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

311–320 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#311

Post by 4k93n2 »

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…

maybe give comaps a go. it uses openStreetMap for its map data. i dont know what routing algorithm it uses or how it compares to google/apple but i do like how easy it is to start routes with this app. and if it goes off course is fairly easy to just tap another road and the click "add stop" to have it re-route

another plus is being able to download as many map areas as you would like, and unlike google its actually giving you the full map data (although i havnt used google maps in over a decade now but i remember downloading a map once but then certain POIs would only show up when i had data/cell turned on)

https://www.comaps.app

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#312

Post by dgellow »

chairmansteve wrote: post #261
armchairhacker wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I generally agree with you message but the UK isn’t the EU anymore, and starting a company in Germany, France is definitely more expensive and involved than in the UK or the US. Regulation also has a responsibility, but not in the way people on HN generally think. The EU single market is messy, lots of things haven’t actually been consolidated, you have to take in account all the differences between each member state regulations if you want to get access to the whole EU. And if not you’re limited to mostly one region. If the EU can complete the single market we should be in a way better position to compete.

I really hope we can see The 28th Regime[0] becomes reality soon, that would be such an improvement

[0]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BR...

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#313

Post by wallst07 »

spinningslate wrote: post #83
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, store it on your computer/phone/iPod. But honestly data centers are probably very efficient for this. I'm not going to do the math, but storing data on flash and serving it to billions of people probably is efficient if I had to guess.

I would like to see a full cost comparison. Centralised storage - replicated, distributed and maintained online as necessary - vs media that, once manufactured and distributed, essentially costs nothing to maintain. iPods/phones get replaced much more frequently than LPs/casettes/CDs. And that’s just the resource consumption comparison. There’s then the economic polarisation of wealth to the small handful of online m…

Couldn't you just extrapolate the same reasons people say living in urban areas is more efficient than rural?

It seems trivial to see that storing all the music in 1 or more DCs for the entire world is more efficient than a whole industry to create and redistribute plastics and specialized devices to play this plastic.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#314

Post by wallst07 »

thinking_cactus wrote: post #30
boredhedgehog wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stumbled over that metaphor. Isn't it true that a consequence of setting your kitchen on fire will be a new, better kitchen?

Well, as a secondary consequence maybe, but then you could not set your kitchen on fire and still renovate it. Supposedly the first step you think of when renovating your kitchen isn't "Let me set my house on fire!"?

Two ways to think of this:

1) Sometimes a incident is the best way to get a project done. Working in FAANG I've seen a project get done in 1 day during an outage that was projected to take MONTHS during normal business.

2) Sometimes that renovation would never happen due to reasons. Sometimes you need some kindle to start the fire [pun intended].

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#315

Post by abc123abc123 »

lovich wrote: post #266
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 coheren…

The reason is that your question makes no sense, and shows a lack of understanding of how markets operate.

Corporations work on markets, with customers, and need to dynamically adapt to the demands of the customers. Therefore the concept of planned economy goes out the window.

Leaders in a corporation are accountable to the share holders, so again, what you say makes no sense.

Morality relates to value carriers, in the form on conscious human beings, it has no relevance to "the corporation", so for ethical questions you ask the person.

I know you will never research this, but for others who are interested in the only ethical and realistic system to govern society, libertarianism, to great places to start is Johan Norbergs The capitalist manifesto, and Ludwig von Mises Liberalism.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#316

Post by abc123abc123 »

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…

This is the way. I use printed maps when on vacation. Then I laugh at tourists who are hysterical because their smartphones ran out of power.

I print my boarding cards and then I laugh at hysterical people who's smartphonse do not work.

When I walk around on town, I do not take my phone with me, so anyone looking for me has to leave a message on my answering machine or send me an email, and I'll get back to them when I feel like it.

Have I ever, for many decades, missed anything important because someone just had to get hold of me this second? Never. Magically, everything always sorted itself out.

The idea that we must be available 24/7 is a mind virus that needs to be eradicated.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#317

Post by lukan »

vga1 wrote: post #295
trhway wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposing voices is what stops fascism. Without anonymity there are no opposing voices.

My point is that once we reach fascism, the opposing voices stop mattering. I think it's naive to think that anything happening in the digital world can properly fight that. And since technological anonymity and privacy are clearly moving us towards fascism, it's not a net good anymore.

Hah, as if the fascists themself are in loving unity. (Or clear on the term itself)

There were and will be opposing voices also in deepest fascism.

More broadly, totalitarism is rather the term, where the whole society is total under control of one ideology. That can be fascism, but also other ideologies strive for that.

But yes, allowing anonymous voices is one way to counter it.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#318

Post by danaris »

kortilla wrote: post #77
dweinus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global extreme poverty has fallen because we have raised the floor, largely through international collaboration that if anything has happened in spite of the cyberlibertarianism, certainly not because of it. Paradoxically, "developed" nation inequality has hit 1920s levels. Likewise, the number of countries/populations calling themselves democratic has grown, but the global democratic index has declined and mature de…

> Paradoxically, "developed" nation inequality has hit 1920s levels. That’s not a paradox. Inequality is a completely separate measurement that emerges anywhere there are extremely wealthy people despite the average population doing really well. A high density of tech billionaires in California doesn’t prevent a regular family in Tennessee from putting food on their table. Poverty rates would.

But a high density of tech billionaires does prevent a regular family in Tennessee from putting food on their table, by increasing the poverty rates.

They do this by a number of mechanisms, including lobbying to reduce or end programs like SNAP, gutting labor protections, and various other political means; and more generally by making money in zero-sum ways (financialization of the economy means that people are getting rich by skimming off money from other people, rather than by creating value themselves).

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#319

Post by tim333 »

>That is the internet we built. It was not an accident. It was the product of a specific ideology, written down by specific people, at a specific cocktail party in Davos, in 1996.

The article is entertaining but I completely don't buy that. The internet would be much the say if nothing had been written in Davos. People would still have linked computers, done good and bad stuff as is human nature, companies would have tried to own and profit from it, governments would have tried to regulate it as is their nature also.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#320

Post by tim333 »

chambers wrote: post #268
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…

The term 'humane' meaning basically kind seems a bit optimistic as to how humans are. A lot can be not very kind, especially if anonymous on the web.
Post reply on HN