4 ms·

I assume your 2nd paragraph is at least a little tongue in cheek. Otherwise, I think your trying to characterized things in clear public-private terms, the lan

I assume your 2nd paragraph is at least a little tongue in cheek. Otherwise, I think your trying to characterized things in clear public-private terms, the language of particular political and economic philosophies. What I was saying is that I think that terminology is flawed. The public-private dichotomy is never a clean break. Corporations are a part of the governmental system, and this is not limited to influencing laws and their enforcement. That is, they are the deciders (often) of what does and doesn't happen, and how.

smokeyj 9y ago
What do you think a better terminology is? I happen to agree with you. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to use computer-network terms to describe the human network. Because what we're trying to analyze is fundamentally similar - which is the rate consensus can be found, network uptime, security vulnerabilities, decentralization, failover, etc. In a way democracy is a kind of p2p network. And then there's confusion when you ask "who is in charge" because you could say no one is in charge or everyone is in charge - and both could be correct.