9 ms·

Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons

132 points by HurrdurrHodor 10y ago

MrZongle2 10y ago
FTA: "Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us build a world without kings." I'd also submit that even if you trust Zuckerberg to be a benevolent king, he won't be king forever. He may grow bored of Facebook and move on, have an untimely accident or a poor diagnosis...these are all events that can put all things Facebook in the hands of somebody far less (presumably) benevolent. Imagine it in the hands of a Larry Ellison. Or Martin Shkreli. Or Keith Alexander. Or Dick Cheney, if you will.
- hourislate 10y ago
  All those you listed are Saints compared to Mark who is one of the most dangerous men in the world. facebook needs to be torn down. It is a toxic apparatus, being used against the population. Just saying.
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    I think you are overreacting. Mark is just the last incarnation of people that scratched the social itch. If Facebook failed, we'd still have G+ or MySpace. At this point, he seems like an inevitability.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    Well, don't count me among those who trust Zuck. I stopped using Facebook years ago when I opened my eyes to what a massive intelligence-gathering operation it is. And the names I listed are just examples; my point remains that one cannot predict who will hold the reins in the future. We can debate how much of a monster Zuckerberg may be, but I'm convinced that there can be somebody much worse in charge. I think the most productive thing most of us can do in the short term is to convince everyone we know to stop using that platform.
zekkius 10y ago
I appreciate Aral's general issues with Facebook. Privacy rights in the digital age are issues we face not just with SV, but with every corporation we interact with. I appreciate the EU's interest in this sphere and I worry the rights of US citizens will be co-opted by corporate lobbying, not to mention other parts of the world.
- Tharkun 10y ago
  The EU's interest in this sphere is bizarre to say the least. It's very much a fan of surveillance. It pays lipservice to privacy, while actively engaging in dragnet surveillance.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    The EU believes in people's privacy from corporations, and even from foreign (non-EU) governments. Just not from themselves.
__jal 10y ago
A righteous rant.
65827 10y ago
We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments. Like we all knew this was an option of where we were going but to see it actually happening is kind of surreal.
- overcast 10y ago
  I'm already expecting Facebook to announce their Metal Gear project.
- xenihn 10y ago
  Just wait until those private armies start to fight each other.
- decebalus1 10y ago
  > (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) Source? I agree with your ideas overall but I'm genuinely interested in this aspect.
  - Someone1234 10y ago
    There's some details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/facebook-spent-12-5-million-to-protect-zuckerberg-since-2013 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/facebook-... I think calling four full time guards a "small private army" is a little hyperbolic, but it is safe to say he is heavily protected.
    - 3pt14159 10y ago
      Kinda BS, to be honest. The CEO of Canada Goose Jackets has full time protection. If you're worth a lot of money you need to be careful with your security.
    - unhinged_wanker 10y ago
kelvin0 10y ago
Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda. Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.
- bresc 10y ago
  It's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything. So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that the once/few in charge right now do the right thing. But it's not up to the masses and it has never been.
  - kelvin0 10y ago
    If everyone stopped using FB (not saying they should), what do you think would happen? As individuals we have a choice in certain actions and their impacts. I agree with you that having an opinion on everything and boycotting this and that can lead down a rabbit hole ... but we did bring this upon 'ourselves'. (I am not a FB user, but I do respect peoples use of it)
    - eropple 10y ago
      If "everyone" did something, we'd have all the unicorn hides we could ever want. Expecting "everyone" to do anything is silly and is frequently used--not saying you are, but it's a thing that happens--to delegitimize concerns by whatabouting them to death.
      - kelvin0 10y ago
        OK, here's my last stab at making this small point: The only reason FB is successful is because 'we' CHOOSE to use it. No one is coercing FB users physically into it's usage. Thus, once we acknowledge this simple fact, we can also CHOOSE not to use it anymore. That's the core of my point I tried to make originally. Thanks for your patience and feedback.
unicornporn 10y ago
Let me recommend Carr's take on the manifest: http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651 http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651
Ygg2 10y ago
Preface: I might be too influenced by Adam Curtis. But what I find most interesting about this reply/rant, is that it - like most of left, always seems to envision a world without power. And you can't confront entrenched power, without seizing power, and using it to transform society.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  It's worse than that. Fundamentally, the problem is that people are not angels. The left recognizes, correctly, that the people in power - the leaders - are not angels. So the left wants them gone - wants there to be nobody in power. The problem is that the people who are not in power also are not angels. Left to themselves, a fair number of them will find ways to harm (economically or even physically) people around them. They need someone with power to restrain them. But then you're back to having people in power, and they're not angels...
