6 ms·

> In this case, a state entity takes responsibility for operating a service. This absolutely terrifies me that someone thinks this is a good idea.

by nyxtom 7y ago

mc32 7y ago
They have to gaze no further than to Havana to see how it pans out. If further interested they can go to Beijing and figure out how it's used to promote values and such. I'm sure it's can be a satisfying view to some. While FB and Google do have some problems due to their monopolies, the answer is not in state control.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >While FB and Google do have some problems due to their monopolies, the answer is not in state control. Although I am not a proponent of state control of the net, I'm curious as to why not. If it's that the state can't be trusted, this doesn't seem to match our existing institutions; we regularly place our lives in control of the state every day, from food regulation rules to the social safety net, to defence of the country, etc. - why should something the net, which seems to hold much less in stakes than the things I listed, be an exception?
  - nyxtom 7y ago
    The question you're asking depends on the formulation of the problem you're trying to solve and who is best suited to efficiently solve that problem under limited resources and constraints. It depends on what you're trying to solve, and who is most capable of solving that problem efficiently. Sometimes this is a public/private partnership/solution where the govt provides the right/or sometimes wrong incentives for the market. Sometimes it's too much regulation, sometimes it's govt over-dependence, sometimes it works out as supplemental where the govt picks up where the market is non-existent.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      True, it does depend on "what", but a question of trust doesn't relate to "what"; I think one either trusts the government to regulate a certain "what", at least potentially (this is true for most people), or one doesn't trust the government at all (anarchists). So the argument that the government can't be trusted should be better reformulated as saying that the government can potentially be trusted - that potential manifests itself in its successes in food regulation, for instance. But it also removes the force of the argument, because now the non-anarchist has to answer why the government can be trusted on some things but not others. I haven't seen the justification that here's anything that makes the Internet (or, more broadly, speech) particularly special.
      - nyxtom 7y ago
        I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards, I have a hard time extending this beyond that (apart from areas where govt has proven to be better at funneling resources to the right places, to a fault), it is not the same as arguing wholesale for blanket trust. One example is not evidence that one should be blind fully trustful of an entity (who at plenty of occasions) has also broken that trust with mass warrantless surveillance (issue of broken trust) Or in other cases where the welfare system itself has produced artificial disincentives to get higher paying work (issue of trust due to inefficiencies or failure of common goods) Thoughtful discussions aside, the people most suited to both care about and solve the problem set are the ones I would most likely lean on. This isn’t necessarily an anarchist position, it’s one of cautious skepticism over blanket trust without industry specific evidence to prove that the govt is in fact better at handling time, money, and increasingly efficient gains. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to prove that the govt is particularly good at handling the first two. That all being said, I don’t see it as an all or nothing. Follow the evidence and the data.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues), and defense (our military seems to be used more for offense, not defense). In general, I find public institutions to be worse than their private alternatives. I prefer UPS/FedEx to the Postal Service and I send my child to a charter school rather than the local public school. Public institutions have shown that they don't need to be good, just good enough. The key is making sure the incentives are right. Google and Facebook are bad because they profit from violating people's privacy, and they've developed a business model based around trading personal information for services. I don't know what the answer is necessarily, but nationalising it just turns them into surveillance networks, which is arguably worse than advertising networks. I think we need to decide what the end goal is and define the incentives needed to get us there, and ideally we'd avoid too much use of government to get there. For Google/Facebook, I doubt advertising will go away, so we need to find a way to make privacy-preserving ads a thing while still allowing advertisers to show relevant ads to customers. Perhaps the Brave model is better than Google's model, or perhaps Google's model is acceptable with transparency and oversight. But having government deeply involved in personally identifiable activity is a bit too Orwellian for me.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      > Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues), and defense (our military seems to be used more for offense, not defense). I accept your argument, but most people against net regulation generally have good opinions on food regulation agencies and the social safety net, so while you seem consistent, I have a feeling a lot of people aren't in this matter. I suspect the case is even greater for European countries, which do food regulation and social safety better than the US in many ways. Either way, it would follow that a government which does those things right could, in principle, regulate the net. I think the case is stronger when one considers that everyone except anarchists accepts the rule of law, and the democratic decision process to arrive to the law. I think it's very reasonable to say that there are government institutions that are run well, and those institutions have greater consequences than the regulation of the net. The real target of my criticism was the fact that people tend to engage in special pleading when it comes to regulating the net, or regulating speech, without much reason for it. Brison has argued that there is no meaningful metaphysical difference between what we class as "speech" and "action".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

> In this case, a state entity takes responsibility for operating a service. This absolutely terrifies me that someone thinks this is a good idea.

