7 ms·

They are but that’s precisely the problem. More and more of our vital communication channels are owned by single private entities. IOW public discourse is being

They are but that’s precisely the problem. More and more of our vital communication channels are owned by single private entities. IOW public discourse is being replaced by “public” discourse. The promise of blockchain solutions is that they can return us to the status quo ante of the internet where there were open protocols that operated in a decentralized way. Whether it can fulfill that promise, I don’t know. But there’s also plenty of precedent for regulating how the private owners of public goods (such as rail and telephone networks, or even sidewalks) must behave.

qzx_pierri 4y ago
The internet is not real life. It seems a lot of people who hold your opinion are in the 18-24 age range. Those people who grew up thinking the internet is the only way to communicate or “make things happen”. But I assure you these private companies do NOT have to let you use their services, and common excuses such as “Online communication is like a public square!” is not rooted in the desire for free speech, but is rooted in the desire for instant gratification. Yes it’s easier to gain a following online, but throughout MOST of history, people started these movements/conversation offline. Don’t let these companies trick you into thinking you don’t have a voice, or power, without voicing your thoughts on their “platforms”. You have a voice, and you can use it. You’ll just have to get out the house and start talking to people face to face. Edit: I didn't mean to establish a condescending tone with the second sentence - I was simply making an observation.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > The internet is not real life. Ok, if the internet is not "real" life, then what is it? Is it "in" reality? Do we interact with it? Does it interact with us, or within the ineffable, largely unseen soup of causality from which how things are/become in this world emerges? Does anything matter?
- ruined 4y ago
  the internet is, unfortunately, real life
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    I acknowledge your feeling that the internet is real life, and I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I'll repost part of a comment I made 5 months ago because I think it's very relevant: "Don't forget that everything you see online is a facade. 15+ years ago, I fell in love with the internet because it's somewhere I could go to be something that I'm not. I could be LOUD, or I could say things I would normally never say away from the keyboard, and I think everyone bonded together online with this fact in mind. The internet was an escape. Soon, people began to view the internet as a reality due to the rapid homogenization into 3-4 major websites which are controlled mostly by advertisers. But what I've noticed is that most of the opinions you read online aren't very honest. Commenters on reddit will grift in the comment section for upvotes. Some commenters on HN will purposely avoid certain topics because their account is tied to their reputation in certain very partisan circles in California. Both of these examples are often the loudest and MOST SEEN (or unseen...) replies due to the low effort alignment with the popular opinion at the time. Although the internet seems more real everyday, I truly believe it's never been further from reality. No one is truly able to say what they want due to the (seemingly) dire consequences of saying "F*ck it" and stating your true opinion (which isn't all the time, but the option no longer exists). And this even applies in the short term. If you aren't banned, you're downvoted (HN, reddit, Lobste.rs, every website with a comment section...) or filtered by an algorithm tuned to keep corporate sponsors and advertisers happy (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)."
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Many government functions (unemployment, DMV appointment scheduling, etc) can not be accessed from any place but the internet. It's one reason that Public Libraries are so important these days. That our government requires you to use the internet puts lie to the idea that you can live a complete life without the internet.
      - qzx_pierri 4y ago
        Yes, but those government services are funded using taxes, so yes, you ARE entitled to those services. You are not entitled to the use of any private service.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disintermediating_Friends.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disinterm... Most couples now meet online. Good luck convincing them all the internet is not real life. And those stats are from 2017. Given a few years of lockdown the trend has surely accelerated. Discord is how a lot of young people talk these days. If you're banned from Discord, it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends."
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    > it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends." >it's not very comforting That's the problem. Your comfort doesn't matter. If you want comfort, go buy a hammock. If you want to boss companies around with overreaching regulations, then get into politics. The fact is, companies can do what they want (within existing regulations). "They should" or "They shouldn't" arguments are outside of both of our control.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Lets use your example of a dating app. Lets say someone makes a Catholic-focused dating app. People make their bio state "Mary was a prostitute! Jesus is a lie!" What should the platform do?
    - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
