6 ms·

The solution is to foster an appreciation of the values of freedom and independence in the population, not only with regards to computing, but about life in gen

The solution is to foster an appreciation of the values of freedom and independence in the population, not only with regards to computing, but about life in general (freedom of speech, freedom of press, economic freedom, etc). I've always admired how much the general population defends freedom of speech in the US. In the rest of the world, freedom of speech is constantly eroded with laws against "hate speech", because our cultures (latin american here) don't value freedom of spedch. If we could capture the appreciation Americans have for freedom of speech and extrapolate it to all areas of human activity, we would rest assured that our computers would keep being general-purpose.

BEEdwards 6y ago
Umm.. white nationalist tried to pull a coup a month ago. It's just possible that maybe, just maybe some speech isn't compatible with democracy...
- trav4225 6y ago
  It's difficult to imagine anything more democratic than free speech.
  - BEEdwards 6y ago
    It looks good on paper and then in the real world people go "those guys that look different than you, they're the cause of all your problems and we should kill them/let us set up camps to kill them so you don't have to see it." That's what history has shown again and again. If you give free speech to people and groups who's express goal is to take away the power and speech of others they unironically will... The paradox of tolerance isn't some other world hypothetical it has been demonstrated again and again.
    - trav4225 6y ago
      This is the classic choice of liberty vs. security. Each has its pros and cons. Free speech may be abused, but that's the risk of freedom. And, in my mind at least, true freedom of speech is a necessary ingredient of authentic democracy. This is how I see it...
- centimeter 6y ago
  > boomer panty raid > "coup" Come on, man.
  - taylus 6y ago
    Yeah it’s not like they killed a cop and dragged an enemy flag through the senate
    - ttt0 6y ago
      It's not like, because they didn't, as far as we know. It's unclear how that cop died, there wasn't any official statement. To people who are downvoting, the NYT story was made up: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/22/what-we-know-about-capitol-police-officer-brian-si/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/22/what-we-know-...
    - splintercell 6y ago
      They killed a cop? Wow, I only read NYT's retraction of the story, if there was an update on the retraction then it missed my radar. Can you point me to a link from NYT claiming that rioters killed a cop?
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > it’s not like they killed a cop Correct, it doesn't seem like they did; the NYT story was debunked. > dragged an enemy flag through the senate The rebel flag isn't an "enemy flag" any more than the Republic of Texas flag. It's a historical curiosity that has some function as a completely detached cultural signifier. You are pathologically hyperbolic.
      - taylus 6y ago
        Wrong and wrong, try again.
- beloch 6y ago
  Few states have ever pretended that speech should be absolutely free. The U.S. draws the line at speech that incites the imminent and likely violation of the law[1]. Canada only guarantees free speech within "reasonable limits"[2]. It's still worth fighting against governments natural desire for control to ensure "reasonable" speech remains as free as possible. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
- lou1306 6y ago
  Also, Europe has been torn apart for centuries by religious, ethnic, or nationalistic hatred. The current laws reflect that. And communities that had to endure such hatred in the past will not be easily convinced that free speech is always a good thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
afavour 6y ago
Eh? By your own reckoning the existing defense of freedom of speech doesn't extend to general purpose computing, so why would you focus on increasing that which already exists and has proven to not have a connection? IMO one of the greatest enemies to success is broadening scope. General purpose computing: it's a good, specific focus. "Freedom in all areas of human activity" means endless conversations about what that means, what to focus on, what to prioritise, blah blah blah.
centimeter 6y ago
> The solution is to foster an appreciation of the values of freedom and independence in the population This is almost entirely heritable, and can only be "fostered" through demographic management.
throwawayaworth 6y ago
Freedom of speech all around the world is eroding (some places more than others of course), step by step, we agree on that. But I disagree that the US is any different, and is certainly not at the top of the ladder. To be clear: I mean freedom in practice, not freedom in legal theory. "freedom of speech" is to the US as "politeness" is to Canadians: mostly true, but generally a stereotype that is fading with time. I always thought it was funny in a tragicomic way, that a country that has freedom as one of its top virtues is the same one where you would quickly get sued (if not imprisoned) for acts considered harmless in other countries. Perhaps the true free citizens of the US are corporations, to the detriment of natural persons. Maybe this is not obvious until you've lived both in and out of North America for long enough.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  I have little to add except perhaps that the truly free citizens have the capital to either a) hire good lawyers, or b) scoff any financial expenses and fines because they are the equivalent of pennies to them. IIRC Jeff was renovating an apartment in NYC and he had his car parked somewhere for days with accumulating fines in the order of 10s of thousands but really, those numbers are 6-7 orders of magnitude smaller than his wealth.
  - sep_field 6y ago
    All fines should be scaled to the net worth of the offender. It is not fair that a fine that would ruin the poor is treated by the rich as a game.
    - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
      Finland does it, at least on speeding tickets with a maximum multipler of 120 as of this [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
eplanit 6y ago
> In the rest of the world, freedom of speech is constantly eroded with laws against "hate speech" America is very quickly (and sadly) trending towards this, too.
- AgentOrange1234 6y ago
  Based on...?
1996 6y ago
So true! I wish South America, Europe and Asia (all culturally quite close to the US culture) would get enlightened about free speech, if only to carry on the torch should the woke cancel culture win.
schoen 6y ago
> I've always admired how much the general population defends freedom of speech in the US. I remember talking to a former coworker who had taken (or maybe taught) LL.M. classes at a law school with lawyers from all around the world (who were learning more about U.S. law as a form of continuing education). She said that she initially assumed that the foreign lawyers would be jealous of the U.S. first amendment (because the U.S. had succeeded in winning so much autonomy against the state, or against tyrannies of the majority), which is certainly the way many Americans would have learned to think about it growing up. However, she found that most of the foreign lawyers were actually disturbed by or skeptical toward the first amendment, because they thought that some aspects of expression and communication were pretty dangerous and that it was an important function of the state to suppress or punish them. As an American free speech activist, I was also extremely surprised by this! One thing that's tricky is that there are several different reasons why people might be proud of or aspire to protecting speech, including: - Free speech is a sign that your society is strong, peaceful, or successful, because it doesn't need to suppress subcultures or ideas by force. That suggests that the society is built, if not on consent, at least not on hiding something or getting people to pretend that they agree with things they don't. Conversely, censorship is a sign of weakness or fear, or an admission or clue that something is being covered up and people aren't being given a chance to investigate or think for themselves. - Free speech is a human right that shows that you respect people's autonomy and conscience. - Free speech is a mark of humility that shows that you accept for some purposes the possibility that you might be wrong or confused in ways that seem extremely unlikely or incomprehensible to you. - Speech (and culture and belief) are areas of life that are not supposed to be regulated or controlled by the state (because they're too personal, they're too far from the things that states are really needed or appropriate for, or because they're used to define or understand the values and goals that people want the state to pursue in the first place). - Free speech leads to good outcomes in some way (peace, understanding, progress, constructive deliberation, pluralism). - Free speech prevents bad outcomes in some way (stagnation, totalitarianism, some abuses of power). - Even though free speech might not always be that great, no state (or other entity) can be trusted to decide on the truth or the boundaries of acceptable discussion for everyone else.
- schoen 6y ago
chmod600 6y ago
Speaking of freedom of speech, I just saw this list of "questions" some members of Congress sent to media companies: https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/Eshoo-McNerney-TV-Misinfo%20Letters-2.22.21.pdf https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/Eshoo-Mc... Yikes. I wonder what happens to those companies if they have the "wrong" answers. Antitrust, make the executives testify, deny regulatory approval of random stuff... so many options.