  - Ygg2 10y ago
    People might not be angels, but they aren't devils either. The way I see it, left doesn't want people to have power. So it limits politician's power. And then, the financial/corporate interest seize all powers, and use it as they will.
    - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
      Funny thing is: corporations really don't have ANY power. If the government doesn't like a corporation, they can simply pull the corporate charter. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, allowed by law. There are some tortured legal arguments that it becomes "personal property" which can not be deprived without due-process - and in practice, this simply is never done anymore. But any legal fiction can be simply signed-away into non-existence. There is no technical reason this can't happen. In theory. The problem is, there is no political will to ever actually do it, even when it's necessary. Our entire facade of legality rests on political willpower.
  - bordercases 10y ago
sandworm101 10y ago
Am i the only one here that doesnt use facebook? I think i logged in once eight or so years ago. My clients dont use it. My friends do ... well did. But it was never an issue. My students avoid it due to the "creep factor". I still live life via email and telephone and that isnt unussual. Even my tech clients, some in downtown SF, expect email to be the norm. So when I see zuck going on about revolutions I have to wonder where he gets his information. Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the planet uses his website for everyday tasks? That's marketing spin. I think reality is much more humble.
- Tharkun 10y ago
  > Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the planet uses his website? Yes. Because it's true. Facebook has more than a BILLION active users. Let that sink in for a minute.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    So, even accepting that (i dont) the vast magority of the planet do not use facebook. How many use telephones? How many use email?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      What does it matter? A large percentage doesn't mean more than 50%, or more than competing services. And remember that those are just systems, not single companies. Frankly, if something I made had reached even 5% of the whole human population, I'd consider that freaking huge! Hell, I can't even imagine what it's like to have that much influence. Don't get me wrong: I dislike FB too, I don't use it, and I lobby against it when it comes up. But it is, unfortunately, rather big.
  - floathub 10y ago
    But do they? Do they really? I once setup a facebook account for a company (I have never had a personal account). They send that account an e-mail every day (and an SMS). Every day. If I had the e-mail account set to actually load images in the text of the e-mail, would they count those logged hits as an "active user". I suspect (albeit with no actual concrete evidence) that their "user" numbers are significantly over stated via mechanisms such as this.
rdtsc 10y ago
I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is rather ironic that the new "left" love them globalization all of the sudden, even when their younger brothers were tear-gassed protesting it, just a decade ago or so protesting against it. (More discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 along with a promising book on the subject, 'The Technological Society' by Jacques Ellul suggested by Drumlin. Still waiting for it to come from Amazon)
- devoply 10y ago
  Think of the poor and how much they have been helped by the globalization of the world is how they were won over. See how many people we've lifted out of poverty because of globalization.
  - Oxitendwe 10y ago
    That's not really something people typically argue against when criticizing globalization - the issue is that these people are often helped at the expense of citizens of other countries that pursue a globalist agenda, and that people believe their government has a duty to protect the interests of its citizens above all others.
    - devoply 10y ago
      The countries don't pursue globalist agendas. Their corporations do. And they have benefited immensely because of that. The poor being helped is just a side-effect of that. In the end they care about profits, the side effects are irrelevant to them. It's just a peripheral side effect used for its marketing value, to turn the attention away from self-interest of the people negatively impacted.
- 10y ago
billiam 10y ago
When will the Bond villains that run the largest tech companies realize that they can't own the Internet? Zuckerberg, your algorithms turned half my relatives into crazy Trump supporters that don't talk to the other half, is that your idea of bringing families together?
supernumerary 10y ago
I like this idea of technical organs, that are enmeshed with notions of self-hood. Another person who has been talking in this way is the philosopher Bernard Steigler, he uses this term 'general organology' in an attempt to rehabilitate our technological entanglements from the skeptical cul-de-sac demonstrated by the OP and supported by most recent philosophy (e.g. Adorno, Debord, although crucially not Walter Benjamin) Although I am sure he would be equally vitriolic about FB the general overview of Steigler's thought here is a neat compliment to the POV of the OP. http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-individuation-of-minds-bodies-social-organizations-and-techne/bernard-stiegler/ http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-individuati... I have corrupted this angle a little bit and tried to treat Facebook with kid gloves here: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...
breckinloggins 10y ago
