6 ms·

This is more and more like China's social credit system.

by tzfld 6y ago

Hnrobert42 6y ago
What do you mean “more and more”? Are there other examples of this from ICANN?
- patrickaljord 6y ago
  There's this one but one cared because he was a nazi. Now they're going against pirates. Who knows who's next. https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-hate-site-off-the-internet https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...
  - hansjorg 6y ago
    This reminds me of that famous poem. "First they came for the nazis, and I defended them because I am a staunch supporter of free speech. Then the nazis exterminated me and my entire family, just like they had always promised they would. The end."
    - progre 6y ago
      I much prefer to have nazis out in the open where we can keep an eye on them than forcing them underground.
      - claudiawerner 6y ago
        Although I sympathise with that view too, it's unclear to me whether this tactic actually works against the feared outcome, which is Nazis gaining political power. Let's say we do keep an eye on them, and we see something we really don't like. What do we do then? Just keep on keeping an eye on them? It's also unclear what 'underground' means here. Most communication (and particularly political organizing) happens over the Internet, and people regularly gain access to ideologically-bent forums. Was Parler 'underground'? Is a closed Facebook group 'underground'? At first glance, it seems that such groups being 'underground' is actually what we want to happen. More caution to conceal their activities and spread of information would limit the number of people getting into such a movement. If the ideas are out in the open, we have to accept that there will be points at which rhetoric wins out over 'ideas', and that even if the marketplace of ideas produces correct results in the long run, we're still left dealing with incorrect results in the short run. Maybe that's a reasonable judgement for a libertarian point of view, but it's equally reasonable and understandable that someone may not want to make that concession at all.
        ttt0 6y ago
        Both hate speech laws and groups like Antifa were present and used against NSDAP in the Weimar Germany. What is clear is that tactics like censoring them do not work. You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really. This as well has been tried countless times throughout the history and it never did any good.
        claudiawerner 6y ago
        >You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really. This isn't the goal of such laws; the goal is to hobble the spread and reach of those ideas, not to change individual peoples' minds. It's forward-looking, not present-looking. It is also a show of the state's policy towards a particular ideology, and it carries the state's discursive authority with it. In a similar way, the point of laws against child pornography isn't to change the mind of the child pornographer, it's to slow and aim to stop the spread of the material, while attaching the state's authority to the idea that child abuse and its recording and distribution is wrong. As a counterexample, it's documented that segregation laws had two effects; the first is keeping blacks and whites separate, the second is the authority of the law, as crafted by the sovereign body of the country, enshrined the inferiority of blacks, which reflected in the attitudes of whites and the psychology of blacks at the time. Something being legally enshrined has a very similar effect to how taxes discourage the goods they are levied on in the marketplace.
        ttt0 6y ago
        There were times when if you said something critical about the establishment, you were simply disappeared, never to be seen again. And it still didn't stop the ideas from spreading, it only gained you sympathy from the population and converted more people to your side. You can say that the goal is this or that, but it doesn't change the fact that 64% of Republicans said that they are extremely/very concerned about the censorship[1]. Which sort of confirms what I am saying, people will be more sympathetic to you if you got censored. If you're a serious political activist, I'd expect you to perceive the censorship not as a disaster, but just another opportunity to further your political goals. Which doesn't mean that it's dishonest, censorship is bullshit and they're right to feel that way, but politics is still politics. 1) https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/1364614921116344321 https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/13646149211163443...
      - annazinonos 6y ago
        I also like this, because it forces us to know what is going to hit us in the future (terrorist attacks?( Like we want to know who is planning to blow up someo building. Why wouldnt we want to know? But the pirate bay co-founder Anakata says in this interview below that he defends the rights of pedos to have a website about their views (i think he clarifies at he doesnt allow pedo material but only a webiste about their "political" views), and that he is fighting for that right. To have their views in the open. So my question is, do you "progre" also agree with Anakata that aside Neonazis the Pedo politicians should also have their say in public view? And if you believe yes they should, can you elaborate why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo&
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't mean they can be robbed or beaten at will. Due process is necessary for justice.
      - notahacker 6y ago
        The status quo is that it is illegal to rob Nazis, but legal to choose not to provide DDoS protection for them. It's the second bit people are objecting to here...
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        But the argument is about due process: are we actually sure that an Bob is a a Nazi, or did him neighbour create a fake twitter account to impersonate him? Is it his namesake that he never met? What if Steve is Bob's conpetitor and conveniently accused Bob of being a Nazi? Suppose Bob is a nazi but hasn't commited any crimes, how far can we go, what else can we deny, can we refuse them a website? A mobile phone connection? electricity and running water? School for his child?
        worldofmatthew 6y ago
        I would love for them to sue Cloudflare and bring up the fact that Cloudflare is knowly hosting illegal ddos-for-hire services which forces people to buy DDOS protection.....
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
      Yes, these witches will definitely kill us all, so we must immediately burn them without any due process. Don't worry, this is definitely a one-off exception; we would certainly never extend the same claim to any other group or claim that someone is a witch with no actual evidence. We will totally provide you and people you care about with a fair trial when the mob comes for you. Really?
      - hansjorg 6y ago
        Systems must provide due process, but if you let yourself be slippery sloped into spending time and energy to support your own extermination (e.g. by doing business with nazis) that's really something.
- tzfld 6y ago
  Not just ICANN, but like deplatformings for off-platform activities, for example.
high_derivative 6y ago
The main difference to me seems that some in the West are vehemently denying anything is even happening. 'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
every social system has the concept of people that are not the right sort, and that are just not allowed to be part of the prestigious organizations because of some issue. The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power. This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.
- newsclues 6y ago
  The issue isn’t that there is a system for social accountability but that the system is a black box. Accountability must be open.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    Also, most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group, etc. Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      >> most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.

