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

411–418 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#411

Post by dleslie »

Cider9986 wrote: post #406
dleslie wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cash is more private than Monero. It is possible to engage in untraceable transactions through drop sites and post, whereas Monero wallets can reveal transaction participants when view keys are available.

I don't need to connect to any network to exchange cash, or engage in mathematical backflips to convince the network to accept my transaction. That makes it more decentralized and more fault tolerant.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#412

Post by pstuart »

Lerc wrote: post #259
pstuart wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was commenting about "cyberlibertarianism" -- which is actively embraced and promoted by SV technocrats. Yarvin very much is a public figure in this area, but it's not about him specifically, it's the Web3 gang that wants to replace democracy with their shiny toys. Put it on the blockchain, problem solved!

Jeffery Epstein was a very prominent financier, but if you pointed to him as an example of a financier I would suspect you are doing so due to properties that are not intrinsic to being a financier. I think you are doing this with Yarvin, unless you truly believe that cyber libertarianism can only ever be supported by far-right racists. It's a classic Hitler was a vegetarian argument.

[flagged]

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#413

Post by pstuart »

artyom wrote: post #176

Look, I agree with a good part of this article. I also agree that the whole "unregulated internet" is terrible for humankind in general. Crypto is a scam. Meta should be, plain and simple, shut down. Twitter is a madhouse. The list is endless. However, every single time I feel like stricter regulation should be in place, a congressman speaks about "servers"... and yeah, maybe not.

I agree wholeheartedly.

There's an innate tension between "freedom of speech" and "weaponized misinformation".

I think Karl Popper’s "paradox of tolerance" needs to be front and center in this discussion -- as it's playing out as predicted: free speech is embraced by those who are empowered by it, who then clamp down on free speech to suppress dissent.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administr...

All the noise from the "absolute free-speech" folk who wanted to promote their conspiracy theories and hate speech are notably quiet now. And ironically, their "free speech" rants were not First Amendment issues as they were complaining about being platformed by private parties.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#414

Post by roenxi »

happytoexplain wrote: post #358
roenxi wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The Luddites were rational and correct.

Probably. But not helpful.

Being rational and correct is a low bar, it is likely that all sides of any given debate a rational and correct to some extent. Someone dumping their entire life savings into a casino can be said to be rational and correct if the person doing it genuinely prioritises short term pleasure enough - still a stupid thing to do.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#415

Post by pdonis »

danaris wrote: post #301
pdonis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market winning solution, of course, is to put THE entire music library, all of it, everyone's, in the cloud and get to it from any device anywhere. Not in a free market (which is part of "libertarian ideals", or at least it's supposed to be). In a free market, there is no single "solution"--there are whatever solutions people are willing to pay more than they cost for. If you want your music in the cloud, and y…

But in real life, any time you have "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations", you will inevitably end up with a very un-free market, by the definition of "lots of choice for the consumer, healthy competition". And far, far too many self-proclaimed libertarians think that any regulations that "encumber" the market take it farther away from being "free", when in fact, there are regulations that…

> "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations"

There is no such thing.

A free market is a market in which all transactions are voluntary. That means the market is regulated by the voluntary choices of all of its participants. And since people won't voluntarily choose to make a trade that doesn't benefit them, a free market will be dominated by win-win, positive sum trades. That's how wealth is created.

It's true that a market can also be regulated by a government. Any such regulation will either force people to make trades they wouldn't otherwise choose to make--which means they are worse off--or will prevent people from making trades they otherwise would choose to make--which means they are worse off.

> far too many self-proclaimed libertarians think that any regulations that "encumber" the market take it farther away from being "free"

No, libertarians think that regulations that come from anything other than the voluntary choices of market participants make us worse off. The logic is simple: I just gave it above.

> there are regulations that help and regulations that harm

Please give a specific example of a government regulation that has helped, as compared with a free market regulated by the voluntary choices of all of its participants.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#416

Post by pdonis »

ajross wrote: post #341
danaris wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in real life, any time you have "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations", you will inevitably end up with a very un-free market, by the definition of "lots of choice for the consumer, healthy competition". And far, far too many self-proclaimed libertarians think that any regulations that "encumber" the market take it farther away from being "free", when in fact, there are regulations that…

Exactly. My point sort of the converse: that the upthread comment reflected a set of values that, while grounded in "cyberlibertarian" thought, do not reflect actual market value as measured by an actual market. The libertarians tend to think simultaneously that "The Right to Pursue my Niche Ideas" and "The Supremacy of the Market" are related concepts, and they emphatically aren't. And in particular that the former…

> do not reflect actual market value as measured by an actual market.

How does the fact that you can have your music in the cloud, and pay a fair price for that, and I can have my music locally on a USB stick, and pay a fair price for that, not reflect "actual market value as measured by an actual market"?

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure which "libertarians" you're talking about.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#417

Post by Cider9986 »

dleslie wrote: post #411
Cider9986 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cash is more private than Monero. It is possible to engage in untraceable transactions through drop sites and post, whereas Monero wallets can reveal transaction participants when view keys are available. I don't need to connect to any network to exchange cash, or engage in mathematical backflips to convince the network to accept my transaction. That makes it more decentralized and more fault tolerant.

[flagged]

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#418

Post by Cider9986 »

dleslie wrote: post #411
Cider9986 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cash is more private than Monero. It is possible to engage in untraceable transactions through drop sites and post, whereas Monero wallets can reveal transaction participants when view keys are available. I don't need to connect to any network to exchange cash, or engage in mathematical backflips to convince the network to accept my transaction. That makes it more decentralized and more fault tolerant.

[dead]
Post reply on HN