This is what services like urbit are after. If you don't understand urbit, think of it as a step towards what this post is advocating. Whether they can escape from the gravity well of their own obfuscation is, however, another matter.
concinds 10y ago
The mainstream view is that for the world to be sustainable and stable, it needs to be more centralized and governed from the top. That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. It needs to be more functional, not more centralized. The NNTaleb view is that to be sustainable and stable, the world needs to be decentralized and antifragile. In other words: not 1 government, but 100 well designed, functional governments with small, local democratic governance. This seems necessary since societies are changing more rapidly, dealing with more problems and crises than before that just can't be effectively solved by bloated entities (see the EU), can't adapt quickly enough to various changes (see all the places in the US without fast internet), and aren't future-oriented enough because of inertia (see Singapore as a counterexample). It also seems more realistic than the article. Edit: I didn't expect this response to blow up, so let me address more of the article: 1) Completely disagree that technology is "part of us". Amazon isn't a part of me, just a company I shop at. The closest thing we have to "explants" are the platforms we use, like Facebook or WhatsApp. The article seems heavy on buzzwords and light on common-sense. Encrypted messaging is the best solution, to maintain freedom of communication and reduce corporations' influence. That only requires installing Signal or WhatsApp, not "creating a new world". 2) People are not "property". You are free to share what you want. Others are free, too. If you want to work (Naval-style) towards decentralized, encrypted platforms, that's a step in the right direction. Doesn't require buzzwords either. 3) It seems like the article's worldview is based in an even greater influence of technology over our lives (as if the author realized that technology isn't really part of us, but wanted to make it so). The personal cloud would be hosted by "individual organizations", but what makes you think that 1 or 2 orgs won't emerge on top, and cause the exact same problem again?
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  > That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it. I could just as easily say "decentralization and local governance don't work because the world is a complex system" and sound just as correct.
  - concinds 10y ago
gph 10y ago
Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think that's a good solution. But in reference to this quote: >The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance, filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of private infrastructure that poses as public space. That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. Certainly with facebook and social media it's changed the whole landscape, and perhaps made it worse given what happened during the last election. But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. If social media were outlawed tomorrow it might weaken filter bubbles, but a suburban upper middle class republican from Kansas is still going to be getting way different info and building a much different world view than a barista in Brooklyn would.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. I'm not sure the kinds of bubbles we have aren't brand new. The bubbles used to map pretty closely to geography and political structures. The bubbles now are oriented around where our information lives, not where we physically are. Also, I think you're overstepping with 'panacea'. I don't think anyone who believes in decentralized life thinks universal panaceas even necessarily exist. But it can still be true that central planning has displaced local living without fulfilling all the same purposes. And if so, the result could be a net negative.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. It doesn't need to be entirely fixed. There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that the "private infrastructure posing as public space" is a real and serious problem. When all complaints of censorship/manipulation/etc on a social media site of any reasonable size is thoughtlessly brushed aside with "their site, their rules", that is a very unhealthy environment being created.
bordercases 10y ago
Heartening to see this on HN.
m-j-fox 10y ago
What's boring here is there's no suggestion as to how this utopia of digital parks can come to be. Even if we have the resources to invest in development and operations, who without a profit motive, will devise the marketing campaign for privacy and common good? This guy wants a world like Craigslist, but Airbnb already taught us that free and p2p is easily subsumed by slick and centralized. In BitTorrent and Usenet we've had great, free p2p media distribution for years. How does iTunes, Netflix and the rest compete? By doing all the evil, centralized, corporate stuff -- like advertising -- the pirates won't do because pirates have morals.
callmeed 10y ago
I feel like we're living in The Circle to some degree. I hadn't read Zuck's manifesto until now. I literally laughed out loud reading it. It makes me wonder if he ever actually looks at the news feeds regular people see. The reason I quit Facebook was precisely because its uninformed and non-inclusive. From what my wife tells me, nothing has changed. Like-minded people reinforce each other and people with conflicting viewpoints just argue. I hope Zuck at least has good intentions with his post and he's just slightly short-sighted.
onmobiletemp 10y ago
Im not sure what mark expects his user base to accomplish given that he believes they are "dumb fucks." I know people like mark so i know that he still thinks ordinary people are dumb fucks and that the only reason behind any action he takes is the advancement of his own position in life and business.
bordercases 10y ago
Uh. This is Urbit.

