5 ms·

Can I use an analogy from biology to shed light on the valid point you have? Human beings exist as part of a society--a larger organism. Imagine if a cell were

Can I use an analogy from biology to shed light on the valid point you have? Human beings exist as part of a society--a larger organism. Imagine if a cell were permitted to send any proteins or RNA it wanted to its neighboring cells. As long as the signals are benign or simply "nuisance" level, it's fine. But if the signals subvert the very organism of which they are a part--for example, by tricking neighboring cells into ignoring programmed cell death and encouraging enlarged blood vessel growth in the area--then there is a real danger that these cells are becoming a cancer to the host body that sustains their very existence. I think the scare-quotes you put around "service" might be to show that a communication service that silences your communication is no service at all. But isn't that true of any complex, principle-based decision? If you have a friend who says he is going to blow up a federal building, and you report him, are you a "friend"? Some principles trump others--like saving lives over sustaining friendships, for instance. In the same manner, I think there are legitimate cases where a "service" should not serve. How that should work in practice is still being worked out--in the halls of tech companies and legislatures all over the world.

Bizarro 9y ago
How that should work in practice is still being worked out--in the halls of tech companies and legislatures all over the world. You finally got to the crux of your argument after contorting around a bad analogy. Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have. Let me tell you something. That position is the complete opposite of what Hacker News is all about.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  You know, I'm pretty sure when they said "legislatures" they were implying the imperfect-but-normal ongoing political process. The one which stretches across dozens of different countries and with some influence by the billions of non-legislator citizens. Instead you seem to be a hurry to travel down a road that sometimes ends with the word "Statist" getting thrown around as an epithet against heretical outsiders. > [Disparagingly:] Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have. Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail?
  - Bizarro 9y ago
    Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail? Amazing...even after I point out his janky biology analogy, you go ahead and try one yourself. You people can't help but to double down.
    - 18pfsmt 9y ago
      Some people are interested in designing systems where no central authority can control anything, while others are more interested in determining which entity should have control over everything.
    - Terr_ 9y ago
      > You people Yeah, that's what I suspected, we're done here.
  - strypey 8y ago
    > Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail? Government? Maybe. Private corporations exploiting the hell out of a natural monopoly? Hell no. Genuinely democratic government (which implies opt-in, or at least the ability to opt-out) sure. That's what standards bodies are for. Unlike some here, I can see value in user protection laws like the GDPR, for the same reason I see the value in governments creating heavy disincentives for kidnapping or murder. Such laws can, if necessary, be enforced on groups running instances of federated social network software. We saw what happened when the US Congress tried to regulate a major centralized provider; a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTv0MZBCQCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTv0MZBCQCs
EGreg 9y ago
By your reasoning, the DPRK should squelch dissidents because the health of the State as an organization trumps free speech between neighbors. Any regime could apply this reasoning to prevent any threats to itself arising from people discussing things.
EGreg 9y ago
Your analogy breaks down right away because people are not mere cells in the organism of a state. That is a dangerous mentality that can lead to Totalitarianism. In your own example you alluded to cells refusing to commit apoptosis. By your analogy, it should be just and proper for people to be regularly savrificed for their state — their very lives may be required to be given up for the state to function. I do not think we base our human societies on the law of the jungle — and certainly not on the inner workings of an organism! I doubt you are able to take this analogy very far without coming up against horrendous human rights violations.

Bizarro 9y ago

How that should work in practice is still being worked out--in the halls of tech companies and legislatures all over the world. You finally got to the crux of your argument after contorting around a bad analogy. Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have. Let me tell you something. That position is the complete opposite of what Hacker News is all about.

Terr_ 9y ago
You know, I'm pretty sure when they said "legislatures" they were implying the imperfect-but-normal ongoing political process. The one which stretches across dozens of different countries and with some influence by the billions of non-legislator citizens. Instead you seem to be a hurry to travel down a road that sometimes ends with the word "Statist" getting thrown around as an epithet against heretical outsiders. > [Disparagingly:] Only tech companies and legislatures should be figuring out what services we should have. Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail?
- Bizarro 9y ago
  Let's apply the same logic to non-digital goods and services: Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail? Amazing...even after I point out his janky biology analogy, you go ahead and try one yourself. You people can't help but to double down.
  - 18pfsmt 9y ago
    Some people are interested in designing systems where no central authority can control anything, while others are more interested in determining which entity should have control over everything.
  - Terr_ 9y ago
    > You people Yeah, that's what I suspected, we're done here.
- strypey 8y ago
  > Do you believe it is fundamentally wrong for a government -- even with significant public support -- to interfere with one anonymous man's Galtian quest to sell radium toothpaste by mail? Government? Maybe. Private corporations exploiting the hell out of a natural monopoly? Hell no. Genuinely democratic government (which implies opt-in, or at least the ability to opt-out) sure. That's what standards bodies are for. Unlike some here, I can see value in user protection laws like the GDPR, for the same reason I see the value in governments creating heavy disincentives for kidnapping or murder. Such laws can, if necessary, be enforced on groups running instances of federated social network software. We saw what happened when the US Congress tried to regulate a major centralized provider; a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTv0MZBCQCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTv0MZBCQCs

EGreg 9y ago

By your reasoning, the DPRK should squelch dissidents because the health of the State as an organization trumps free speech between neighbors. Any regime could apply this reasoning to prevent any threats to itself arising from people discussing things.

EGreg 9y ago

Your analogy breaks down right away because people are not mere cells in the organism of a state. That is a dangerous mentality that can lead to Totalitarianism. In your own example you alluded to cells refusing to commit apoptosis. By your analogy, it should be just and proper for people to be regularly savrificed for their state — their very lives may be required to be given up for the state to function. I do not think we base our human societies on the law of the jungle — and certainly not on the inner workings of an organism! I doubt you are able to take this analogy very far without coming up against horrendous human rights violations.