4 ms·

We should expect better: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html This is a disappoi

We should expect better: https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html This is a disappointing outcome of our community (software engineers, hackers, builders) and our technology - the web as we've built it. The promise of decentralized communications empowering people. We should expect more, those in a position to do the right thing at Twitter should try to do so. I hope long term something like urbit wins out and actually empowers its users. What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored?

nine_k 5y ago
You can only empower people against their government's desire to a certain limit. The more powerful is the government, the quicker it is at slapping your hand, and the more efficient it is at it. If you operate in a country, you normally can't avoid the limitations of the country's laws, no matter how nonsensical you might find these laws. Technology does not change this equation materially, given strong enough law enforcement.
throwawaysea 5y ago
> What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored? Unfortunately enlightenment / classically liberal values (different from leftist liberal values) have been on the decline in the US, particularly with younger generations. Free speech is one of those values under attack. Even the ACLU, under different leadership than in the past, is wavering on free speech (https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/). James Kirchick spoke at length about this unfortunate evolution in a recent podcast (https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-on-the-disintegration-of-the-aclu/ https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-...). The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced our right to free speech over to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Biden even recently said that no constitutional amendment is absolute, which seems like further normalization of erosion of fundamental rights. With the floodgate of censorship already being opened in the West, it seems there is no one on the side of unfettered speech and intellectual freedom today. At the same time I understand why other nations are wary of both the power vested in social media and the influence of savvy or highly active participants therein. It’s a risk for local culture, politics, and stability to be undermined through that channel. Even European nations are increasingly skeptical of outside influences corrupting their sovereignty (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threat-american-universities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).
- fossuser 5y ago
  > Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced that right to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise. I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope. > The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights. Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?
colinmhayes 5y ago
What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing. If they don't censor their local employees would be put in jail and they would be banned. Neither seems like it would be any better.
- fossuser 5y ago
  > "What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing." Sure - if it came to that, try and get Indians access anyway via VPNs, making it easy to access over Tor, helping them get on Twitter anyway. You can accomplish something by not sacrificing your principles. Doing the right thing matters when it's hard. Anyone can do the right thing when it's also the easy thing. I'm not a crazed absolutist - I'm pragmatic, I just find western companies repeatedly capitulating to authoritarian countries very frustrating. People have given up their lives to fight for these things and western companies can't even risk getting kicked out? South Park's Band In China episode was right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    People using VPNs can already access the censored tweets. They're only censored in India. I understand the sacrificing your principles argument, but imo the only principle that matters is do what you can to make the world a better place. I don't see how shutting down twitter in india accomplishes that. In fact I'd say shutting down is unprincipled because it deprives literally a billion people of something they might enjoy.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    The very same values are not popular in Twitters home country USA anymore, why do you think it's a corporations tree to die under? Ban Tweets and move on.

nine_k 5y ago

You can only empower people against their government's desire to a certain limit. The more powerful is the government, the quicker it is at slapping your hand, and the more efficient it is at it. If you operate in a country, you normally can't avoid the limitations of the country's laws, no matter how nonsensical you might find these laws. Technology does not change this equation materially, given strong enough law enforcement.

throwawaysea 5y ago

> What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored? Unfortunately enlightenment / classically liberal values (different from leftist liberal values) have been on the decline in the US, particularly with younger generations. Free speech is one of those values under attack. Even the ACLU, under different leadership than in the past, is wavering on free speech (https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/). James Kirchick spoke at length about this unfortunate evolution in a recent podcast (https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-on-the-disintegration-of-the-aclu/ https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-...). The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced our right to free speech over to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Biden even recently said that no constitutional amendment is absolute, which seems like further normalization of erosion of fundamental rights. With the floodgate of censorship already being opened in the West, it seems there is no one on the side of unfettered speech and intellectual freedom today. At the same time I understand why other nations are wary of both the power vested in social media and the influence of savvy or highly active participants therein. It’s a risk for local culture, politics, and stability to be undermined through that channel. Even European nations are increasingly skeptical of outside influences corrupting their sovereignty (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threat-american-universities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).

fossuser 5y ago
> Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced that right to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise. I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope. > The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights. Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?

colinmhayes 5y ago

What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing. If they don't censor their local employees would be put in jail and they would be banned. Neither seems like it would be any better.

fossuser 5y ago
> "What can twitter do? Close the site in India? That accomplishes nothing." Sure - if it came to that, try and get Indians access anyway via VPNs, making it easy to access over Tor, helping them get on Twitter anyway. You can accomplish something by not sacrificing your principles. Doing the right thing matters when it's hard. Anyone can do the right thing when it's also the easy thing. I'm not a crazed absolutist - I'm pragmatic, I just find western companies repeatedly capitulating to authoritarian countries very frustrating. People have given up their lives to fight for these things and western companies can't even risk getting kicked out? South Park's Band In China episode was right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_in_China
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  People using VPNs can already access the censored tweets. They're only censored in India. I understand the sacrificing your principles argument, but imo the only principle that matters is do what you can to make the world a better place. I don't see how shutting down twitter in india accomplishes that. In fact I'd say shutting down is unprincipled because it deprives literally a billion people of something they might enjoy.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  The very same values are not popular in Twitters home country USA anymore, why do you think it's a corporations tree to die under? Ban Tweets and move on.