've reached a point where thanks to a millenia of technological advance, a fraction of the populace works in agriculture. Instead I work in a business that sells a niche enough product that we might have a customer ever other week from somewhere in Europe. In order for that to work, we can't only have customers in our town or its immediate neighbours.

So we can have more devolvement, an endless argument here in the UK, but centralised money structures, standards bodies, transport networks, etc are required for this to be feasible. Already we complain that the more niche ideas can be more successful in the US because there's a larger home market.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#149

Post by Dirlewanger » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

hungryhobo wrote: post #26

Hmm feels like a great tool to create echo chambers

Yup. Instead of having multiple echo chambers on one centralized network, let's now have multiple echo chambers on a decentralized service where it's even harder to hear opposing viewpoints!

The sad reality is that humanity is not ready for something like the Internet. If you said dumb shit in your town's square, you'd get hit upside your head. Say it on the Internet, your little numbers go up and you get a dopamine hit.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#150

Post by notahacker » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #141

notahacker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The governments of larger states like Britain, France, Spain and Germany are not without problems, but we're not casting envious glances at how Serbia and Bulgaria are run, never mind Belarus :) Outside Europe you've got a group which includes central American states famed for frequent coups and revolutions, nations synonymous with conflict like Libya, Sierra Leone and Israel/Palestine, extremely authoritarian post U…

> Britain, France, Spain and Germany are not without problems, but we're not casting envious glances Well, I do. Having lived most of my life under the governments of France and Spain, I can say that yes, I do indeed cast envious glances to smaller countries were things are easier to change and apparently more democratic.

You won't find many political scientists or Bulgarians or Serbs agreeing that things are easier to change in those countries. And even most people voting for the other candidate didn't change the official result of Belarus' last election.