Internet access is now a basic human right (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#161

Post by ThrustVectoring » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:20 AM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #155

mindslight wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any advocating for distributed power is going to sound like "anarchy" to someone thinking in a centralized paradigm. But despite our tendency to explain things by creating singular narratives, society is not a top-down entity. "Dangerous to the public" is simply one of the standard refrains used by groups in power looking to suppress others under the color of law. It's easy to argue that dissent should be contained w…

Democracy is distributed power. Dissent has its voice in a democracy but should also respect that it is a not a majority opinion. It should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority. Otherwise it's totalitarianism.

There's more than one kind of power. Democracy has one power available to it - the ability to make people submit to the laws they pass and enforce.

There's another type: the ability to do things and reshape the environment in the ways you want. Call it "agency" instead. Democracy isn't necessarily conducive to fostering agency.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#162

Post by VeronicaJJ123 » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:20 PM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #144

VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a negative right, the only kind of right possible to have without forcing someone else to provide for your rights. Should government provide you a book and a pen to write your anti-government book? That is equivalent of internet. If I chose to live on top of some mountain should government spend $$$ to stretch a line to my mountain ?

Free speech is not a "negative right". There are definitely burdens placed on others to maintain it. Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut, and then threatening you with violence if you open it? That is the reality in many places. Those who speak up often pay a heavy cost without some sort of protection. Even in places where forms of free speech are accepted, the cost to maintai…

> ability to talk to oneself in an empty room

Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. What is your concept of "free speech" then ? Going into other people's home and shouting ?

> Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut

The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#163

Post by isostatic » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #71

isostatic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet they fail to count when you stop living for free, when society stops paying for your peace and security. That happens in the exact same second.

I can't decode what you're saying, sorry.

The value the average person pays in taxes is the exact same value that the average person gets from the services those taxes provide.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#164

Post by mindslight » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:59 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #155

mindslight wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any advocating for distributed power is going to sound like "anarchy" to someone thinking in a centralized paradigm. But despite our tendency to explain things by creating singular narratives, society is not a top-down entity. "Dangerous to the public" is simply one of the standard refrains used by groups in power looking to suppress others under the color of law. It's easy to argue that dissent should be contained w…

Democracy is distributed power. Dissent has its voice in a democracy but should also respect that it is a not a majority opinion. It should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority. Otherwise it's totalitarianism.

Democracy is distributed voice, but its power is centralized. It invites every one of us to fashion ourselves as mini-autocrats, and then bicker over which specific top-down vision should be implemented.

> It [dissent] should work to peacefully persuade enough of its virtue to become the oppressive majority

The existence of my rights does not depend on my ability to convince a majority that I have those rights. Your assertion sounds like someone who comfortably enjoys the power of the majority, lording it over the oppressed.

> Otherwise it's totalitarianism

Democracy and totalitarianism are orthogonal, but most adherents of democracy seem to fall back on totalitarianism, because they mistakenly believe that having a voice is sufficient freedom. In actuality, tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Which is why we have the concept of rights that can be appealed to beyond whatever the local mob decides.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#165

Post by icebraining » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:47 PM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #163

icebraining wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't decode what you're saying, sorry.

The value the average person pays in taxes is the exact same value that the average person gets from the services those taxes provide.

What an extraordinary statement. So it doesn't matter what the government does with the money, the average person always gets the same value for the same tax bill? I don't know why we bother to have elections.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#166

Post by Klinky » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:25 AM UTC

VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #162

Klinky wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is not a "negative right". There are definitely burdens placed on others to maintain it. Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut, and then threatening you with violence if you open it? That is the reality in many places. Those who speak up often pay a heavy cost without some sort of protection. Even in places where forms of free speech are accepted, the cost to maintai…

> ability to talk to oneself in an empty room Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening. What is your concept of "free speech" then ? Going into other people's home and shouting ? > Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the go…

>Not sure why it is pathetic because you can always bring people in who are interesting in listening.

"The government has banned congregating, and one of the people you're meeting with in secret is a mole who is going to rat you out to the government anyways. There is also a network of listening equipment installed in various properties to monitor citizen behavior."

That isn't fantasy, it has really happened in some societies. The point is, if the society you're part of does not value freedom of speech, it can be squashed. One can speak their mind, but with the threat of dire consequences, their mouth remains shut, and their "right to free speech" suppressed. If a right is suppressed, who is burdened with protecting that right? No one? Is the above example of an oppressive society acceptable with the concept of free speech being a negative right? If so, the concept of negative rights is useless in a realistic context, as it is merely being pedantic and does not actually offer a better alternative. With a bar so low, terrible outcomes become "acceptable".

Typically free speech means you can speak your mind in a public forum without fear of harm. This includes dissenting views of the current government. While others may actually attempt to harm you, laws are in place to make those parties potentially reconsider taking such actions.

>The constitution and courts. If both those options fail it is reasonable to pick up arms against the government too.

Maintaining a constitution and court system is of no burden to anyone? So your form of free speech requires the forced service of judges and legislators? If arms are required, who is to provide them? Are you going to force gunsmiths to provide everyone with a gun?

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#167

Post by AmIFirstToThink » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 4:49 PM UTC

msla wrote: post #141

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field. I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

> I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done. I agree with you, and I think the regulation we need includes data portability regulation: Make it a legal requirement for companies to allow you to get all of your data (which those companies primarily exist to monetize anyway) out of their web services complete, in a…

How about audience portability?

Shouldn't I be allowed to give a forwarding address so that my audience that I developed, can reach me on the new platform that I go to?

I don't think any youtube creator worth her salt doesn't keep backup of the videos. The problem with google kicking you out is that you lose your audience. Severing the connection between you and your audience is the biggest issue here, not loss of some files.

Google should be forced to honor forwarding URL (e.g. to vimeo) for accounts that it suspends.