5 ms·

Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be able to deplatform Donald Trump and n

Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be able to deplatform Donald Trump and not have Pakistan chase my friends in the Ahmadiyya community off the internet than accept both of those outcomes

adventured 6y ago
I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether anyone likes it or not. There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really, really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that? Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws / religion / et al. Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion? What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their government? I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool, now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's actually the central matter here. They are de facto the gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign territory, period. See: China and how they operate the Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not. An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals should never trade with bad nations, because they have to comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides that? More fun.
- YawningAngel 6y ago
  If internet services in general were less centralised, Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its ability to wield that power against its citizens might be reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction associated with doing so
- centimeter 6y ago
  Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in a way where it’s not possible for Pakistan to wholesale prevent people from using a piece of software.
  - FlownScepter 6y ago
    At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan. This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws and culture of the places where it operates, especially with regard to the global south. Just because you either don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. I of course disagree with what's happening here, but nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Not available for purchase != not available. I understand the point you're trying to make: technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's from a non-Western / less-democratic country. But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there are technical qualities about the internet that make it censorship-resistant.
      - FlownScepter 6y ago
        I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media hasn't or can't, and there is some truth to that? But that wasn't because of some innate superiority; it was because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom to express oneself is the default, with authorities only really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed through the Internet's spread to other parts of the world, where this is not always the case, and the reaction in general from companies especially borders on pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana republic?" Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic, regardless of how banana it might be, it is the Government and it has power. I feel like this is the penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to find out that the madman running around in tanks and aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know, over there, actually does have direct and indisputable power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is probably killing tons of them. Like, we know that, but we don't understand what that means, not really. How could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further from my reality. And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes too much of a problem.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  AWS and GCP could start by allowing domain fronting again.

adventured 6y ago

I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether anyone likes it or not. There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really, really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that? Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws / religion / et al. Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion? What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their government? I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool, now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's actually the central matter here. They are de facto the gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign territory, period. See: China and how they operate the Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not. An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals should never trade with bad nations, because they have to comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides that? More fun.

YawningAngel 6y ago
If internet services in general were less centralised, Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its ability to wield that power against its citizens might be reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction associated with doing so
centimeter 6y ago
Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in a way where it’s not possible for Pakistan to wholesale prevent people from using a piece of software.
- FlownScepter 6y ago
  At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan. This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws and culture of the places where it operates, especially with regard to the global south. Just because you either don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. I of course disagree with what's happening here, but nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Not available for purchase != not available. I understand the point you're trying to make: technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's from a non-Western / less-democratic country. But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there are technical qualities about the internet that make it censorship-resistant.
    - FlownScepter 6y ago
      I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media hasn't or can't, and there is some truth to that? But that wasn't because of some innate superiority; it was because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom to express oneself is the default, with authorities only really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed through the Internet's spread to other parts of the world, where this is not always the case, and the reaction in general from companies especially borders on pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana republic?" Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic, regardless of how banana it might be, it is the Government and it has power. I feel like this is the penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to find out that the madman running around in tanks and aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know, over there, actually does have direct and indisputable power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is probably killing tons of them. Like, we know that, but we don't understand what that means, not really. How could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further from my reality. And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes too much of a problem.
sanxiyn 6y ago
AWS and GCP could start by allowing domain fronting again.