5 ms·

Woodie Guthrie had a label on his guitar that read "This machine kills fascists." I was naive once. I thought that the internet was such a machine. But instead

Woodie Guthrie had a label on his guitar that read "This machine kills fascists." I was naive once. I thought that the internet was such a machine. But instead of a tool for decentralizing power it's becoming a tool for centralized power to wield control, to enforce conformity in ever greater detail. What would a tool of actual decentralization look like? It wouldn't be something that helps us communicate or brings us closer together, because those things evolve into instruments of control. It would be something that divides us into separate ecological and memetic niches. The only example I can think of is a multi generational space ship. We're in a race between diaspora and social lithification. I wish I thought diaspora was the better bet.

faissaloo 7y ago
According to what you're saying increased tribalism is the answer, which isn't actually as silly as it first sounds
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Nasrudith 7y ago
It still exists - it is still a tool for decentralization. The thing is that the numbera aren't there. Essentially one can always go "indie" and accept the obscurity of being a counterculture.
paulddraper 7y ago
There isn't and never will be a facist-killing machine. There are only killing machines. There is no decentralized information technology. The are only information technologies. The capabilities are loosely determined by the creator; the result is determined by the user. Consider Bitcoin: fully decentralized in theory, yet in practice controlled by an oligarchy.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Conway's law holds true beyond the scale it was intended for. The things people create mimic the structure of the society that creates them. In an oligarchic world with centralized power structures where few have power over the many, we make a system with centralized power structures where few parts have power over many. The internet won't be democratic and decentralized until the world is.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    I personally think it that is backwards or at least a feedback loop. The technology shapes the society. Horses of all things could be accurately called ancient corruptors of human morals as absurd as it sounds. They were expensive but fast enabling and encouraging raiding of neighbors and riding away before they could rally a defense with far less risk for the reward compared to a band on foot with melee or ranged weaponry who would get beaten or cut down and either enslaved or executed if they attacked a village on their own. It may have been existing flawed morals to consider raiding then but the power influenced them.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      Horses didn't cause raiding. Horses were domesticated on the Eurasian Steppe around 3000 BC, but people in conflict, including hit-and-run raids, are known from around the world and long before then, including in the Americas where no riding animals were known until the Columbian exchange. Horses didn't cause cavalry, horses were domesticated and bred with their modern properties because people wanted cavalry. The tool reflects the creator.
sillysaurusx 7y ago
I think it comes down to technology. It's tempting to argue that technology for decentralization has been invented. Bittorrent, for example. But if you think it through, Bittorrent represents a very limited form of decentralization. Effort is inversely proportional to popularity. If something is effortless and serves a need, it will become popular. Bitcoin was basically effortless to operate in the early days. I don't think it should be up to users to carefully collect works that they want to "make decentralized". Decentralization should be the norm. And it shouldn't be up to them to worry about the legal ramifications of doing so. The network itself should ensure anonymity, like Tor. Currently there is no such technology. IPFS came close, but it fails the anonymity requirement.
- x220 7y ago
  For most decentralized technologies, we should make legal ramifications impossible. It's impossible to break PGP encryption, monitor Monero transactions, or de-anonymize Tor traffic if the user acts prudently. This is good. We're seeing a return to the "good old days" where people protect their natural rights to privacy and property.
- mirimir 7y ago
  It depends on how segmented the internet gets. As long as there's enough traffic of some sort between segments, it's at least possible that stuff can be hidden well enough to get through. If necessary, using covert channels. But if there's no traffic allowed between segments, it becomes much harder. Then you're left with workarounds like this: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/ingenious-way-iranians-using-satellite-tv-beam-banned-data/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/ingenious-way-iranians-using-s...
- zanny 7y ago
  I don't believe anonymity is a requirement for a decentralization technology, if anything, it hampers it. The burdens of anonymity seen in projects that try to preserve is often so cumbersome as to make the software totally unusable by muggles. The weakness in IPFS is that not enough people use it, and its really as simple as that. Distributed data addressable in a namespace is a great foundation but corporations are actively subsidizing similar, centralized services to preserve their monopoly positions. As long as Google et al are overflowing in money nothing can really try to displace their domination of the network.
npo9 7y ago
