5 ms·

This is genius in that it starts by seeming to be a portentous talk about the evil other and turns the tables to show that the enemy may be us: How do we let o

This is genius in that it starts by seeming to be a portentous talk about the evil other and turns the tables to show that the enemy may be us: How do we let ourselves be robots? Do we really like social control? Why do we expect the technology that got us into these problems to get us out of it. I don't think we are really in a terrible place. In so many ways the world is better than it was. But we are kind of blind to the problems we are creating. Read this.

psyc 10y ago
There's no "we" about it. Broadly, there are people who like having social control, people who like feeling that others are under control, and people who don't like control.
- PakG1 10y ago
  There is a fourth set: people who like being under control if their lives are acceptably happy, comfortable, and secure.
  - olewhalehunter 10y ago
    That's just the second group. The standards and perceptions of what is deemed comfortable, secure, or happy is itself a determinate of social control.
    - PakG1 10y ago
      To be technical, that'd be the second group if it was phrased as "people who like feeling that others are in control", using the word "in" instead of "under".
- helloasdfasdf 10y ago
  I believe there is another group: People who like control, when everyone involved understands and agrees with it. It can be very hard, and it involves a consistent questioning of authority. Including the authority of ourselves, and the authority we hold over others. We can have modern medicine, but we have to trust the people researching it. We can have modern robots, but we have to trust the people building them. Fear is a great way to prevent people from questioning. But if we learn to question our fear itself, it can be useful to have been afraid.
zigzigzag 10y ago
I don't think we're blind to the problems being created. It's more that there are no obvious solutions beyond stasis, which is no real solution as it just fixes us with today's set of problems instead of tomorrow's. I like Maciej's talks, they're always entertaining, but at the end of them I always feel not quite satisfied. He is good at presenting well known problems in amusing ways but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague (like "we should all think about stuff more"). He is also utterly resistant to giving large companies any credit at all. Google and Facebook have moved the needle on strong cryptography and anti-surveillance tools more than any other groups, but in these talks they're always the bad guys because they make money through advertising instead of credit cards (which are legally linked to your real name and address: far far worse for privacy than ads). A big part of this talk boils down to, the US Government can order American companies to undo any protections they themselves create. But this is hardly worth commenting on. It is a political problem and the only solution is for political candidates to appear that manage to appeal to large numbers of voters whilst simultaneously being strong on civil rights and shutting down surveillance systems. Neither Clinton nor Trump seem very likely to do that, but nor did any other candidates. The issue matters to people but it matters a lot less than other issues.
- coolgeek 10y ago
  > He is good at presenting well known problems Raising awareness is important - and urgent - work. These problems are not "well known" outside of the HN/tech bubble. > in amusing ways Also important, as it is much more memorable than the exhaustive clinical delineation offered by (e.g.) Pro Publica > but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague If you don't have a solution to what you see as a critical problem, do you wllow in despair? Or do you raise awareness of the problem in the hope that, individually or collectively, others will devise solutions?
- idlewords 10y ago
  I feel like this is a fair criticism of my talks. There are two point I would dispute. First, I do give large tech companies (and the NSA!) credit for being internally heterogeneous, and doing good things along with bad. Second, it would be ridiculous to give Facebook or Google credit for making anti-surveillance tools. That would be like praising tobacco companies for inventing a better cigarette filter.

psyc 10y ago

There's no "we" about it. Broadly, there are people who like having social control, people who like feeling that others are under control, and people who don't like control.

PakG1 10y ago
There is a fourth set: people who like being under control if their lives are acceptably happy, comfortable, and secure.
- olewhalehunter 10y ago
  That's just the second group. The standards and perceptions of what is deemed comfortable, secure, or happy is itself a determinate of social control.
  - PakG1 10y ago
    To be technical, that'd be the second group if it was phrased as "people who like feeling that others are in control", using the word "in" instead of "under".
helloasdfasdf 10y ago
I believe there is another group: People who like control, when everyone involved understands and agrees with it. It can be very hard, and it involves a consistent questioning of authority. Including the authority of ourselves, and the authority we hold over others. We can have modern medicine, but we have to trust the people researching it. We can have modern robots, but we have to trust the people building them. Fear is a great way to prevent people from questioning. But if we learn to question our fear itself, it can be useful to have been afraid.

zigzigzag 10y ago

I don't think we're blind to the problems being created. It's more that there are no obvious solutions beyond stasis, which is no real solution as it just fixes us with today's set of problems instead of tomorrow's. I like Maciej's talks, they're always entertaining, but at the end of them I always feel not quite satisfied. He is good at presenting well known problems in amusing ways but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague (like "we should all think about stuff more"). He is also utterly resistant to giving large companies any credit at all. Google and Facebook have moved the needle on strong cryptography and anti-surveillance tools more than any other groups, but in these talks they're always the bad guys because they make money through advertising instead of credit cards (which are legally linked to your real name and address: far far worse for privacy than ads). A big part of this talk boils down to, the US Government can order American companies to undo any protections they themselves create. But this is hardly worth commenting on. It is a political problem and the only solution is for political candidates to appear that manage to appeal to large numbers of voters whilst simultaneously being strong on civil rights and shutting down surveillance systems. Neither Clinton nor Trump seem very likely to do that, but nor did any other candidates. The issue matters to people but it matters a lot less than other issues.

coolgeek 10y ago
> He is good at presenting well known problems Raising awareness is important - and urgent - work. These problems are not "well known" outside of the HN/tech bubble. > in amusing ways Also important, as it is much more memorable than the exhaustive clinical delineation offered by (e.g.) Pro Publica > but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague If you don't have a solution to what you see as a critical problem, do you wllow in despair? Or do you raise awareness of the problem in the hope that, individually or collectively, others will devise solutions?
idlewords 10y ago
I feel like this is a fair criticism of my talks. There are two point I would dispute. First, I do give large tech companies (and the NSA!) credit for being internally heterogeneous, and doing good things along with bad. Second, it would be ridiculous to give Facebook or Google credit for making anti-surveillance tools. That would be like praising tobacco companies for inventing a better cigarette filter.