This is more and more like China's social credit system.

by tzfld 6y ago

This is more and more like China's social credit system.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

What do you mean “more and more”? Are there other examples of this from ICANN?

patrickaljord 6y ago
There's this one but one cared because he was a nazi. Now they're going against pirates. Who knows who's next. https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-hate-site-off-the-internet https://www.propublica.org/article/service-provider-boots-ha...
- hansjorg 6y ago
  This reminds me of that famous poem. "First they came for the nazis, and I defended them because I am a staunch supporter of free speech. Then the nazis exterminated me and my entire family, just like they had always promised they would. The end."
  - progre 6y ago
    I much prefer to have nazis out in the open where we can keep an eye on them than forcing them underground.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      Although I sympathise with that view too, it's unclear to me whether this tactic actually works against the feared outcome, which is Nazis gaining political power. Let's say we do keep an eye on them, and we see something we really don't like. What do we do then? Just keep on keeping an eye on them? It's also unclear what 'underground' means here. Most communication (and particularly political organizing) happens over the Internet, and people regularly gain access to ideologically-bent forums. Was Parler 'underground'? Is a closed Facebook group 'underground'? At first glance, it seems that such groups being 'underground' is actually what we want to happen. More caution to conceal their activities and spread of information would limit the number of people getting into such a movement. If the ideas are out in the open, we have to accept that there will be points at which rhetoric wins out over 'ideas', and that even if the marketplace of ideas produces correct results in the long run, we're still left dealing with incorrect results in the short run. Maybe that's a reasonable judgement for a libertarian point of view, but it's equally reasonable and understandable that someone may not want to make that concession at all.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        Both hate speech laws and groups like Antifa were present and used against NSDAP in the Weimar Germany. What is clear is that tactics like censoring them do not work. You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really. This as well has been tried countless times throughout the history and it never did any good.
        claudiawerner 6y ago
        >You cannot just beat ideas out of peoples' heads, whether it's nazis, BLM, communists or whoever really. This isn't the goal of such laws; the goal is to hobble the spread and reach of those ideas, not to change individual peoples' minds. It's forward-looking, not present-looking. It is also a show of the state's policy towards a particular ideology, and it carries the state's discursive authority with it. In a similar way, the point of laws against child pornography isn't to change the mind of the child pornographer, it's to slow and aim to stop the spread of the material, while attaching the state's authority to the idea that child abuse and its recording and distribution is wrong. As a counterexample, it's documented that segregation laws had two effects; the first is keeping blacks and whites separate, the second is the authority of the law, as crafted by the sovereign body of the country, enshrined the inferiority of blacks, which reflected in the attitudes of whites and the psychology of blacks at the time. Something being legally enshrined has a very similar effect to how taxes discourage the goods they are levied on in the marketplace.
        ttt0 6y ago
