5 ms·

I like Bert Hubert's writing because he always comes across as someone who's unbiased and genuinely cares. One thing I'm surprised he didn't mention is how larg

by jart 4y ago

I like Bert Hubert's writing because he always comes across as someone who's unbiased and genuinely cares. One thing I'm surprised he didn't mention is how large corporations operate their own private internets in basically the same way as countries like China and North Korea. Why wouldn't they? It's how the ARPAnet used to work. They only let scientists, engineers, and university students use the thing. I'm sure it was a much more pleasant environment than the spam hellscape of the modern public net. So obviously every corporate and national community who shares the same dream is going to try and escape it. Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? Some are certainly guilty of mismanagement, but I wouldn't judge their motivations, or say they're "controlling" what they're trying to escape.

Ygg2 4y ago
> Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? The impact is different*, scale is different, and countries doing it have track record of using it to hide their misdeeds. *It's generally ok if you build a wall around your property. Not so much if a country does it.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  In reality, corporations hold just as much if not more power over the Internet than governments. Even though a corporation can't physically lock you up, they can (and have, many times) give you a virtual "death penalty" if they don't like you for whatever reason. This is not OK, and "but private companies can do what they want" really needs to be rethought to reflect reality. We have governments essentially using corporations to get around their own legal restrictions.
- seydor 4y ago
  > countries doing it have track record of using it to hide their misdeeds. And companies don't? Internet companies are media, so their function is not neutral to the existence and function of states. Constitutions all around the world have specific "free press" provisions because the press is not "just another private business" but it has very real consequences for the existence of states. So do tech companies today, but they are untouchable, they enjoy even more protections than free press. We still live with memories of the liberal internet of the '90s (even though we know it's long gone) and we stick to this romantic view of the intent of tech companies. The scale of those companies is bigger than indivudual states so i dont think the comparison is apt either.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom for a specific type of private business. It means anybody with a printing press. In other words anybody is allowed to publish and distribute whatever they want.
    - hulitu 4y ago
      Can you name a place where this is possible ?
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        1700's USA. Internet up to 2015 ish.
      - etchalon 4y ago
        Today, in the US.
      - staringback 4y ago
        The Tor network.
  - Ygg2 4y ago
    By state misdeeds I mean labor camp, concentration centers and war crimes, etc. Very few private companies in history could have enough power to be able to commit crimes against humanity.
    - seydor 4y ago
      well, all slave traders did. Amazon would be selling police services , private armies and nukes if it was allowed to.
PoignardAzur 4y ago
> Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? Well for one thing, when you come back from work at your corporation, you can go on the regular internet. Country-wide blocks don't allow that by design.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
  They even proactively obstruct the regular Internet. It's not a choice, but an imposition, and even if the regular Internet is a clusterfuck, we need to be in control of that choice.
whatshisface 4y ago
>Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? Because everyone goes home from work but only very fortunate people go home from China.
mardifoufs 4y ago
What you describe already exist, governments already have their own intranet. This is about controlling the public internet. I understand what you are saying but the comparison does not make sense, because there's a clear difference between setting up a private corporate network and a country/continent wide net. Comparing something like the great firewall to a corporate network is just not productive imo. (Plus, just because a private corporation is doing something does not mean that a government should do the same anyways.)
photochemsyn 4y ago
There's some discussion of that, but more on the user-facing side, not the in-house networks (which are also a feature of universities, government agencies, etc.). > "Meanwhile, we have these big technology firms, that control the hardware, the software, and they run their own kangaroo courts that decide who wins and who loses. And there’s no way to appeal that or to have any insights from what they are doing, because they are encrypting what they are doing and hiding it from end users, while simultaneously moving more and more stuff to their control points" > "This means 1) they have these kangaroo courts and 2) they’re moving more and more control to these kangaroo courts." That's more about access to their public platforms (things like blocking some users, shaddow banning, algorithmic recommendation manipulation, etc.). However, corporations aren't yet governments, although there are some indications that 'company towns' are becoming a thing, as they were in the early 20th century, where a company would own every house in a city and could evict anyone they didn't like, essentially becoming a de facto authoritarian government. In that case, banning someone from their private:w network would mean they had no access to any network.
zajio1am 4y ago
Corporations are voluntary associations of people for some specific purpose, while countries enforce monopoly of violence over certain area. They are not really comparable. Corporations have much higher freedom to set their internal rules because you have freedom to non-associate with them, while countries should enforce just necessary minimum of rules.
samatman 4y ago
Pretty simple from where I sit: if there's Internet, and the corporate internet, that's two internets someone gets to use. If there's Internet, and Sinonet, I can't get on Sinonet (fine by me) and they can't get on Internet, which I think sucks and is bad. We should have less of that, not more.
dbtc 4y ago
In short, one's a castle, the other is a prison.
melagonster 4y ago
This is interesting, do big companies ddos computer on their internet, too?