132 points by HurrdurrHodor 10y ago

FTA: "Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us build a world without kings." I'd also submit that even if you trust Zuckerberg to be a benevolent king, he won't be king forever. He may grow bored of Facebook and move on, have an untimely accident or a poor diagnosis...these are all events that can put all things Facebook in the hands of somebody far less (presumably) benevolent. Imagine it in the hands of a Larry Ellison. Or Martin Shkreli. Or Keith Alexander. Or Dick Cheney, if you will.

hourislate 10y ago
All those you listed are Saints compared to Mark who is one of the most dangerous men in the world. facebook needs to be torn down. It is a toxic apparatus, being used against the population. Just saying.
- Ygg2 10y ago
  I think you are overreacting. Mark is just the last incarnation of people that scratched the social itch. If Facebook failed, we'd still have G+ or MySpace. At this point, he seems like an inevitability.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  Well, don't count me among those who trust Zuck. I stopped using Facebook years ago when I opened my eyes to what a massive intelligence-gathering operation it is. And the names I listed are just examples; my point remains that one cannot predict who will hold the reins in the future. We can debate how much of a monster Zuckerberg may be, but I'm convinced that there can be somebody much worse in charge. I think the most productive thing most of us can do in the short term is to convince everyone we know to stop using that platform.

zekkius 10y ago

I appreciate Aral's general issues with Facebook. Privacy rights in the digital age are issues we face not just with SV, but with every corporation we interact with. I appreciate the EU's interest in this sphere and I worry the rights of US citizens will be co-opted by corporate lobbying, not to mention other parts of the world.

Tharkun 10y ago
The EU's interest in this sphere is bizarre to say the least. It's very much a fan of surveillance. It pays lipservice to privacy, while actively engaging in dragnet surveillance.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  The EU believes in people's privacy from corporations, and even from foreign (non-EU) governments. Just not from themselves.

__jal 10y ago

A righteous rant.

65827 10y ago

We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments. Like we all knew this was an option of where we were going but to see it actually happening is kind of surreal.

overcast 10y ago
I'm already expecting Facebook to announce their Metal Gear project.
xenihn 10y ago
Just wait until those private armies start to fight each other.
decebalus1 10y ago
> (Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy weaponry) Source? I agree with your ideas overall but I'm genuinely interested in this aspect.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  There's some details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/facebook-spent-12-5-million-to-protect-zuckerberg-since-2013 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-28/facebook-... I think calling four full time guards a "small private army" is a little hyperbolic, but it is safe to say he is heavily protected.
  - 3pt14159 10y ago
    Kinda BS, to be honest. The CEO of Canada Goose Jackets has full time protection. If you're worth a lot of money you need to be careful with your security.
  - unhinged_wanker 10y ago

kelvin0 10y ago

Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda. Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.

bresc 10y ago
It's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything. So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that the once/few in charge right now do the right thing. But it's not up to the masses and it has never been.
- kelvin0 10y ago
  If everyone stopped using FB (not saying they should), what do you think would happen? As individuals we have a choice in certain actions and their impacts. I agree with you that having an opinion on everything and boycotting this and that can lead down a rabbit hole ... but we did bring this upon 'ourselves'. (I am not a FB user, but I do respect peoples use of it)
  - eropple 10y ago
    If "everyone" did something, we'd have all the unicorn hides we could ever want. Expecting "everyone" to do anything is silly and is frequently used--not saying you are, but it's a thing that happens--to delegitimize concerns by whatabouting them to death.
    - kelvin0 10y ago
      OK, here's my last stab at making this small point: The only reason FB is successful is because 'we' CHOOSE to use it. No one is coercing FB users physically into it's usage. Thus, once we acknowledge this simple fact, we can also CHOOSE not to use it anymore. That's the core of my point I tried to make originally. Thanks for your patience and feedback.

unicornporn 10y ago

Let me recommend Carr's take on the manifest: http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651 http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651