I disagree. We are moving into a world where people have more freedom and liberty. Sometimes we take a (big) step backwards, but the trend is towards more. These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology, increased wealth distribution (globally), and changing social norms towards individual rights and equality. I can, for example, participate in international engineering efforts from any one of a billion places with steady internet that will allow me to stay. I can eat a greater variety of foods than my grandparents enjoyed. I can do research and study about my own medical alignments and make better informed decisions about my healthcare than every before. I have the option to marry anyone that agrees to it, regardless of race or gender. I can practice the religion of my choosing openly. I understand that there is a lot of pain and a large risk of group think associated with our global information system. I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >I understand that there is ... a large risk of group think associated with our global information system To be honest, there would be group think anyway. There always is, it's just a human proclivity. I'm not sure why exactly people felt that's something the internet was going to eliminate? The printing press solidified nationalistic thought (and other kinds of group think as well), the internet is solidifying it further. I guess I just think, group think is kind of, something to be expected considering mankind's history.
- starfallg 7y ago
  >These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology, increased wealth distribution (globally), and changing social norms towards individual rights and equality. Having freedom and liberty does not automatically result in increased wealth distribution, individual rights or equality. Just because we have a system that allows people to communicate and collaborate across the globe instantaneously doesn't mean that they will do so constructively towards positive directions. They can also use this power for selfish and/or destructive mean. This is really the lesson that we've been taught in the past 10 years. > I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today. I trust that your information sources are sound, but many other people choose to tune into information sources that are not, but confirms that own bias. There is a part of human psychology which finds this type of behaviour immensely rewarding. The idea that more information and more connectivity automatically result in more freedom which would then naturally better society is exactly what led us down to the path to the current information dystopia.
x220 7y ago
IRC, XMPP, Monero, PGP, and Tor all facilitate decentralization. I don't mention other cryptocurrencies because as far as I know, only Monero protects against surveillance. I don't want the government (or corporations) knowing everything I buy.
smolder 7y ago
The internet can still be turned into something more decentralized, but it wouldn't be easy. What we could do is try to push for more simple internet-enabled devices, where the internet connectivity is truly peripheral (not a gateway into privileged memory access for instance,) and the devices are simple enough that they can be broadly manufactured without so much potential for supply chain compromise and inserted backdoors. That would allow effectively unbreakable point to point encryption to accomplish its goal. Then somehow you need to get buyin from people in large enough numbers for this spy-on-everyone situation we're in to be impractical, and hope it doesn't result in escalation to even more dystopian circumstances.
EGreg 7y ago
What would it look like? I have been building it, writing about it and giving it away: https://qbix.com/blog https://qbix.com/blog https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://qbix.com/token https://qbix.com/token Every time I post this on HN, it gets heavily downvoted. But I don’t ever hear why. I can think of no better way than to show, link to the code, give it away. I spent over half a million dollars of my company’s revenues on this. Take that for what it’s worth. I intend to make this work. If this inspires you, feel free to email me (qbix.com/about)
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  >it gets heavily downvoted. But I don’t ever hear why Perhaps because it's yet another pre-mined altcoin? Even if your idea happens to be good, the idea of an ICO has been given such a bad name that you need to wash your hands of anything associated with that funding model. But something tells me you won't. I used to think there was always a chance that "this time would be different" with promising ICO companies that I supported (not even with my money but with my volunteering as a developer), only to get burned again and again. My experiences are not atypical. However, I've been burned even more badly by mainstream social networking, so I want to believe that your idea will work. Tough dilemma.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Nuzzerino, forget the altcoin. The software is free and doesn't require any altcoins. Nor is the altcoin for investment purposes – we do NOT want you to buy it hoping it will go up in price, and in fact will be operating a gateway buying and selling within a certain range pegged to ETH or USD (we haven't made up our minds yet) to maintain price stability ensure no rational actor will hold it for investment purposes. But merely something that can help monetize digital content and open source software, facilitating web based cross-domain micropayments (think Brave Browser but decentralized, and with multiple gateways to ETH etc). Our ETH token was designed to fulfill every requirement of SEC's recent no-action letter to TurnKey Jet, Inc. in order to not be considered a security (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnk...) In the last few years I have been downvoted without even mentioning the Qbix token - something we only documented last month. Just by giving away open source software. The post above already has -2.
jancsika 7y ago
> What would a tool of actual decentralization look like? Not sure. But I'd bet if the initial devs of Wikipedia wondered too much about that question we'd be subscribing to Encyclopedia Britannica Online to research it.
pacala 7y ago
Q: What would a tool of actual decentralization look like? A: A pre-modern village.
MichaelMoser123 7y ago
The internet cant change power structures, its just a tool. It increased the acessibility of information - just like the printing press did a few centuries ago. An improved access to information can change some people, if they are curious enough to read about stuff and don't just look at a certain kind of pictures. Now how do you teach people to be curious about this world?
c22 7y ago
The internet is neither a "tool for freedom" nor a "tool for control". It's just a tool. There are groups using it for both of those (as well as many orthogonal) purposes. In the same way you can hire a construction crew to build a library or to build a prison, but modern construction techniques don't have an inherent social ideology.

