4 ms·

I don’t think so, but my guess is as bad as anyone else’s. People have too many family members, coworkers, friends, etc. across country borders. There’s a high

I don’t think so, but my guess is as bad as anyone else’s. People have too many family members, coworkers, friends, etc. across country borders. There’s a high cost to cutting your country off from the rest of the internet in any real way. The cost of intercepting / controlling / severing internet communication is high and gets higher as communication volumes get higher, the economy relies more heavy on international communication, and encryption becomes more commonplace. I do think we’re going to see a lot more geofencing as time goes on.

selfhoster11 6y ago
This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they aren't.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  From the perspective of an "irrational actor": Brexit was much more about not liking the political policies of the EU than about cutting the UK off from the rest of the world.
  - pas 6y ago
    Not really, it was UK Conservative voters tirning out to vote against Labor. The actual Brexit thing is a red herring. Populism needs leaders, leaders need vague enemies, the EU was perfect.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  I honestly don't understand Brexit. My usual assumption when strange things happen in politics is game-theory-compatible: there are strong incentive structures driving the behavior. A roughly equivalent statement: some (possibly large) group of people is going to get rich off it, and they're directly or indirectly driving the change. But here? I can't point to obvious actors with enough pushing power that would benefit from this. Not on the UK side, at least. Brexit feels to me like a meme that got out of hand and drove behavior that's against everyone's self-interest.
  - danielheath 6y ago
    IIRC (and I may not be; check for yourself) the EU were planning much stricter AML laws which were quite firmly opposed by the UK wealth management industry. That's a group with motive and the power to do something about it.
  - golemiprague 6y ago
    Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.
    - etrabroline 6y ago
      This is a great analysis. The shocking thing is how Trump stole the Democrats' pre-Bush era positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy and won. Bill Clinton opposed NAFTA, Barbara Jordan wanted to slash legal immigration, and Democrats opposed the Iraq war after Bush's reelection. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform-barbara-jordan-commission.html https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration...
  - ben_w 6y ago
    In the language of game theory (but not with enough evidence, so this is a Just-So-Story): When he was a journalist, Johnson discovered that “write disparaging lies [0] about European politics” was a successful strategy. It is plausible others noticed this, and likewise found easier to win power by euro-bashing than by being honest. Given the cognitive biases which makes repetition of claims make those claims seem more true, from that point on you get your meme which got out of hand and drove the referendum and its result. Defect-Defect. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-130475 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...
- klodolph 6y ago
  It’s about degrees. Brexit has a cost, internet balkanization has a cost, the more you isolate your country the more you pay. At some point the costs are too high, and can only be supported by the most authoritarian regimes.

selfhoster11 6y ago

This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they aren't.

throwaway45349 6y ago
From the perspective of an "irrational actor": Brexit was much more about not liking the political policies of the EU than about cutting the UK off from the rest of the world.
- pas 6y ago
  Not really, it was UK Conservative voters tirning out to vote against Labor. The actual Brexit thing is a red herring. Populism needs leaders, leaders need vague enemies, the EU was perfect.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I honestly don't understand Brexit. My usual assumption when strange things happen in politics is game-theory-compatible: there are strong incentive structures driving the behavior. A roughly equivalent statement: some (possibly large) group of people is going to get rich off it, and they're directly or indirectly driving the change. But here? I can't point to obvious actors with enough pushing power that would benefit from this. Not on the UK side, at least. Brexit feels to me like a meme that got out of hand and drove behavior that's against everyone's self-interest.
- danielheath 6y ago
  IIRC (and I may not be; check for yourself) the EU were planning much stricter AML laws which were quite firmly opposed by the UK wealth management industry. That's a group with motive and the power to do something about it.
- golemiprague 6y ago
  Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    This is a great analysis. The shocking thing is how Trump stole the Democrats' pre-Bush era positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy and won. Bill Clinton opposed NAFTA, Barbara Jordan wanted to slash legal immigration, and Democrats opposed the Iraq war after Bush's reelection. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform-barbara-jordan-commission.html https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration...
- ben_w 6y ago
  In the language of game theory (but not with enough evidence, so this is a Just-So-Story): When he was a journalist, Johnson discovered that “write disparaging lies [0] about European politics” was a successful strategy. It is plausible others noticed this, and likewise found easier to win power by euro-bashing than by being honest. Given the cognitive biases which makes repetition of claims make those claims seem more true, from that point on you get your meme which got out of hand and drove the referendum and its result. Defect-Defect. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-130475 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...
klodolph 6y ago
It’s about degrees. Brexit has a cost, internet balkanization has a cost, the more you isolate your country the more you pay. At some point the costs are too high, and can only be supported by the most authoritarian regimes.