Ygg2 10y ago

Preface: I might be too influenced by Adam Curtis. But what I find most interesting about this reply/rant, is that it - like most of left, always seems to envision a world without power. And you can't confront entrenched power, without seizing power, and using it to transform society.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
It's worse than that. Fundamentally, the problem is that people are not angels. The left recognizes, correctly, that the people in power - the leaders - are not angels. So the left wants them gone - wants there to be nobody in power. The problem is that the people who are not in power also are not angels. Left to themselves, a fair number of them will find ways to harm (economically or even physically) people around them. They need someone with power to restrain them. But then you're back to having people in power, and they're not angels...
- Ygg2 10y ago
  People might not be angels, but they aren't devils either. The way I see it, left doesn't want people to have power. So it limits politician's power. And then, the financial/corporate interest seize all powers, and use it as they will.
  - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
    Funny thing is: corporations really don't have ANY power. If the government doesn't like a corporation, they can simply pull the corporate charter. Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, allowed by law. There are some tortured legal arguments that it becomes "personal property" which can not be deprived without due-process - and in practice, this simply is never done anymore. But any legal fiction can be simply signed-away into non-existence. There is no technical reason this can't happen. In theory. The problem is, there is no political will to ever actually do it, even when it's necessary. Our entire facade of legality rests on political willpower.
- bordercases 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago

Am i the only one here that doesnt use facebook? I think i logged in once eight or so years ago. My clients dont use it. My friends do ... well did. But it was never an issue. My students avoid it due to the "creep factor". I still live life via email and telephone and that isnt unussual. Even my tech clients, some in downtown SF, expect email to be the norm. So when I see zuck going on about revolutions I have to wonder where he gets his information. Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the planet uses his website for everyday tasks? That's marketing spin. I think reality is much more humble.

Tharkun 10y ago
> Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the planet uses his website? Yes. Because it's true. Facebook has more than a BILLION active users. Let that sink in for a minute.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  So, even accepting that (i dont) the vast magority of the planet do not use facebook. How many use telephones? How many use email?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    What does it matter? A large percentage doesn't mean more than 50%, or more than competing services. And remember that those are just systems, not single companies. Frankly, if something I made had reached even 5% of the whole human population, I'd consider that freaking huge! Hell, I can't even imagine what it's like to have that much influence. Don't get me wrong: I dislike FB too, I don't use it, and I lobby against it when it comes up. But it is, unfortunately, rather big.
- floathub 10y ago
  But do they? Do they really? I once setup a facebook account for a company (I have never had a personal account). They send that account an e-mail every day (and an SMS). Every day. If I had the e-mail account set to actually load images in the text of the e-mail, would they count those logged hits as an "active user". I suspect (albeit with no actual concrete evidence) that their "user" numbers are significantly over stated via mechanisms such as this.

rdtsc 10y ago

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is rather ironic that the new "left" love them globalization all of the sudden, even when their younger brothers were tear-gassed protesting it, just a decade ago or so protesting against it. (More discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 along with a promising book on the subject, 'The Technological Society' by Jacques Ellul suggested by Drumlin. Still waiting for it to come from Amazon)

devoply 10y ago
Think of the poor and how much they have been helped by the globalization of the world is how they were won over. See how many people we've lifted out of poverty because of globalization.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  That's not really something people typically argue against when criticizing globalization - the issue is that these people are often helped at the expense of citizens of other countries that pursue a globalist agenda, and that people believe their government has a duty to protect the interests of its citizens above all others.
  - devoply 10y ago
    The countries don't pursue globalist agendas. Their corporations do. And they have benefited immensely because of that. The poor being helped is just a side-effect of that. In the end they care about profits, the side effects are irrelevant to them. It's just a peripheral side effect used for its marketing value, to turn the attention away from self-interest of the people negatively impacted.
10y ago

billiam 10y ago

When will the Bond villains that run the largest tech companies realize that they can't own the Internet? Zuckerberg, your algorithms turned half my relatives into crazy Trump supporters that don't talk to the other half, is that your idea of bringing families together?

supernumerary 10y ago

I like this idea of technical organs, that are enmeshed with notions of self-hood. Another person who has been talking in this way is the philosopher Bernard Steigler, he uses this term 'general organology' in an attempt to rehabilitate our technological entanglements from the skeptical cul-de-sac demonstrated by the OP and supported by most recent philosophy (e.g. Adorno, Debord, although crucially not Walter Benjamin) Although I am sure he would be equally vitriolic about FB the general overview of Steigler's thought here is a neat compliment to the POV of the OP. http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-individuation-of-minds-bodies-social-organizations-and-techne/bernard-stiegler/ http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-individuati... I have corrupted this angle a little bit and tried to treat Facebook with kid gloves here: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...

breckinloggins 10y ago

This is what services like urbit are after. If you don't understand urbit, think of it as a step towards what this post is advocating. Whether they can escape from the gravity well of their own obfuscation is, however, another matter.