by jart 4y ago

Ygg2 4y ago

> Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? The impact is different*, scale is different, and countries doing it have track record of using it to hide their misdeeds. *It's generally ok if you build a wall around your property. Not so much if a country does it.

jaywalk 4y ago
In reality, corporations hold just as much if not more power over the Internet than governments. Even though a corporation can't physically lock you up, they can (and have, many times) give you a virtual "death penalty" if they don't like you for whatever reason. This is not OK, and "but private companies can do what they want" really needs to be rethought to reflect reality. We have governments essentially using corporations to get around their own legal restrictions.
seydor 4y ago
> countries doing it have track record of using it to hide their misdeeds. And companies don't? Internet companies are media, so their function is not neutral to the existence and function of states. Constitutions all around the world have specific "free press" provisions because the press is not "just another private business" but it has very real consequences for the existence of states. So do tech companies today, but they are untouchable, they enjoy even more protections than free press. We still live with memories of the liberal internet of the '90s (even though we know it's long gone) and we stick to this romantic view of the intent of tech companies. The scale of those companies is bigger than indivudual states so i dont think the comparison is apt either.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom for a specific type of private business. It means anybody with a printing press. In other words anybody is allowed to publish and distribute whatever they want.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    Can you name a place where this is possible ?
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      1700's USA. Internet up to 2015 ish.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      Today, in the US.
    - staringback 4y ago
      The Tor network.
- Ygg2 4y ago
  By state misdeeds I mean labor camp, concentration centers and war crimes, etc. Very few private companies in history could have enough power to be able to commit crimes against humanity.
  - seydor 4y ago
    well, all slave traders did. Amazon would be selling police services , private armies and nukes if it was allowed to.

PoignardAzur 4y ago

> Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? Well for one thing, when you come back from work at your corporation, you can go on the regular internet. Country-wide blocks don't allow that by design.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
They even proactively obstruct the regular Internet. It's not a choice, but an imposition, and even if the regular Internet is a clusterfuck, we need to be in control of that choice.

whatshisface 4y ago

>Where is it written that private internets are perfectly normal when a corporation does it, but evil when a country does too? Because everyone goes home from work but only very fortunate people go home from China.

mardifoufs 4y ago

What you describe already exist, governments already have their own intranet. This is about controlling the public internet. I understand what you are saying but the comparison does not make sense, because there's a clear difference between setting up a private corporate network and a country/continent wide net. Comparing something like the great firewall to a corporate network is just not productive imo. (Plus, just because a private corporation is doing something does not mean that a government should do the same anyways.)

photochemsyn 4y ago

There's some discussion of that, but more on the user-facing side, not the in-house networks (which are also a feature of universities, government agencies, etc.). > "Meanwhile, we have these big technology firms, that control the hardware, the software, and they run their own kangaroo courts that decide who wins and who loses. And there’s no way to appeal that or to have any insights from what they are doing, because they are encrypting what they are doing and hiding it from end users, while simultaneously moving more and more stuff to their control points" > "This means 1) they have these kangaroo courts and 2) they’re moving more and more control to these kangaroo courts." That's more about access to their public platforms (things like blocking some users, shaddow banning, algorithmic recommendation manipulation, etc.). However, corporations aren't yet governments, although there are some indications that 'company towns' are becoming a thing, as they were in the early 20th century, where a company would own every house in a city and could evict anyone they didn't like, essentially becoming a de facto authoritarian government. In that case, banning someone from their private:w network would mean they had no access to any network.

zajio1am 4y ago

Corporations are voluntary associations of people for some specific purpose, while countries enforce monopoly of violence over certain area. They are not really comparable. Corporations have much higher freedom to set their internal rules because you have freedom to non-associate with them, while countries should enforce just necessary minimum of rules.

samatman 4y ago

Pretty simple from where I sit: if there's Internet, and the corporate internet, that's two internets someone gets to use. If there's Internet, and Sinonet, I can't get on Sinonet (fine by me) and they can't get on Internet, which I think sucks and is bad. We should have less of that, not more.

dbtc 4y ago

In short, one's a castle, the other is a prison.

melagonster 4y ago

This is interesting, do big companies ddos computer on their internet, too?