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

401–410 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#401

Post by olelele »

_0ffh wrote: post #394
olelele wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the biggest problem w. libertarianism & game theory etcetera is that humans are not only motivated by greed/personal gain. Pure anecdata; the libertarian/capitalist anarchists I've met have all been close to sociopathic in their disregard for others. I always figured that people who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy project this onto everyone else.

I prefer to judge such advice by the available facts, not by hearsay about the moral character of the advisor - especially not hearsay spread by his enemies. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the argument. So, how is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to be selfless and focused on their duty to society working out for you?

I come from Sweden and would say it worked great until '86 or so.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#402

Post by nobody9999 »

dleslie wrote: post #373
Cider9986 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, just because 99% of cryptocurrencies are a scam doesn't mean that crypto as a whole is a scam.

Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? I can think of nothing.

>Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world?

>I can think of nothing.

Buying/selling drugs, weapons, hiding bribes/extortion transactions, pretty much anything that the issuers of said fiat currencies would put you in a cage for doing.

That's not to say that fiat currencies aren't also used for such things, but relatively untraceable coins like monero make it easier to do those things across large distances, while fiat currencies need to be physically exchanged.

Addenda: Replying here to Cider9986's (now dead) reply[0[ to the above, where they said:

   So Signal or Tor is only useful for criminals? Privacy is 
   a human right, financial privacy is no exception. 1000s 
   of legal service accept Monero.

   Buy Italian cheese with XMR (https://xmrbazaar.com/listing/LJ4F/)
I'll ask you, where exactly did I say anything about Signal or Tor (I use both, BTW, as well as using monero for the stuff for which it's useful -- to pay for my VPN subscription, among other things)? In fact, I didn't mention either at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

As for your Italian cheese link, GP asked "Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world?"

Am I unable to purchase Italian cheese with fiat currency? What additional value is there using Monero to purchase such cheese rather than fiat currency?

I'd also point out that since you replied to me, I cannot mod you down, nor would I have done so if I was able. That said, you're not making a very good argument for monero by railing at (really bad) strawmen, especially since I think monero is a good thing, because governments love to put people in cages for really stupid reasons.

Not sure why you're so bitter/angry, but it might help to talk to someone.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48101518

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#403

Post by dleslie »

Cider9986 wrote: post #400
dleslie wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? I can think of nothing.

Monero gives people the ability to transact privately online. Privacy is a human right; therefore, through the technical innovation of private cryptocurrency, Monero allows individuals to exercise this right, adding value to the world. Please look into Monero and try to understand privacy activist's, marginalized peoples', and my point of view. You don't have nitpick, you can accept this one cryptocurrency as having…

Monero is only as private as its entry and exit wallets and the availability of the appropriate keys.

This can be done with cash delivered via post with no return address. Observers cannot know who sent the money or even that the receiver is getting money without opening their mail. The sender remains anonymous regardless.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#404

Post by Cider9986 »

dleslie wrote: post #403
Cider9986 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monero gives people the ability to transact privately online. Privacy is a human right; therefore, through the technical innovation of private cryptocurrency, Monero allows individuals to exercise this right, adding value to the world. Please look into Monero and try to understand privacy activist's, marginalized peoples', and my point of view. You don't have nitpick, you can accept this one cryptocurrency as having…

Monero is only as private as its entry and exit wallets and the availability of the appropriate keys. This can be done with cash delivered via post with no return address. Observers cannot know who sent the money or even that the receiver is getting money without opening their mail. The sender remains anonymous regardless.

You aren't replying to my post, you are changing the subject.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#405

Post by Cider9986 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #402
dleslie wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? I can think of nothing.

>Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? >I can think of nothing. Buying/selling drugs, weapons, hiding bribes/extortion transactions, pretty much anything that the issuers of said fiat currencies would put you in a cage for doing. That's not to say that fiat currencies aren't also used for such things, but relatively untraceable coins like monero m…

[dead]

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#406

Post by Cider9986 »

dleslie wrote: post #403
Cider9986 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monero gives people the ability to transact privately online. Privacy is a human right; therefore, through the technical innovation of private cryptocurrency, Monero allows individuals to exercise this right, adding value to the world. Please look into Monero and try to understand privacy activist's, marginalized peoples', and my point of view. You don't have nitpick, you can accept this one cryptocurrency as having…

Monero is only as private as its entry and exit wallets and the availability of the appropriate keys. This can be done with cash delivered via post with no return address. Observers cannot know who sent the money or even that the receiver is getting money without opening their mail. The sender remains anonymous regardless.