BEEdwards 6y ago

Umm.. white nationalist tried to pull a coup a month ago. It's just possible that maybe, just maybe some speech isn't compatible with democracy...

trav4225 6y ago
It's difficult to imagine anything more democratic than free speech.
- BEEdwards 6y ago
  It looks good on paper and then in the real world people go "those guys that look different than you, they're the cause of all your problems and we should kill them/let us set up camps to kill them so you don't have to see it." That's what history has shown again and again. If you give free speech to people and groups who's express goal is to take away the power and speech of others they unironically will... The paradox of tolerance isn't some other world hypothetical it has been demonstrated again and again.
  - trav4225 6y ago
    This is the classic choice of liberty vs. security. Each has its pros and cons. Free speech may be abused, but that's the risk of freedom. And, in my mind at least, true freedom of speech is a necessary ingredient of authentic democracy. This is how I see it...
centimeter 6y ago
> boomer panty raid > "coup" Come on, man.
- taylus 6y ago
  Yeah it’s not like they killed a cop and dragged an enemy flag through the senate
  - ttt0 6y ago
    It's not like, because they didn't, as far as we know. It's unclear how that cop died, there wasn't any official statement. To people who are downvoting, the NYT story was made up: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/22/what-we-know-about-capitol-police-officer-brian-si/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/22/what-we-know-...
  - splintercell 6y ago
    They killed a cop? Wow, I only read NYT's retraction of the story, if there was an update on the retraction then it missed my radar. Can you point me to a link from NYT claiming that rioters killed a cop?
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > it’s not like they killed a cop Correct, it doesn't seem like they did; the NYT story was debunked. > dragged an enemy flag through the senate The rebel flag isn't an "enemy flag" any more than the Republic of Texas flag. It's a historical curiosity that has some function as a completely detached cultural signifier. You are pathologically hyperbolic.
    - taylus 6y ago
      Wrong and wrong, try again.
beloch 6y ago
Few states have ever pretended that speech should be absolutely free. The U.S. draws the line at speech that incites the imminent and likely violation of the law[1]. Canada only guarantees free speech within "reasonable limits"[2]. It's still worth fighting against governments natural desire for control to ensure "reasonable" speech remains as free as possible. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
lou1306 6y ago
Also, Europe has been torn apart for centuries by religious, ethnic, or nationalistic hatred. The current laws reflect that. And communities that had to endure such hatred in the past will not be easily convinced that free speech is always a good thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

afavour 6y ago

Eh? By your own reckoning the existing defense of freedom of speech doesn't extend to general purpose computing, so why would you focus on increasing that which already exists and has proven to not have a connection? IMO one of the greatest enemies to success is broadening scope. General purpose computing: it's a good, specific focus. "Freedom in all areas of human activity" means endless conversations about what that means, what to focus on, what to prioritise, blah blah blah.

