Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Post-American Internet

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 479 posts

Re: The Post-American Internet

#411

Post by worik »

mapt wrote: post #333
twixfel wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We ought to avoid repeating your mistakes, no? Maybe unlimited campaign donations and so on, all this wonderful "American free speech (money = speech)" is a fundamentally bad idea. Worked exceedingly well for ~225 years, now it has lead to the implosion of the empire by electing a sociopathic retard to the presidency. Yes to free speech, no to whatever fucked up shit the US, its billionaire "libertarians" and Christi…

The American political system didn't implode until its system of capitalism had the conditions necessary to escape its popular control. That wasn't necessarily an eventuality. We had a semi-functional campaign finance system in living memory. Without the protections the Americans tried to shove into the First Amendment (which did not include anything about corporations at the time, as they did not exist) being enshri…

The USAnian system imploded dreadfully in 1861

It came very close in the 1930s, it is arguable that the New Deal headed off revolution

The USA should have been considered a pariah state since the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, now it is rapidly becoming one

The USAnian system has been a corrupt oligarchy with only trappings of democracy since it's inception. Those "trappings" run deep, but are not allowed to unseat the true source of power: money

The Founding Fathers [sic] gave that a lot of thought and worked very hard to make it that way from the very beginning

Re: The Post-American Internet

#412

Post by worik »

u_sama wrote: post #137
Quothling wrote: post #4

I've spent a couple of decades in the Danish public sector of digitalisation and in the private sector for global green energy. 10 years ago people would've laughed if you talked about leaving Microsoft and iOS in enterprise. Now we all have contingency plans for just that, and a lot of organisations are already actually doing it. So I would argue that there is more of a crack, but I'm not sure the post-american inte…

>There is a saying about how us citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies. This is a Danish blindspot, Europeans do not trust their governments in large (France is fractured, Southern Europe has endemic corruption, Germany is increasingly authoritarian in order to keep heterodox parties out) and this is in part the source behind the flare up o…

> Germany is increasingly authoritarian in order to keep heterodox parties out

Please explain?

The Greens are doing well, and certainly are hetrodox.

Do you mean "keep fascists out"?

Or do you mean something else?

Re: The Post-American Internet

#413

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

acdha wrote: post #369
chkchk wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes that all Americans support the actions of the current administration. I know of no one that supports these actions.

> That assumes that all Americans support the actions of the current administration This is making the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do. If you’re, say, a Dane wondering if it’s safe to use Windows, iOS, or Chrome, you don’t care about a hundred million Democrats think but instead can only go by what you think the people in p…

> the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do

That's not really a "mistake", though; that distinction exists and is important. I'd posit that the comment which reads "Americans are not an ally" should instead read "America is not an ally". The interpretation that they are talking about the American people is correct, from a literal reading. I suspect they intended to specify the American government ("America") rather than the American people ("Americans"), which makes the meaning more reasonable (IMO, of course). I agree with the rest of what you wrote; indeed, Satya, Sundar, and Tim both strongly influence and are strongly influenced by the government in question.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#414

Post by acdha »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #413
acdha wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That assumes that all Americans support the actions of the current administration This is making the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do. If you’re, say, a Dane wondering if it’s safe to use Windows, iOS, or Chrome, you don’t care about a hundred million Democrats think but instead can only go by what you think the people in p…

> the mistake of trying to distinguish between what individual voters want and what the American government and large businesses do That's not really a "mistake", though; that distinction exists and is important. I'd posit that the comment which reads "Americans are not an ally" should instead read "America is not an ally". The interpretation that they are talking about the American people is correct, from a literal…

Sure, I was thinking mistake as in using “Americans” vaguely to refer to both three hundred million people or the much smaller number of people who make things people outside of the United States depend on. Neither one is wrong but it’s easy to think you’re talking about the same thing when you aren’t.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#415

Post by exceptione »

postexitus wrote: post #359
exceptione wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox. It seems you define liberal in a rigid way. What I tried to convey is that for any Tolerance to exist, it has room to tolerate anything except Anti-Tolerance, as part of its essence . Paradox isn't a contradiction ("you are no longer liberal"), it is something that might seem like a contradiction. But maybe we agree about that and my wording was confusing.

Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal". A dilemma is a hard choice. A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it,…

(Ok, I think the confusion is due to how English has used this french word for centuries, but since early 20th century gave it a new meaning. English Wikipedia redefines it from "seemingly absurd yet really true" to a shallow form, erasing doxa, thus only keeping a contradiction as defined in formal Logic.)

