3 ms·

Well, 2 things: 1) The entrenched power structures will be most able to abuse this technology, as they have the social structure through which the technology a

by bsanr2 7y ago

Well, 2 things: 1) The entrenched power structures will be most able to abuse this technology, as they have the social structure through which the technology acts on their side, and 2)The lack of any authority, central or otherwise, makes the importance of these soft and constructed parameters even more important, not less. If you're betting on anarchy sorting more effectively because you think authority distorts a natural balance, that's probably not the case. When you remove the tentpole, you're not freed from the tent, it just collapses on top of you with all its weight. Everyone needs to have their personal pillars ready.

cinquemb 7y ago
RE #1: I agree that this is the case now, but this depends on people who build these tools and systems to not co-opt and subvert them for their own ends. RE #2: I'm not betting on anarchy, but on the emergence of form of a way of organization that is able to operate with bit of disregard of entrenched power structures by co-opting those who work for them yet don't feel they receive enough benefits from the current situation to uphold a particular institutions beliefs, and willing to explore the horizon for more options. The tent-pole isn't something necessary to remove, and it's not necessarily desired remove because it allows for those who lack will to purse any other way to rely on its existence for shelter, while others can simply walk out the tent, and construct/decommission a structure that which they choose for any particular ends, and walk in/out of the tent and leverage its resources as it sees fit and work with others who share similar goals against those can not imagine any other way of being. I think a good example of this is with regards to academics and shared credential usage that enables sci-hub. I see a similar situation unfolding in banking right now.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  >I'm not betting on anarchy, but on the emergence of form of a way of organization that is able to operate with bit of disregard of entrenched power structures by co-opting those who work for them yet don't feel they receive enough benefits from the current situation to uphold a particular institutions beliefs, and willing to explore the horizon for more options. Sounds like a religion. >while others can simply walk out the tent, and construct/decommission a structure that which they choose for any particular ends, and walk in/out of the tent and leverage its resources as it sees fit and work with others who share similar goals against those can not imagine any other way of being. I think a good example of this is with regards to academics and shared credential usage that enables sci-hub. I see a similar situation unfolding in banking right now. The problem with this is that the people who are privileged to be able to walk in and out tend to feel entitled to the tent because they have access, but not obligated because "they can leave any time," not observing that their lifestyle still requires the tent and the people living under it.
  - cinquemb 7y ago
    > Sounds like a religion. Well one major difference is that I don't think it has to become true, but I'm benefiting from the decaying and over leveraged status quo globally, and will continue to do so if it gets worse. If things get better, I still win, but just less so. If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. >The problem with this is that the people who are privileged to be able to walk in and out tend to feel entitled to the tent because they have access, but not obligated because "they can leave any time," not observing that their lifestyle still requires the tent and the people living under it. You can't force people into obligation, there must be agreed upon terms, which are always up for negotiation despite what people may say (not saying that some/most people wont just bend over to such obligations out of some kind of perceived higher morality [at least higher signaled morality, their actions/inaction might speak otherwise])… one doesn't have to out run the bear, just the person next to them who has their hands in their ears about the possibilities and configurations the state of things can take (who may or may not have the resources to maintain [or have to spend more and more resources to maintain something falling apart]) and does nothing different. If the tent falls down or degrades, the person who was betting on it and the implications, or positioned for it happening is going be better prepared more often then not (unless one happens to think that were all gonna die anyways, so better not do anything new that could arise from the ashes). If that is privileged, then sure. Nothing was ever fair, and let us not pretend that compelling everyone into tent and staying there indefinitely because "obligations" is fair either.
    - bsanr2 7y ago
      >If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. That's, like, the worst aspect of religions. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of hoping for/boosting Armageddon because you're convinced you got it figured out and know how to come out on top. >You can't force people into obligation Of course you can. Lock them out or lock them in. In fact, that's the perfect way to deal with those who are trying to play both sides: make them choose. That makes it a lot easier to determine what needs to be done vis a vis the tent. The worst thing these privileged people can do is to draw attention to that privilege, then, because it welcomes intervention. Their behavior becomes self-regulating in this way.

by bsanr2 7y ago

cinquemb 7y ago

RE #1: I agree that this is the case now, but this depends on people who build these tools and systems to not co-opt and subvert them for their own ends. RE #2: I'm not betting on anarchy, but on the emergence of form of a way of organization that is able to operate with bit of disregard of entrenched power structures by co-opting those who work for them yet don't feel they receive enough benefits from the current situation to uphold a particular institutions beliefs, and willing to explore the horizon for more options. The tent-pole isn't something necessary to remove, and it's not necessarily desired remove because it allows for those who lack will to purse any other way to rely on its existence for shelter, while others can simply walk out the tent, and construct/decommission a structure that which they choose for any particular ends, and walk in/out of the tent and leverage its resources as it sees fit and work with others who share similar goals against those can not imagine any other way of being. I think a good example of this is with regards to academics and shared credential usage that enables sci-hub. I see a similar situation unfolding in banking right now.

bsanr2 7y ago
>I'm not betting on anarchy, but on the emergence of form of a way of organization that is able to operate with bit of disregard of entrenched power structures by co-opting those who work for them yet don't feel they receive enough benefits from the current situation to uphold a particular institutions beliefs, and willing to explore the horizon for more options. Sounds like a religion. >while others can simply walk out the tent, and construct/decommission a structure that which they choose for any particular ends, and walk in/out of the tent and leverage its resources as it sees fit and work with others who share similar goals against those can not imagine any other way of being. I think a good example of this is with regards to academics and shared credential usage that enables sci-hub. I see a similar situation unfolding in banking right now. The problem with this is that the people who are privileged to be able to walk in and out tend to feel entitled to the tent because they have access, but not obligated because "they can leave any time," not observing that their lifestyle still requires the tent and the people living under it.
- cinquemb 7y ago
  > Sounds like a religion. Well one major difference is that I don't think it has to become true, but I'm benefiting from the decaying and over leveraged status quo globally, and will continue to do so if it gets worse. If things get better, I still win, but just less so. If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. >The problem with this is that the people who are privileged to be able to walk in and out tend to feel entitled to the tent because they have access, but not obligated because "they can leave any time," not observing that their lifestyle still requires the tent and the people living under it. You can't force people into obligation, there must be agreed upon terms, which are always up for negotiation despite what people may say (not saying that some/most people wont just bend over to such obligations out of some kind of perceived higher morality [at least higher signaled morality, their actions/inaction might speak otherwise])… one doesn't have to out run the bear, just the person next to them who has their hands in their ears about the possibilities and configurations the state of things can take (who may or may not have the resources to maintain [or have to spend more and more resources to maintain something falling apart]) and does nothing different. If the tent falls down or degrades, the person who was betting on it and the implications, or positioned for it happening is going be better prepared more often then not (unless one happens to think that were all gonna die anyways, so better not do anything new that could arise from the ashes). If that is privileged, then sure. Nothing was ever fair, and let us not pretend that compelling everyone into tent and staying there indefinitely because "obligations" is fair either.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    >If this framework of allocating resources (time/money/effort) now under my control is a religion, then so be it. Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. That's, like, the worst aspect of religions. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of hoping for/boosting Armageddon because you're convinced you got it figured out and know how to come out on top. >You can't force people into obligation Of course you can. Lock them out or lock them in. In fact, that's the perfect way to deal with those who are trying to play both sides: make them choose. That makes it a lot easier to determine what needs to be done vis a vis the tent. The worst thing these privileged people can do is to draw attention to that privilege, then, because it welcomes intervention. Their behavior becomes self-regulating in this way.