4 ms·

> Citizens will require a personal licence to access the internet, and anonymous use will be illegal. Sadly, given the actions of Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and

> Citizens will require a personal licence to access the internet, and anonymous use will be illegal. Sadly, given the actions of Twitter, Facebook, Apple, and Google, that is a preferred option to the current state today. Ironically we will have more freedom in that state.

brippalcharrid 6y ago
Are you sure that you have an accurate assessment of how bad things are currently vs how bad they would become in a world where access to the Internet was strictly controlled by governments and anonymous/pseudonymous communications were forbidden? Don't you think that the risks in the second scenario are in a different category to the risks in the first one? While being sent to Facebook Jail could limit your social life, it pales besides the threat of Federal Prison.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is a contrived fantasy, or a realistic question? We have a system of justice, you get to defend youself, judged by your peers and posting general BS about politics is not a crime. Youtube, on the other hand, will ban your channel without any recourse, so if you are earning a living from it, you kids might be on the street because something in a mysteruous machine learning algorithm got triggered.
  - brippalcharrid 6y ago
    Read the comments that I was responding to, if it's not clear to you. The GP described this scenario as being realistic, and the parent comment said that this seemed preferable to Big Tech acting without extensive regulation. > We have a system of justice ... That's irrelevant here, and there are probably far more people who are likely to lose their livelihoods if they post unpopular stuff about politics under their real name. I think that political content creators on YouTube supporting their family through money from their advertising program are an extreme edge-case, and they can always move to a new platform, whereas people in the former category would risk their non-political day-jobs and this would have a broader chilling effect across society at large. And tell me how the solution to this problem could possibly be to give the government access to and control over the internet activity of every member of the population? What kind of dystopian nightmare would we be trying to create? Do you think that access to this level and breadth of data is likely to make future governments more or less authoritarian? Do you think it might attract more authoritarian figures into politics? Of course governments can surveil people currently, but in relatively limited numbers or with the cooperation of service providers, but I can't imagine people seriously thinking that this would be a good idea, or maybe they haven't thought through its practical implications.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      "there are probably far more people who are likely to lose their livelihoods if they post unpopular stuff about politics under their real name.' I do not see how that is true outside of US, unless we are talking about seriously extremist stuff "they can always move to a new platform" Like what? What platform has at least 10% market share as alternative to YouTube? "Of course governments can surveil people currently, but in relatively limited numbers" Millions of people is 'limited numbers'? The liberty you are talikng about was already lost to corporates, the survalience state is alrwady here. you have no ability to escape phone providers selling your date and no knowledge of them doing it. At least governments can be held accountable at the voting booth, a monopolistic company can't. There was a really good quote adressing monopolies: "If we will not accept kings and tyrants over over lives, then we shall not accept a king over necceseties of life"
      - brippalcharrid 6y ago
        I see that you've moved on from doubting that anyone had been discussing this as a potential scenario, to defending it. > I do not see how that is true outside of US It's true amongst much of the Anglosphere. And of course China, Russia I imagine, most of the Middle East, Africa, the rest of Asia, and South America. So the vast majority of the world's population. And if people can't speak anonymously or pseudonymously, it's going to have a huge chilling effect on free expression online. By the way, look around the world to see just how much the definition of "really extremist stuff" can vary. I didn't suggest that moving to a platform outside of the Big Tech hegemony was necessarily easy, but I did suggest that it was possible. We're in the early days of the consumer revolt against Facebook/Youtube, but if people are suitably motivated to move to other platforms, those other platforms will grow and develop. And it's a whole lot easier to move to a different tech platform than it is to move to a different country, or to change the law when you're in a political minority. Governments can really only properly surveil people who are taking active measures to conceal their activities in relatively small numbers. They can get a certain amount of information and metadata about the majority of the population who use popular platforms and services, but there has been a tendency in recent years to encrypt everything and then to collaborate with the security services of particular countries. > The liberty you are talikng about was already lost to corporates, the survalience state is alrwady here. you have no ability to escape phone providers selling your date and no knowledge of them doing it. If I'm concerned about Alexa hearing my private conversations, I can unplug her. I get to decide whether the potential risk to my privacy is worth the benefits of using particular products and services. I can ask my friends not to livestream me on Facebook when they walk into my house. There's loads of popular technology that I'm perfectly free not to use, or to seek out alternatives. The fact that so many people choose the easiest, shiniest option is their decision, and their problem, and you don't get to make that my problem. It's both untrue and it's also a complete non-sequitur to say that we're already living voluntarily in a corporate surveillance state and then to say that we might as well therefore make it into a government-controlled surveillance state, and to replace terms and conditions with laws, and account cancellations and bans with criminal penalties. > At least governments can be held accountable at the voting booth In practice, this only tends to happen in countries where people are relatively free to do things on the Internet without the government tracking and controlling their activity. There's a causal link here. > a monopolistic company can't. Facebook will only continue to be the pre-eminent social network as long as vast numbers of people choose to continue to use it. You, personally, can hold it to account by not using it any more, but you have no right to stop other people from using it if they want to. > There was a really good quote adressing monopolies: "If we will not accept kings and tyrants over over lives, then we shall not accept a king over necceseties of life" To suggest that Facebook is a necessity of life really highlights what a position of privilege we're in. Perhaps people who are trying to advance that kind of argumentation need to have a good, hard look at what the "needs" and the "wants" really are in their life. I'd also recommend that you read some of the Austrian economists to find out what a real monopoly would actually look like, and why it is that you're unlikely to encounter one.
- walkedaway 6y ago
  Based on the freedom I have with using phone, electricity, water, roads, and other public infrastructure, absolutely I am sure. Twitter, Apple, and Facebook have showed their hand. I want no part of that future.