faissaloo 7y ago

According to what you're saying increased tribalism is the answer, which isn't actually as silly as it first sounds

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Nasrudith 7y ago

It still exists - it is still a tool for decentralization. The thing is that the numbera aren't there. Essentially one can always go "indie" and accept the obscurity of being a counterculture.

paulddraper 7y ago

There isn't and never will be a facist-killing machine. There are only killing machines. There is no decentralized information technology. The are only information technologies. The capabilities are loosely determined by the creator; the result is determined by the user. Consider Bitcoin: fully decentralized in theory, yet in practice controlled by an oligarchy.

hannasanarion 7y ago
Conway's law holds true beyond the scale it was intended for. The things people create mimic the structure of the society that creates them. In an oligarchic world with centralized power structures where few have power over the many, we make a system with centralized power structures where few parts have power over many. The internet won't be democratic and decentralized until the world is.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I personally think it that is backwards or at least a feedback loop. The technology shapes the society. Horses of all things could be accurately called ancient corruptors of human morals as absurd as it sounds. They were expensive but fast enabling and encouraging raiding of neighbors and riding away before they could rally a defense with far less risk for the reward compared to a band on foot with melee or ranged weaponry who would get beaten or cut down and either enslaved or executed if they attacked a village on their own. It may have been existing flawed morals to consider raiding then but the power influenced them.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    Horses didn't cause raiding. Horses were domesticated on the Eurasian Steppe around 3000 BC, but people in conflict, including hit-and-run raids, are known from around the world and long before then, including in the Americas where no riding animals were known until the Columbian exchange. Horses didn't cause cavalry, horses were domesticated and bred with their modern properties because people wanted cavalry. The tool reflects the creator.

sillysaurusx 7y ago

I think it comes down to technology. It's tempting to argue that technology for decentralization has been invented. Bittorrent, for example. But if you think it through, Bittorrent represents a very limited form of decentralization. Effort is inversely proportional to popularity. If something is effortless and serves a need, it will become popular. Bitcoin was basically effortless to operate in the early days. I don't think it should be up to users to carefully collect works that they want to "make decentralized". Decentralization should be the norm. And it shouldn't be up to them to worry about the legal ramifications of doing so. The network itself should ensure anonymity, like Tor. Currently there is no such technology. IPFS came close, but it fails the anonymity requirement.

x220 7y ago
For most decentralized technologies, we should make legal ramifications impossible. It's impossible to break PGP encryption, monitor Monero transactions, or de-anonymize Tor traffic if the user acts prudently. This is good. We're seeing a return to the "good old days" where people protect their natural rights to privacy and property.
mirimir 7y ago
It depends on how segmented the internet gets. As long as there's enough traffic of some sort between segments, it's at least possible that stuff can be hidden well enough to get through. If necessary, using covert channels. But if there's no traffic allowed between segments, it becomes much harder. Then you're left with workarounds like this: https://www.wired.com/2016/04/ingenious-way-iranians-using-satellite-tv-beam-banned-data/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/ingenious-way-iranians-using-s...
zanny 7y ago
I don't believe anonymity is a requirement for a decentralization technology, if anything, it hampers it. The burdens of anonymity seen in projects that try to preserve is often so cumbersome as to make the software totally unusable by muggles. The weakness in IPFS is that not enough people use it, and its really as simple as that. Distributed data addressable in a namespace is a great foundation but corporations are actively subsidizing similar, centralized services to preserve their monopoly positions. As long as Google et al are overflowing in money nothing can really try to displace their domination of the network.

