27 ms·

> In the "democratic internet", the answer is you, via your vote - but only in principle. In reality, it's whoever holds the keys to the server you want to use.

by ajuc 5y ago

> In the "democratic internet", the answer is you, via your vote - but only in principle. In reality, it's whoever holds the keys to the server you want to use. The ultimate authority over what goes on on Wikipedia is not its userbase, no matter how much of a voice they have: it's the people who physically control the hardware and software that Wikipedia is running on. And in real-life democracy it's the same. Ultimately it's the army that has the tanks. > the "democratic internet" puts your experience of democracy under the control of this authority. If the very fabric of how you participate in an online system is manipulateable by the people in charge of that system, you have little-to-no protection against a coup - what do you do when someone deletes the code that lets you vote, or comment, or anything else? What do you mean by that? If wikipedia jumps the shark people can make a new wikipedia. If France turns into autocracy people can emigrate or revolt. It's pretty much the same.

ivanbakel 5y ago
>And in real-life democracy it's the same. Ultimately it's the army that has the tanks. There is a lot of truth to this, but the online version is far worse. In a physical democracy, you can't be prevented from participating except by the efforts of the other participants. Even in authoritarian states, there must be people who inform on you, people to drive the tanks, etc. In the online version, one person can do all of those jobs. >What do you mean by that? If wikipedia jumps the shark people can make a new wikipedia. This is missing the point of the article. "People" cannot make a new Wikipedia. The average Wikipedia user cannot write a single line of code, or administrate a server, or do anything useful towards creating a new instance. Only those with technical knowhow can actually subvert Wikipedia's centralisation. A world where "people" are able to spin up new instances when they want to is exactly what federation aims for - but the point the article makes is that such a world needs all users to be technically capable. The author's idea of an "online democracy" involves users who are empowered even though they aren't capable: how can those people avoid a technical coup?
- ajuc 5y ago
  > The author's idea of an "online democracy" involves users who are empowered even though they aren't capable: how can those people avoid a technical coup? By becoming capable when it's required or hiring someone who is capable? I think this argument becomes more and more theoretical, in practice both in real life and online you don't need 100% of population to be able to run a country, specialization is fine. What you need is isolation so when one country goes totalitarian - there's somebody to accept refuges and bomb the death camps if needed. So the main problem with democracy online is that network effects are unchecked. When Facebook or Google goes evil - they take everybody with them.
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    >So the main problem with democracy online is that network effects are unchecked. When Facebook or Google goes evil - they take everybody with them. I think the trouble with this discussion is that you don't really agree with the author. They are proposing a massive online community centralised on a single system - and which is kept in check by user democracy, not alternative instances. If network effects are what keep Facebook and Google in power, imagine the network effect you would get from all the participants in a real-world democracy being on the same platform. How are those users going to start another instance, even "hiring someone who is capable" to make it for them? They won't, simply. In such a system, most users are not able to circumvent a technical coup. Just look at how many "evil" steps Facebook has taken, successfully holding on to their userbase.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      I agree the centralization is needed and that democratic centralization is preferable to proprietary walled garden. I disagree that democratic centralization is sufficient - I think we also need self-hosted options even if they are marginalized by the centralized democracy - to keep it in check. This: > Just look at how many "evil" steps Facebook has taken, successfully holding on to their userbase. is orthogonal. Facebook is not democratic and does not offer a self-hosted version. And it never did. So with Facebook the question is not about what is preferable but how do we get from this worldwide tyranny to a centralized democracy with or without self-hosted alternatives. I think the facebook situation is actually an argument in favor of my position. If Facebook was a centralized democracy with self-hosted alternatives at some point - it would be much easier for people to migrate off it when it started to become evil, and it becoming evil would be significantly less likely. As for how Facebook loses now - I think eventually it will be taxed into ground/blocked by most big trading blocks/countries. There is already a lot of talk in EU of enforcing some control over social media. It holds too much power with too little control for countries to let it go forever. Facebook can (and sometimes do) change who wins elections. It can't go on like that forever.

by ajuc 5y ago

ivanbakel 5y ago

>And in real-life democracy it's the same. Ultimately it's the army that has the tanks. There is a lot of truth to this, but the online version is far worse. In a physical democracy, you can't be prevented from participating except by the efforts of the other participants. Even in authoritarian states, there must be people who inform on you, people to drive the tanks, etc. In the online version, one person can do all of those jobs. >What do you mean by that? If wikipedia jumps the shark people can make a new wikipedia. This is missing the point of the article. "People" cannot make a new Wikipedia. The average Wikipedia user cannot write a single line of code, or administrate a server, or do anything useful towards creating a new instance. Only those with technical knowhow can actually subvert Wikipedia's centralisation. A world where "people" are able to spin up new instances when they want to is exactly what federation aims for - but the point the article makes is that such a world needs all users to be technically capable. The author's idea of an "online democracy" involves users who are empowered even though they aren't capable: how can those people avoid a technical coup?

ajuc 5y ago
> The author's idea of an "online democracy" involves users who are empowered even though they aren't capable: how can those people avoid a technical coup? By becoming capable when it's required or hiring someone who is capable? I think this argument becomes more and more theoretical, in practice both in real life and online you don't need 100% of population to be able to run a country, specialization is fine. What you need is isolation so when one country goes totalitarian - there's somebody to accept refuges and bomb the death camps if needed. So the main problem with democracy online is that network effects are unchecked. When Facebook or Google goes evil - they take everybody with them.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  >So the main problem with democracy online is that network effects are unchecked. When Facebook or Google goes evil - they take everybody with them. I think the trouble with this discussion is that you don't really agree with the author. They are proposing a massive online community centralised on a single system - and which is kept in check by user democracy, not alternative instances. If network effects are what keep Facebook and Google in power, imagine the network effect you would get from all the participants in a real-world democracy being on the same platform. How are those users going to start another instance, even "hiring someone who is capable" to make it for them? They won't, simply. In such a system, most users are not able to circumvent a technical coup. Just look at how many "evil" steps Facebook has taken, successfully holding on to their userbase.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    I agree the centralization is needed and that democratic centralization is preferable to proprietary walled garden. I disagree that democratic centralization is sufficient - I think we also need self-hosted options even if they are marginalized by the centralized democracy - to keep it in check. This: > Just look at how many "evil" steps Facebook has taken, successfully holding on to their userbase. is orthogonal. Facebook is not democratic and does not offer a self-hosted version. And it never did. So with Facebook the question is not about what is preferable but how do we get from this worldwide tyranny to a centralized democracy with or without self-hosted alternatives. I think the facebook situation is actually an argument in favor of my position. If Facebook was a centralized democracy with self-hosted alternatives at some point - it would be much easier for people to migrate off it when it started to become evil, and it becoming evil would be significantly less likely. As for how Facebook loses now - I think eventually it will be taxed into ground/blocked by most big trading blocks/countries. There is already a lot of talk in EU of enforcing some control over social media. It holds too much power with too little control for countries to let it go forever. Facebook can (and sometimes do) change who wins elections. It can't go on like that forever.