concinds 10y ago

The mainstream view is that for the world to be sustainable and stable, it needs to be more centralized and governed from the top. That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. It needs to be more functional, not more centralized. The NNTaleb view is that to be sustainable and stable, the world needs to be decentralized and antifragile. In other words: not 1 government, but 100 well designed, functional governments with small, local democratic governance. This seems necessary since societies are changing more rapidly, dealing with more problems and crises than before that just can't be effectively solved by bloated entities (see the EU), can't adapt quickly enough to various changes (see all the places in the US without fast internet), and aren't future-oriented enough because of inertia (see Singapore as a counterexample). It also seems more realistic than the article. Edit: I didn't expect this response to blow up, so let me address more of the article: 1) Completely disagree that technology is "part of us". Amazon isn't a part of me, just a company I shop at. The closest thing we have to "explants" are the platforms we use, like Facebook or WhatsApp. The article seems heavy on buzzwords and light on common-sense. Encrypted messaging is the best solution, to maintain freedom of communication and reduce corporations' influence. That only requires installing Signal or WhatsApp, not "creating a new world". 2) People are not "property". You are free to share what you want. Others are free, too. If you want to work (Naval-style) towards decentralized, encrypted platforms, that's a step in the right direction. Doesn't require buzzwords either. 3) It seems like the article's worldview is based in an even greater influence of technology over our lives (as if the author realized that technology isn't really part of us, but wanted to make it so). The personal cloud would be hosted by "individual organizations", but what makes you think that 1 or 2 orgs won't emerge on top, and cause the exact same problem again?

Analemma_ 10y ago
> That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it. I could just as easily say "decentralization and local governance don't work because the world is a complex system" and sound just as correct.
- concinds 10y ago

gph 10y ago

Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think that's a good solution. But in reference to this quote: >The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance, filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of private infrastructure that poses as public space. That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. Certainly with facebook and social media it's changed the whole landscape, and perhaps made it worse given what happened during the last election. But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. If social media were outlawed tomorrow it might weaken filter bubbles, but a suburban upper middle class republican from Kansas is still going to be getting way different info and building a much different world view than a barista in Brooklyn would.

humanrebar 10y ago
> That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. I'm not sure the kinds of bubbles we have aren't brand new. The bubbles used to map pretty closely to geography and political structures. The bubbles now are oriented around where our information lives, not where we physically are. Also, I think you're overstepping with 'panacea'. I don't think anyone who believes in decentralized life thinks universal panaceas even necessarily exist. But it can still be true that central planning has displaced local living without fulfilling all the same purposes. And if so, the result could be a net negative.
Karunamon 10y ago
But returning social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in. It doesn't need to be entirely fixed. There's no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I think that the "private infrastructure posing as public space" is a real and serious problem. When all complaints of censorship/manipulation/etc on a social media site of any reasonable size is thoughtlessly brushed aside with "their site, their rules", that is a very unhealthy environment being created.

bordercases 10y ago

Heartening to see this on HN.

m-j-fox 10y ago

What's boring here is there's no suggestion as to how this utopia of digital parks can come to be. Even if we have the resources to invest in development and operations, who without a profit motive, will devise the marketing campaign for privacy and common good? This guy wants a world like Craigslist, but Airbnb already taught us that free and p2p is easily subsumed by slick and centralized. In BitTorrent and Usenet we've had great, free p2p media distribution for years. How does iTunes, Netflix and the rest compete? By doing all the evil, centralized, corporate stuff -- like advertising -- the pirates won't do because pirates have morals.

callmeed 10y ago

I feel like we're living in The Circle to some degree. I hadn't read Zuck's manifesto until now. I literally laughed out loud reading it. It makes me wonder if he ever actually looks at the news feeds regular people see. The reason I quit Facebook was precisely because its uninformed and non-inclusive. From what my wife tells me, nothing has changed. Like-minded people reinforce each other and people with conflicting viewpoints just argue. I hope Zuck at least has good intentions with his post and he's just slightly short-sighted.

onmobiletemp 10y ago

Im not sure what mark expects his user base to accomplish given that he believes they are "dumb fucks." I know people like mark so i know that he still thinks ordinary people are dumb fucks and that the only reason behind any action he takes is the advancement of his own position in life and business.

bordercases 10y ago

Uh. This is Urbit.