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

261–270 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#261

Post by chairmansteve »

armchairhacker wrote: post #260
pocksuppet wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU seems to have a different take. As I understand it, regulations are much more malleable in Europe. When problems arise, regulations are put in place. When regulations are problems... it takes a lot longer to remove them, but can still happen eventually. Nothing like the USian deadlock system. And when they do write them, it's always about general principles. The GDPR doesn't speak of cookie consent banners, in…

Because of onerous regulations, the EU has much less startups. You may think that’s good, but I’m sure some missed-potential startups would’ve improved QOL. They at least would’ve increased the EU’s economy and internet control and decreased its dependence on the US.

"Because of onerous regulations, the EU has much less startups". That old trope.

Is that also the reason Miami or St. Louis have less startups?

I have started companies in the UK. The process is about the same as in the USA. The problem in Europe is that there is a lot less VC capital. Just like in Miami. It had nothing to do with regulation.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#262

Post by goda90 »

roenxi wrote: post #207
malwrar wrote: post #135

It has been funny to watch people’s attitudes on copyright change ever since ChatGPT blew up. All I used to hear and experience was copyright used by corporations to shut down open source projects threatening their business models, but now it is the savior of the little guy who is a victim of flagrant corporate violators. In the background, the wealthy and powerful disregard all of this and seem to do whatever they w…

> It has been funny to watch people’s attitudes on copyright change ever since ChatGPT blew up. I doubt many individuals actually changed their opinions. Just that a large crowd of previously-silent people decided AI is a threat to them and they can attack it on copyright grounds. The AI revolution is a great argument against copyright law. The US's lax enforcement means that the incredible, world-changing tech could…

Why do you think we're all better off?

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#264

Post by pas »

danaris wrote: post #73
bethekidyouwant wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't think banks should have to follow rules about how they safeguard their depositors' money? (PayPal) You don't think hotels should have to follow rules about how they keep their properties, or require their tenants to follow local ordinances? (AirBnB) You don't think it should be illegal to be someone's sole employer, have full and total control over their schedule and duties, and yet treat them for legal and…

yet PayPal was (is still?) notorious for freezing accounts for monts without any communication, and since they had no branch offices, all anyone could do was wait or sue them (which is a very expensive form of waiting).

Laws and regulations should exist to make efficient markets. But obviously there are serious problems today in housing and transportation (and banking too), and in large part due to very suboptimal laws and regulations.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#265

Post by matheusmoreira »

washingupliquid wrote: post #196
JKCalhoun wrote: post #191

Also old enough to have been pre-internet: > Paper maps were absolutely horrible… No, and still not horrible. I jeep a trucker's atlas in my van for road trips. Siri and Google Maps (Gigi, we call her) don't seem to realize I want to stay on interstates making distance. Wandering some two-lane country road diagonally through Kansas might save me 10 minutes but having oncoming traffic and the possibility of a rock int…

I've stopped submitting quality reports to Apple Maps because they're all met with "while we couldn't make the change you suggested, we hope you continue to waste your time reporting these". The issues are egregious too, like blatantly incorrect lane guidance that would send you in the wrong direction, or diverting me off a highway onto an unmarked, narrow country road that no one with any knowledge of the local road…

I stopped contributing to big tech platforms. Better to contribute to Open Street Map instead.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#266

Post by lovich »

schoen wrote: post #19

I was a great admirer (and later friend) of Barlow, and I'm still very deeply influenced by the Declaration and many adjacent phenomena. I agree with some fraction of this post in terms of seeing many people shelving these principles when it gets inconvenient for them. In the past few months, I've been troubled by one specific part of the Declaration, in the final paragraph: > We will create a civilization of the Min…

I hadn’t heard of Barlow or these articles prior to this post but after reading them all I am left with the same question I have for every libertarian, cyber or otherwise.

When the corporation that runs as a planned economy with only a few unaccountable leaders at the top has as much power as any other existing government, what makes them any different in terms of morality or “goodness”?

I have never gotten a coherent answer and a few times I’ve received violence in response to the question(also a lol as one of the violent ones was also the one to introduce me to the concept of NAP).

Libertarians seem incapable of rationality and are about as convincing as any true believer of a religion you don’t believe in as an outside observer.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#267

Post by Terr_ »

Nasrudith wrote: post #236
schoen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a theory that some skeptics of tech optimism have advanced for a while, that governments like Internet freedom and widespread availability of ICTs in rival nations because it either (1) makes people there hate and fear each other, or (2) makes them easier to propagandize. In this account the U.S. State Department's Internet Freedom Agenda (which many of my friends and colleagues have been directly funded by)…

That idea sounds like it is a Freudian slip of sorts of an authoritarian mind. Basically, involuntary ideological tells from patterns of their thinking that slip through into their speech. The sorts of things which would give a spy away. The idea you mentioned is the mark of an authoritarian who considers expressed dissent a sign of weakness instead of a crucible for the strength of ideas. That they literally cannot…

Related, and visible in cable not-news: "If you don't believe in my correct religion, then there is nothing is stopping you from murdering people!"

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#268

Post by chambers »

schoen wrote: post #19

I was a great admirer (and later friend) of Barlow, and I'm still very deeply influenced by the Declaration and many adjacent phenomena. I agree with some fraction of this post in terms of seeing many people shelving these principles when it gets inconvenient for them. In the past few months, I've been troubled by one specific part of the Declaration, in the final paragraph: > We will create a civilization of the Min…

Humane, as a secular and universally applied sentiment, is a bit of a modern idea, once backed by common goods; shared institutions, third places, extended families, good economy, religion, etc. With those common goods fading, I see people more and more lashing out against each other; particularly in a frictionless environ that incites/outlets fantasy desires. The war of all against all from the safety of our screens; at least for the growing numbers who live their lives on the upper-case Internet.

Lower-case internet is ok as a tool for making spaces. But I reckon humane-ness, or really, virtue, is a habit built from within. And the habits the Internet rewards are generally the wrong ones.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#269

Post by aaron695 »

schoen wrote: post #19

I was a great admirer (and later friend) of Barlow, and I'm still very deeply influenced by the Declaration and many adjacent phenomena. I agree with some fraction of this post in terms of seeing many people shelving these principles when it gets inconvenient for them. In the past few months, I've been troubled by one specific part of the Declaration, in the final paragraph: > We will create a civilization of the Min…

[dead]

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#270

Post by t-3 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #248
schoen wrote: post #19

I was a great admirer (and later friend) of Barlow, and I'm still very deeply influenced by the Declaration and many adjacent phenomena. I agree with some fraction of this post in terms of seeing many people shelving these principles when it gets inconvenient for them. In the past few months, I've been troubled by one specific part of the Declaration, in the final paragraph: > We will create a civilization of the Min…

> People were mean to each other on the early Internet, but ... some kind of "but" belongs here. Maybe "but it was surprising, it wasn't what they expected"? "But it wasn't what they thought it was about"? For me, the "but" is that I would rather have someone be mean to me than have a corporation collecting all of my data and using it to try and advertise at me

Yeah. Conflict is part of social life, it's unavoidable. Spying on people to make money, putting unknown and often malicious executable code on almost every page for 20 years, sending saboteurs and astroturf squads to disrupt natural communities and channel the herd into monetizable social media slave pens where only approved speech is allowed and corporate propaganda is displayed between every message... not so much.
Post reply on HN