        There were times when if you said something critical about the establishment, you were simply disappeared, never to be seen again. And it still didn't stop the ideas from spreading, it only gained you sympathy from the population and converted more people to your side. You can say that the goal is this or that, but it doesn't change the fact that 64% of Republicans said that they are extremely/very concerned about the censorship[1]. Which sort of confirms what I am saying, people will be more sympathetic to you if you got censored. If you're a serious political activist, I'd expect you to perceive the censorship not as a disaster, but just another opportunity to further your political goals. Which doesn't mean that it's dishonest, censorship is bullshit and they're right to feel that way, but politics is still politics. 1) https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/1364614921116344321 https://twitter.com/KSoltisAnderson/status/13646149211163443...
    - annazinonos 6y ago
      I also like this, because it forces us to know what is going to hit us in the future (terrorist attacks?( Like we want to know who is planning to blow up someo building. Why wouldnt we want to know? But the pirate bay co-founder Anakata says in this interview below that he defends the rights of pedos to have a website about their views (i think he clarifies at he doesnt allow pedo material but only a webiste about their "political" views), and that he is fighting for that right. To have their views in the open. So my question is, do you "progre" also agree with Anakata that aside Neonazis the Pedo politicians should also have their say in public view? And if you believe yes they should, can you elaborate why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mOyhQvFmVo&
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Just because someone is a Nazi doesn't mean they can be robbed or beaten at will. Due process is necessary for justice.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      The status quo is that it is illegal to rob Nazis, but legal to choose not to provide DDoS protection for them. It's the second bit people are objecting to here...
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        But the argument is about due process: are we actually sure that an Bob is a a Nazi, or did him neighbour create a fake twitter account to impersonate him? Is it his namesake that he never met? What if Steve is Bob's conpetitor and conveniently accused Bob of being a Nazi? Suppose Bob is a nazi but hasn't commited any crimes, how far can we go, what else can we deny, can we refuse them a website? A mobile phone connection? electricity and running water? School for his child?
      - worldofmatthew 6y ago
        I would love for them to sue Cloudflare and bring up the fact that Cloudflare is knowly hosting illegal ddos-for-hire services which forces people to buy DDOS protection.....
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    Yes, these witches will definitely kill us all, so we must immediately burn them without any due process. Don't worry, this is definitely a one-off exception; we would certainly never extend the same claim to any other group or claim that someone is a witch with no actual evidence. We will totally provide you and people you care about with a fair trial when the mob comes for you. Really?
    - hansjorg 6y ago
      Systems must provide due process, but if you let yourself be slippery sloped into spending time and energy to support your own extermination (e.g. by doing business with nazis) that's really something.
tzfld 6y ago
Not just ICANN, but like deplatformings for off-platform activities, for example.

high_derivative 6y ago

The main difference to me seems that some in the West are vehemently denying anything is even happening. 'There is no cancel culture. You are just being held accountable. People just don't like you. You have no right to social media. Make your own app/cloud/host..'

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

every social system has the concept of people that are not the right sort, and that are just not allowed to be part of the prestigious organizations because of some issue. The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power. This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.

newsclues 6y ago
The issue isn’t that there is a system for social accountability but that the system is a black box. Accountability must be open.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Also, most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group, etc. Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    >> most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.