by nyxtom 7y ago

> In this case, a state entity takes responsibility for operating a service. This absolutely terrifies me that someone thinks this is a good idea.

mc32 7y ago

They have to gaze no further than to Havana to see how it pans out. If further interested they can go to Beijing and figure out how it's used to promote values and such. I'm sure it's can be a satisfying view to some. While FB and Google do have some problems due to their monopolies, the answer is not in state control.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>While FB and Google do have some problems due to their monopolies, the answer is not in state control. Although I am not a proponent of state control of the net, I'm curious as to why not. If it's that the state can't be trusted, this doesn't seem to match our existing institutions; we regularly place our lives in control of the state every day, from food regulation rules to the social safety net, to defence of the country, etc. - why should something the net, which seems to hold much less in stakes than the things I listed, be an exception?
- nyxtom 7y ago
  The question you're asking depends on the formulation of the problem you're trying to solve and who is best suited to efficiently solve that problem under limited resources and constraints. It depends on what you're trying to solve, and who is most capable of solving that problem efficiently. Sometimes this is a public/private partnership/solution where the govt provides the right/or sometimes wrong incentives for the market. Sometimes it's too much regulation, sometimes it's govt over-dependence, sometimes it works out as supplemental where the govt picks up where the market is non-existent.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    True, it does depend on "what", but a question of trust doesn't relate to "what"; I think one either trusts the government to regulate a certain "what", at least potentially (this is true for most people), or one doesn't trust the government at all (anarchists). So the argument that the government can't be trusted should be better reformulated as saying that the government can potentially be trusted - that potential manifests itself in its successes in food regulation, for instance. But it also removes the force of the argument, because now the non-anarchist has to answer why the government can be trusted on some things but not others. I haven't seen the justification that here's anything that makes the Internet (or, more broadly, speech) particularly special.
    - nyxtom 7y ago
      I prefer much to lean on the evidence than the potential of trust. Where govt is effective at regulation as a result of public and private agreed upon standards, I have a hard time extending this beyond that (apart from areas where govt has proven to be better at funneling resources to the right places, to a fault), it is not the same as arguing wholesale for blanket trust. One example is not evidence that one should be blind fully trustful of an entity (who at plenty of occasions) has also broken that trust with mass warrantless surveillance (issue of broken trust) Or in other cases where the welfare system itself has produced artificial disincentives to get higher paying work (issue of trust due to inefficiencies or failure of common goods) Thoughtful discussions aside, the people most suited to both care about and solve the problem set are the ones I would most likely lean on. This isn’t necessarily an anarchist position, it’s one of cautious skepticism over blanket trust without industry specific evidence to prove that the govt is in fact better at handling time, money, and increasingly efficient gains. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to prove that the govt is particularly good at handling the first two. That all being said, I don’t see it as an all or nothing. Follow the evidence and the data.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues), and defense (our military seems to be used more for offense, not defense). In general, I find public institutions to be worse than their private alternatives. I prefer UPS/FedEx to the Postal Service and I send my child to a charter school rather than the local public school. Public institutions have shown that they don't need to be good, just good enough. The key is making sure the incentives are right. Google and Facebook are bad because they profit from violating people's privacy, and they've developed a business model based around trading personal information for services. I don't know what the answer is necessarily, but nationalising it just turns them into surveillance networks, which is arguably worse than advertising networks. I think we need to decide what the end goal is and define the incentives needed to get us there, and ideally we'd avoid too much use of government to get there. For Google/Facebook, I doubt advertising will go away, so we need to find a way to make privacy-preserving ads a thing while still allowing advertisers to show relevant ads to customers. Perhaps the Brave model is better than Google's model, or perhaps Google's model is acceptable with transparency and oversight. But having government deeply involved in personally identifiable activity is a bit too Orwellian for me.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    > Personally, I don't trust the government to do food regulation (FDA is reactionary and IMO corruptible), social safety net (Social Security has serious issues), and defense (our military seems to be used more for offense, not defense). I accept your argument, but most people against net regulation generally have good opinions on food regulation agencies and the social safety net, so while you seem consistent, I have a feeling a lot of people aren't in this matter. I suspect the case is even greater for European countries, which do food regulation and social safety better than the US in many ways. Either way, it would follow that a government which does those things right could, in principle, regulate the net. I think the case is stronger when one considers that everyone except anarchists accepts the rule of law, and the democratic decision process to arrive to the law. I think it's very reasonable to say that there are government institutions that are run well, and those institutions have greater consequences than the regulation of the net. The real target of my criticism was the fact that people tend to engage in special pleading when it comes to regulating the net, or regulating speech, without much reason for it. Brison has argued that there is no meaningful metaphysical difference between what we class as "speech" and "action".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]