My point is that Anti-Intolerance is the essence of Tolerance, not something outside of it.

  > , the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
I understand. Discussion about that should be part of a healthy society, between conformant players that respect the public democratic order. Knowing the paradox is the anti-dote against the players seeking to destroy this shared system, those that do not respect democratic boundaries, they like to play the game of taking a principle, coming up with something absurd, declaring that the principle should be understood as rigid, all to declare that the principle does not exist. Because for the few to take advantage, the many have to give up their common values.

That is the big rift. And that is why I want to give this tool to the online HN reader, because the learned Rigid Beliefs only serve to destroy common principles needed for a just society. (Especially in the US context, where boolean thinking is imho very prevalent, which I see as the fruits of political marketing.) People reading about the Paradox might get some proper mind frame for the first time to escape the nihilist narratives.

  > When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
When you discriminate against people not born here, I would ask: why?

  a) Are people born here disadvantaged and do you bring balance, or
  b) Do you think citizens not born here are less worthy than
     those who are?
In the case of (a), I can see how you could propose that. There might be a discussion about equal outcome or equal chance. You have a democracy and public healthy debate, you share a common society. I propose you have a debate and vote for it.

In the case of (b), this would not be a discussion in my country as the constitution stipulates that everyone being in this country will be treated equally in the same circumstances, reasoning from "equal value". There is also the declaration of Human Rights. So I would say it puts a real burden on the proponent to defend why seeking inequality at the detriment of a group is justified.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#416

Post by nec4b »

zwnow wrote: post #391
nec4b wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, should we tell the BBC and Wikipedia to remove all these entries then: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2dz7r708dxo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_truck_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_E...

You are aware that these are individual cases right? How many crimes do Germans commit that aren't blown up in the media? Are you this retarded?

You have a weird sense of humanity if any of the attached links make you feel they were overblown. Why should Germans import all that necessary extra death and trauma when they have enough of their own?

>> Are you this retarded?

You win!

Re: The Post-American Internet

#417

Post by exceptione »

iamnothere wrote: post #403
postexitus wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal". A dilemma is a hard choice. A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it,…

Exactly, Popper recognized that the paradox was not a rule or even a suggestion, but was rather a problem without a clear solution. That’s why he named it as such. Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of…

See my other reply to parent

  > These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
Important, glad you mention that. The Paradox of Tolerance gives people a tool to free themselves from rigid beliefs that ultimately push people to give up rights. People are way more united if they can see each other unmediated. They share principles! Guided by these a healthy debate and democratic process is possible. Revisiting decisions as well when society progresses.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#418

Post by ben_w »

drstewart wrote: post #158
ben_w wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A judge making a ruling to listen to a case, issuing arrest warrants so those cases can proceed (arrest does not mean proven guilty!), is not supposed to be a valid target.

Great, then when American judges rule that Maduro is a valid arrest target, then no one in the EU can complain.

The equivalent here would be if that American judge was sanctioned by the EU for issuing the arrest warrant for Maduro. Or would be, if Venezuela was an ally of the EU.

That Maduro was a head of state and still subject to an extraordinary rendition means that now the EU has to worry about EU heads of state being violently extradited to the USA. Not because anyone in the EU cares about Maduro himself, but because the US has signalled by doing this that they don't care about the old rules.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#419

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

fsflover wrote: post #385
BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a problem of Android but of the hardware and funnily enough much of that is not produced in the US. I think we could cobble together a working phone in a short time and iterate upon that if it is necessary. Hardware has advanced sufficiently that we don't need the latest greatest to have an okay experience.

> I think we could cobble together a working phone in a short time and iterate upon that if it is necessary. You drastically underestimate how complicated it will be. Here is one attempt: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/

I am 6alking about creating the hardware of the need should arise. Of course it will not be comparable.

Re: The Post-American Internet

#420

Post by pentagrama »

ExtraRoulette wrote: post #324
pentagrama wrote: post #274

Reading this from South America, there is another layer that often gets lost in US-centric discussions like this. For many people here, the move away from US platforms is not primarily about surveillance, product quality, or even conscious digital sovereignty in the European sense. It is more visceral and historical. There is a long-standing anti-US sentiment rooted in decades of interventionism in Latin America. For…

There's a great podcast (That's now in it's second season) that discusses US intervention in Latin America called "Under The Shadow", by Michael Fox.

Thank you. Will check it out. Here is the link if it helps to other readers https://therealnews.com/under-the-shadow
Post reply on HN