centimeter 6y ago

> The solution is to foster an appreciation of the values of freedom and independence in the population This is almost entirely heritable, and can only be "fostered" through demographic management.

throwawayaworth 6y ago

Freedom of speech all around the world is eroding (some places more than others of course), step by step, we agree on that. But I disagree that the US is any different, and is certainly not at the top of the ladder. To be clear: I mean freedom in practice, not freedom in legal theory. "freedom of speech" is to the US as "politeness" is to Canadians: mostly true, but generally a stereotype that is fading with time. I always thought it was funny in a tragicomic way, that a country that has freedom as one of its top virtues is the same one where you would quickly get sued (if not imprisoned) for acts considered harmless in other countries. Perhaps the true free citizens of the US are corporations, to the detriment of natural persons. Maybe this is not obvious until you've lived both in and out of North America for long enough.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago
I have little to add except perhaps that the truly free citizens have the capital to either a) hire good lawyers, or b) scoff any financial expenses and fines because they are the equivalent of pennies to them. IIRC Jeff was renovating an apartment in NYC and he had his car parked somewhere for days with accumulating fines in the order of 10s of thousands but really, those numbers are 6-7 orders of magnitude smaller than his wealth.
- sep_field 6y ago
  All fines should be scaled to the net worth of the offender. It is not fair that a fine that would ruin the poor is treated by the rich as a game.
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    Finland does it, at least on speeding tickets with a maximum multipler of 120 as of this [1]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

eplanit 6y ago

> In the rest of the world, freedom of speech is constantly eroded with laws against "hate speech" America is very quickly (and sadly) trending towards this, too.

AgentOrange1234 6y ago
Based on...?

1996 6y ago

So true! I wish South America, Europe and Asia (all culturally quite close to the US culture) would get enlightened about free speech, if only to carry on the torch should the woke cancel culture win.

schoen 6y ago

> I've always admired how much the general population defends freedom of speech in the US. I remember talking to a former coworker who had taken (or maybe taught) LL.M. classes at a law school with lawyers from all around the world (who were learning more about U.S. law as a form of continuing education). She said that she initially assumed that the foreign lawyers would be jealous of the U.S. first amendment (because the U.S. had succeeded in winning so much autonomy against the state, or against tyrannies of the majority), which is certainly the way many Americans would have learned to think about it growing up. However, she found that most of the foreign lawyers were actually disturbed by or skeptical toward the first amendment, because they thought that some aspects of expression and communication were pretty dangerous and that it was an important function of the state to suppress or punish them. As an American free speech activist, I was also extremely surprised by this! One thing that's tricky is that there are several different reasons why people might be proud of or aspire to protecting speech, including: - Free speech is a sign that your society is strong, peaceful, or successful, because it doesn't need to suppress subcultures or ideas by force. That suggests that the society is built, if not on consent, at least not on hiding something or getting people to pretend that they agree with things they don't. Conversely, censorship is a sign of weakness or fear, or an admission or clue that something is being covered up and people aren't being given a chance to investigate or think for themselves. - Free speech is a human right that shows that you respect people's autonomy and conscience. - Free speech is a mark of humility that shows that you accept for some purposes the possibility that you might be wrong or confused in ways that seem extremely unlikely or incomprehensible to you. - Speech (and culture and belief) are areas of life that are not supposed to be regulated or controlled by the state (because they're too personal, they're too far from the things that states are really needed or appropriate for, or because they're used to define or understand the values and goals that people want the state to pursue in the first place). - Free speech leads to good outcomes in some way (peace, understanding, progress, constructive deliberation, pluralism). - Free speech prevents bad outcomes in some way (stagnation, totalitarianism, some abuses of power). - Even though free speech might not always be that great, no state (or other entity) can be trusted to decide on the truth or the boundaries of acceptable discussion for everyone else.

schoen 6y ago

chmod600 6y ago

Speaking of freedom of speech, I just saw this list of "questions" some members of Congress sent to media companies: https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/Eshoo-McNerney-TV-Misinfo%20Letters-2.22.21.pdf https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/Eshoo-Mc... Yikes. I wonder what happens to those companies if they have the "wrong" answers. Antitrust, make the executives testify, deny regulatory approval of random stuff... so many options.