brippalcharrid 6y ago

Are you sure that you have an accurate assessment of how bad things are currently vs how bad they would become in a world where access to the Internet was strictly controlled by governments and anonymous/pseudonymous communications were forbidden? Don't you think that the risks in the second scenario are in a different category to the risks in the first one? While being sent to Facebook Jail could limit your social life, it pales besides the threat of Federal Prison.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This is a contrived fantasy, or a realistic question? We have a system of justice, you get to defend youself, judged by your peers and posting general BS about politics is not a crime. Youtube, on the other hand, will ban your channel without any recourse, so if you are earning a living from it, you kids might be on the street because something in a mysteruous machine learning algorithm got triggered.
- brippalcharrid 6y ago
  Read the comments that I was responding to, if it's not clear to you. The GP described this scenario as being realistic, and the parent comment said that this seemed preferable to Big Tech acting without extensive regulation. > We have a system of justice ... That's irrelevant here, and there are probably far more people who are likely to lose their livelihoods if they post unpopular stuff about politics under their real name. I think that political content creators on YouTube supporting their family through money from their advertising program are an extreme edge-case, and they can always move to a new platform, whereas people in the former category would risk their non-political day-jobs and this would have a broader chilling effect across society at large. And tell me how the solution to this problem could possibly be to give the government access to and control over the internet activity of every member of the population? What kind of dystopian nightmare would we be trying to create? Do you think that access to this level and breadth of data is likely to make future governments more or less authoritarian? Do you think it might attract more authoritarian figures into politics? Of course governments can surveil people currently, but in relatively limited numbers or with the cooperation of service providers, but I can't imagine people seriously thinking that this would be a good idea, or maybe they haven't thought through its practical implications.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    "there are probably far more people who are likely to lose their livelihoods if they post unpopular stuff about politics under their real name.' I do not see how that is true outside of US, unless we are talking about seriously extremist stuff "they can always move to a new platform" Like what? What platform has at least 10% market share as alternative to YouTube? "Of course governments can surveil people currently, but in relatively limited numbers" Millions of people is 'limited numbers'? The liberty you are talikng about was already lost to corporates, the survalience state is alrwady here. you have no ability to escape phone providers selling your date and no knowledge of them doing it. At least governments can be held accountable at the voting booth, a monopolistic company can't. There was a really good quote adressing monopolies: "If we will not accept kings and tyrants over over lives, then we shall not accept a king over necceseties of life"
    - brippalcharrid 6y ago
      I see that you've moved on from doubting that anyone had been discussing this as a potential scenario, to defending it. > I do not see how that is true outside of US It's true amongst much of the Anglosphere. And of course China, Russia I imagine, most of the Middle East, Africa, the rest of Asia, and South America. So the vast majority of the world's population. And if people can't speak anonymously or pseudonymously, it's going to have a huge chilling effect on free expression online. By the way, look around the world to see just how much the definition of "really extremist stuff" can vary. I didn't suggest that moving to a platform outside of the Big Tech hegemony was necessarily easy, but I did suggest that it was possible. We're in the early days of the consumer revolt against Facebook/Youtube, but if people are suitably motivated to move to other platforms, those other platforms will grow and develop. And it's a whole lot easier to move to a different tech platform than it is to move to a different country, or to change the law when you're in a political minority. Governments can really only properly surveil people who are taking active measures to conceal their activities in relatively small numbers. They can get a certain amount of information and metadata about the majority of the population who use popular platforms and services, but there has been a tendency in recent years to encrypt everything and then to collaborate with the security services of particular countries. > The liberty you are talikng about was already lost to corporates, the survalience state is alrwady here. you have no ability to escape phone providers selling your date and no knowledge of them doing it. If I'm concerned about Alexa hearing my private conversations, I can unplug her. I get to decide whether the potential risk to my privacy is worth the benefits of using particular products and services. I can ask my friends not to livestream me on Facebook when they walk into my house. There's loads of popular technology that I'm perfectly free not to use, or to seek out alternatives. The fact that so many people choose the easiest, shiniest option is their decision, and their problem, and you don't get to make that my problem. It's both untrue and it's also a complete non-sequitur to say that we're already living voluntarily in a corporate surveillance state and then to say that we might as well therefore make it into a government-controlled surveillance state, and to replace terms and conditions with laws, and account cancellations and bans with criminal penalties. > At least governments can be held accountable at the voting booth In practice, this only tends to happen in countries where people are relatively free to do things on the Internet without the government tracking and controlling their activity. There's a causal link here. > a monopolistic company can't. Facebook will only continue to be the pre-eminent social network as long as vast numbers of people choose to continue to use it. You, personally, can hold it to account by not using it any more, but you have no right to stop other people from using it if they want to. > There was a really good quote adressing monopolies: "If we will not accept kings and tyrants over over lives, then we shall not accept a king over necceseties of life" To suggest that Facebook is a necessity of life really highlights what a position of privilege we're in. Perhaps people who are trying to advance that kind of argumentation need to have a good, hard look at what the "needs" and the "wants" really are in their life. I'd also recommend that you read some of the Austrian economists to find out what a real monopoly would actually look like, and why it is that you're unlikely to encounter one.
walkedaway 6y ago
Based on the freedom I have with using phone, electricity, water, roads, and other public infrastructure, absolutely I am sure. Twitter, Apple, and Facebook have showed their hand. I want no part of that future.