3 ms·

I'm going to argue no. I wish I could find the HN commentator who said what I've long thought better than I ever could... it was on a cryptocurrency thread, nat

I'm going to argue no. I wish I could find the HN commentator who said what I've long thought better than I ever could... it was on a cryptocurrency thread, naturally. Such a thing will always have some kind of "emissions" or way of differentiating it. Oh, there will be layers of obfuscation, redundancy, and such. But the bottom line is (and especially to be scalable, have "network effects", be non-nerd accessible) by having an identity... you can be identified. From there, it's all about power and control and that "might makes right". Nothing more than the use of language is required to censor. It can always be outlawed and even if it's hard to find, hard to prove. If it really matters "they" will find a way, however arcane or mundane. Not saying it's a futile effort. Just that "power" can always find a way to put its boot down to stop a thing it feels threatened by until the concept of power itself is what is at stake.

harryf 6y ago
I think you put that extremely well. One thing ... > until the concept of power itself is what is at stake You mean we need a reach a point where power is not needed? If so that’s a fascinating idea. Thanks!
- mr-wendel 6y ago
  Yes, and no. Power will always be needed, as it represents a differential between knowledge and control over resources. For example, I wouldn't want kids to grow up without benevolent parents! There are obviously other societal layers on top of that that will never go away. It's more about how power is legitimized and used. The more arbitrary it is, the harder it will to keep folks from fighting over the traditional levers of control vs seeking out more organic ways of bringing about and enforcing change. It's utopian thinking for sure, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible to scale out... just hard. My wife and I don't always get along perfect, but we get along well because neither of us ever plays power cards to get our way. We hope to build a family along those lines, and have been fortunate to be employed based on these terms too. Ultimately there is only "win-win" and "lose-lose". The "win-lose" scenario is delusional: it's ultimately self-defeating to benefit at someone else's expense no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. Our societies are a long ways from internalizing that, but I think we've made amazing progress!

harryf 6y ago

I think you put that extremely well. One thing ... > until the concept of power itself is what is at stake You mean we need a reach a point where power is not needed? If so that’s a fascinating idea. Thanks!

mr-wendel 6y ago
Yes, and no. Power will always be needed, as it represents a differential between knowledge and control over resources. For example, I wouldn't want kids to grow up without benevolent parents! There are obviously other societal layers on top of that that will never go away. It's more about how power is legitimized and used. The more arbitrary it is, the harder it will to keep folks from fighting over the traditional levers of control vs seeking out more organic ways of bringing about and enforcing change. It's utopian thinking for sure, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible to scale out... just hard. My wife and I don't always get along perfect, but we get along well because neither of us ever plays power cards to get our way. We hope to build a family along those lines, and have been fortunate to be employed based on these terms too. Ultimately there is only "win-win" and "lose-lose". The "win-lose" scenario is delusional: it's ultimately self-defeating to benefit at someone else's expense no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. Our societies are a long ways from internalizing that, but I think we've made amazing progress!