Anyway, we can compare cash to Monero. I'm not sure why some people here are obsessed with cash. I like cash too, it has some advantages any digital payment solution in general, but it's not more anonymous than Monero. It's not as easy to use as Monero, it's not as secure as Monero, and it's much more centralized than Monero.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#407

Post by bit-anarchist »

Arainach wrote: post #387
txrx0000 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world I'm describing is one where anyone, rich and poor, can say whatever they want without being silenced or persecuted, without fear. People with more resources will have the means to make themselves louder in public as they do now, but unlike the situation we have right now, they will not be able to monitor other people's private conversations, nor can they censor and compell other people's speech. That's a wo…

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. > The loudest ones are not aligned with eachother. Their efforts to influence public opinion will neutralize eachother, and none of them can gain moderating power over the platform because the platform is just protocols This does not match reality. Those with money and power DO have…

> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

The solution, presuming said law to be fair, is to make a world where no one has to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and steal their bread. Not getting rid of the rule of law. Of course, that presumes said law to be fair (aside from the last part, it isn't).

> Those with money and power DO have a lot of goals that are aligned with each other. They're not incompetent, and they understand the power of collusion.

Most people share goals, understand the benefits of collaboration, and exploitable conflicts still arise. The problem isn't caused by a lack of shared goals, but the presence of conflicting ones. Even just one can inhibit collaboration and induce sabotage. After all, there is no long-term collaboration to be had if your goals are mutually exclusive.

Also, it think it bears reminding that the alternative, regulation, is enforced through a powerful corporation that is structurally much harder to hold accountable (despite best efforts, although it was always a non-starter), the state.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#408

Post by jkwn »

mindslight wrote: post #121
lampiaio wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article was interesting to read not necessarily as a generative spark but as a datapoint, a symptom of how effective, in the long run, the response from those who saw the internet as a threat was. Only someone who's lost the plot (or arrived late) would summarily conflate Barlow's 1996 Declaration with "one of those sovereign citizen TikToks where someone in traffic court is claiming diplomatic immunity under mar…

Could you please keep going? Maybe I'm just old, tired, and have other responsibilities, but things are feeling pretty bleak these days. Google is back to pushing remote attestation (ie WEI), Apple has already had it for quite some time. "AI" is a great Schelling point excuse for capital structures to collude rather than compete, whether it's demanding identification / "system integrity" (aka computational disenfranc…

I am also old, tired, and have too many responsibilities, and so are most of the people posting here (or at least they are tired of the bleakness).

The millennials are also likewise tired of AI and corporate fascism. I think they are smarter than our generation. So there's a sliver of a silver lining.

But as to what can be done about it is another matter. Besides "butlerian jihad" the only way I see is by voting with our feet, since ballots don't seem to matter.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#409

Post by bit-anarchist »

Certhas wrote: post #359
Arainach wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anyone can try to push public opinion in a specific direction, but someone else will simply go the opposite way. There would be no moderator or algorithm to artificially boost one type of noise over another, so we would actually get a less corrupted feed that accurately represents what people are thinking because the noise cancels eachother out This has never been true and never will be. Entities with more resource…

This is so blindingly obvious just by looking at what is happening... It's like the believe that markets are inherently efficient and we just need to get rid of all the government interference that distorts the free market. There is no evidence for it, the theoretical argument is so flimsy it falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, the various ways in which markets are inefficient are several entire subfield of eco…

The belief isn't unjustified though. One of the defining elements of a government is aggression. Spending resources to force someone (specially with violence) to something is more wasteful than if they were to do it by themselves. Furthermore, most, if not all, cited inefficiencies are linked somewhere to distortions created by government action.

That being said, I do agree that there's a dangerous apathy about how the free markets work. The free market, being the product of voluntary action, is anything but automatic.

But I don't see how that is a scapegoating mechanism for "anything you don't like". Anymore than apathy is, at least. I see human rights (specially the right to live and private ownership) being used as scapegoats much more often.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#410

Post by array_key_first »

oersted wrote: post #48
wiseowise wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A substantial majority of all human beings have a magic screen in their pocket that lets them look up any information they're interested in or contact anyone on the planet who they'd like to talk to. How can you possibly look at the world as it exists today and not conclude that technology has radically changed our lives for the better? And substantial majority of them spend half of their waking time staring at Tik…

I'm sorry, but there are so many alternatives to spending your time on TikTok, more than ever, and more accessible than ever. Perhaps people do want to spend their time on TikTok, that's what freedom is. It is certainly addictive by design, but it's not magic, it is addictive exactly because it's giving you what you want. We got so much of what we wanted, that was the goal and we are achieving it. Of course, getting…

Of course people want to spent their time on tiktok. People want to smoke, too. Have you tried smoking? It's the best. It's like your whole life you've been standing, and you just sat down.

We didn't really get much of anything we wanted. The Internet is, really, like... 12 companies? Maybe? I'm being generous, for most people it's much less. Media is just as concentrated and corporate as ever, arguably more. Censorship is the worst it's been in a while, I mean you can't even say "kill" on tiktok. Have you heard young people talk? They have their own new PC language, it's weird. Democracy is dying, not just in the US but across the entire west. Misinformation and lies dominate all communication. Fascism is rising like it's the early 20th century. And nobody is better educated. Allllll this information and everyone is still dumb as rocks.

Post reply on HN