npo9 7y ago

I disagree. We are moving into a world where people have more freedom and liberty. Sometimes we take a (big) step backwards, but the trend is towards more. These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology, increased wealth distribution (globally), and changing social norms towards individual rights and equality. I can, for example, participate in international engineering efforts from any one of a billion places with steady internet that will allow me to stay. I can eat a greater variety of foods than my grandparents enjoyed. I can do research and study about my own medical alignments and make better informed decisions about my healthcare than every before. I have the option to marry anyone that agrees to it, regardless of race or gender. I can practice the religion of my choosing openly. I understand that there is a lot of pain and a large risk of group think associated with our global information system. I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>I understand that there is ... a large risk of group think associated with our global information system To be honest, there would be group think anyway. There always is, it's just a human proclivity. I'm not sure why exactly people felt that's something the internet was going to eliminate? The printing press solidified nationalistic thought (and other kinds of group think as well), the internet is solidifying it further. I guess I just think, group think is kind of, something to be expected considering mankind's history.
starfallg 7y ago
>These new freedoms and liberties are created by technology, increased wealth distribution (globally), and changing social norms towards individual rights and equality. Having freedom and liberty does not automatically result in increased wealth distribution, individual rights or equality. Just because we have a system that allows people to communicate and collaborate across the globe instantaneously doesn't mean that they will do so constructively towards positive directions. They can also use this power for selfish and/or destructive mean. This is really the lesson that we've been taught in the past 10 years. > I have the individual freedom to choose which information sources I tune into, and I have never had a greater variety than today. I trust that your information sources are sound, but many other people choose to tune into information sources that are not, but confirms that own bias. There is a part of human psychology which finds this type of behaviour immensely rewarding. The idea that more information and more connectivity automatically result in more freedom which would then naturally better society is exactly what led us down to the path to the current information dystopia.

x220 7y ago

IRC, XMPP, Monero, PGP, and Tor all facilitate decentralization. I don't mention other cryptocurrencies because as far as I know, only Monero protects against surveillance. I don't want the government (or corporations) knowing everything I buy.

smolder 7y ago

The internet can still be turned into something more decentralized, but it wouldn't be easy. What we could do is try to push for more simple internet-enabled devices, where the internet connectivity is truly peripheral (not a gateway into privileged memory access for instance,) and the devices are simple enough that they can be broadly manufactured without so much potential for supply chain compromise and inserted backdoors. That would allow effectively unbreakable point to point encryption to accomplish its goal. Then somehow you need to get buyin from people in large enough numbers for this spy-on-everyone situation we're in to be impractical, and hope it doesn't result in escalation to even more dystopian circumstances.

EGreg 7y ago

What would it look like? I have been building it, writing about it and giving it away: https://qbix.com/blog https://qbix.com/blog https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://github.com/Qbix/Platform https://qbix.com/token https://qbix.com/token Every time I post this on HN, it gets heavily downvoted. But I don’t ever hear why. I can think of no better way than to show, link to the code, give it away. I spent over half a million dollars of my company’s revenues on this. Take that for what it’s worth. I intend to make this work. If this inspires you, feel free to email me (qbix.com/about)

Nuzzerino 7y ago
>it gets heavily downvoted. But I don’t ever hear why Perhaps because it's yet another pre-mined altcoin? Even if your idea happens to be good, the idea of an ICO has been given such a bad name that you need to wash your hands of anything associated with that funding model. But something tells me you won't. I used to think there was always a chance that "this time would be different" with promising ICO companies that I supported (not even with my money but with my volunteering as a developer), only to get burned again and again. My experiences are not atypical. However, I've been burned even more badly by mainstream social networking, so I want to believe that your idea will work. Tough dilemma.
- EGreg 7y ago
  Nuzzerino, forget the altcoin. The software is free and doesn't require any altcoins. Nor is the altcoin for investment purposes – we do NOT want you to buy it hoping it will go up in price, and in fact will be operating a gateway buying and selling within a certain range pegged to ETH or USD (we haven't made up our minds yet) to maintain price stability ensure no rational actor will hold it for investment purposes. But merely something that can help monetize digital content and open source software, facilitating web based cross-domain micropayments (think Brave Browser but decentralized, and with multiple gateways to ETH etc). Our ETH token was designed to fulfill every requirement of SEC's recent no-action letter to TurnKey Jet, Inc. in order to not be considered a security (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnkey-jet-040219-2a1.htm https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2019/turnk...) In the last few years I have been downvoted without even mentioning the Qbix token - something we only documented last month. Just by giving away open source software. The post above already has -2.

jancsika 7y ago

> What would a tool of actual decentralization look like? Not sure. But I'd bet if the initial devs of Wikipedia wondered too much about that question we'd be subscribing to Encyclopedia Britannica Online to research it.

pacala 7y ago

Q: What would a tool of actual decentralization look like? A: A pre-modern village.

MichaelMoser123 7y ago

The internet cant change power structures, its just a tool. It increased the acessibility of information - just like the printing press did a few centuries ago. An improved access to information can change some people, if they are curious enough to read about stuff and don't just look at a certain kind of pictures. Now how do you teach people to be curious about this world?

c22 7y ago

The internet is neither a "tool for freedom" nor a "tool for control". It's just a tool. There are groups using it for both of those (as well as many orthogonal) purposes. In the same way you can hire a construction crew to build a library or to build a prison, but modern construction techniques don't have an inherent social ideology.