4 ms·

This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to br

This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...

jacquesm 4y ago
No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate. The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification. Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one. These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    I don't think we have read the same bits about the history of the internet. Openness and individual empowerment had absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the net. The main purpose as far as I have it down was to create a method for (government) researchers to communicate and to have a reliable communications network in wartime. https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtm... Feel free to rewrite history any way you want it though. Perhaps you were confusing the world-wide-web and the internet?
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      No; your condescension aside, I’m thinking of the internet I grew up on, from the late 80s and into the 90s. Gopher, Usenet, and IRC. Eventually, the web. Yes, the internet grew out of government projects, but it was rooted in the openness of academic networks. The “trust and safety” ethos is merely the staid hall monitors of the status quo doing their best to co-opt something that was only possible to create outside their influence. Its healthy for them to lose, sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. Opposing the “trust and safety” hall monitors is an ethical position, just one that’s (seemingly) entirely contrary to your own.

jacquesm 4y ago

No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.

teakettle42 4y ago
You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate. The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification. Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one. These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  I don't think we have read the same bits about the history of the internet. Openness and individual empowerment had absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the net. The main purpose as far as I have it down was to create a method for (government) researchers to communicate and to have a reliable communications network in wartime. https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtm... Feel free to rewrite history any way you want it though. Perhaps you were confusing the world-wide-web and the internet?
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    No; your condescension aside, I’m thinking of the internet I grew up on, from the late 80s and into the 90s. Gopher, Usenet, and IRC. Eventually, the web. Yes, the internet grew out of government projects, but it was rooted in the openness of academic networks. The “trust and safety” ethos is merely the staid hall monitors of the status quo doing their best to co-opt something that was only possible to create outside their influence. Its healthy for them to lose, sometimes. Maybe even most of the time. Opposing the “trust and safety” hall monitors is an ethical position, just one that’s (seemingly) entirely contrary to your own.