      The platform should ban the user, with an explanation written by a human being explaining what rule they broke. And no, "our shiny new machine learning algorithm flagged your account" doesn't cut it. Arbitration should be an option. I could write a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        Ban the user? But how would that person ever find a match with a dating site banning them? It's completely socially ostracizing for that user to not be able to use the app. How would they ever be able to function in society without access to the Catholic dating app?
- conradfr 4y ago
  Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box. Why can't it be regulated? Phone is and it's provided by private companies. The law even allows me to port my number between them.
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    > Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box Yes, due to your own lack of contingency planning. I respect your intentions, but government regulation is not always the answer. At some point, we have to admit that we are far too reliant on these services (that many luddites refuse to use, and live a normal life). My second sentence is true as of now, but maybe things could change in the future. However, I only base my arguments on present circumstances. I do agree that some of these companies need to at least offer some sort of human support team or call center available to serve users that were falsely banned or randomly booted. However, forcing the hand of these companies is not only unfair, but pretty entitled. Gmail is a free service.
  - achenatx 4y ago
    you absolutely shouldnt rely on a single email provider. Instead own a domain and use that domain to forward to whatever email provider is most convenient.
    - conradfr 4y ago
      I can, and actually have <my-name>.com, but you can't expect the general population to do the same.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I'm 33. I think you're wrong. I suspect you're older - imagine the US without a public highway system. Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation? Idea not that appealing? That's what you're advocating for today. A complete loss of a highway system that has no public replacement. By the way - those "18-24 age range" are all being forced to help pay for those "private highways" with their tax dollars anyways, in the form of govt subsidies to private cable companies. Should we discount the ability to still communicate face to face? Nope. Damn well shouldn't. Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't.
  - ehutch79 4y ago
    A private company didn't 'build' the highways. (yes i'm sure a private company laid the asphalt, but at the direction of the government)
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    > I suspect you're older No, I'm younger than you. > Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation First off, this is a flawed argument because my taxes don't pay for the servers running Discord or other similar services. Also, your response is proving my point. I said in my original comment that your entire argument is based on the desire for instant gratification through through the use of private services that can boost your voice/reach online - These are private services, and you are not entitled to them at all. I understand you want faster results (in a time where you can go online), but it's still very possible to get results face to face - That was my response. This is a fact that doesn't lean on any quasi-moral bulwarks to manipulate the conversation. Your example ignores the fact that you can get anywhere using public roads instead of highways - Which would take more time, but are still very functional. This reinforces my original point. Additionally, beginning your response with made up scenarios is generally a low quality way to frame an argument to your liking, but I'll give you a pass on that. > Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't Says who? You aren't entitled to any private service. Mind you, you're the one using words like "shouldn't" that don't fall under any moral authority other than the owner of the platform itself.
- sriram_malhar 4y ago
  No, it isn't always about social media, or free speech, or 18-24 year olds. An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend .... They work on children's education, and have lots of photos of children attending their workshops. My biggest fear is that Google AI will identify some photo as objectionable and shut the entire operation down in a hurry. Without recourse.
  - qzx_pierri 4y ago
    > An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend Sounds like an egregious lack of contingency planning. This situation is the fault of the engineer who stood up their infra. Your argument wouldn't exist if there were a Plan B and Plan C in place. Do you believe it's fair that your client's lack of preparation is somehow grounds for overreaching government regulation?
    - rini17 4y ago
      Good luck trying to convince an resource-strapped nonprofit to implement contingency plan for this. No government regulation means existence of these will for all practical purposes depend on Google's whim. I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate?
      - qzx_pierri 4y ago
        > I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate? lol you're a consultant?
        rini17 4y ago
        Why lol? I do have some nonprofit experience not as consultant but as voluntary admin and I did consider google dependence a problem. But there was no other easy option, that's why I'm asking.
- kemiller 4y ago
  For the record, I'm 46. I clearly remember what it was like before, during, and after the internet revolution and I've seen how things have changed. I actually partially agree with you that part of the solution may be to simply stop relying on these new media quite so much and rediscover more analog ways of relating to one another, and I actually see signs of a movement to do just that (among young people!) but that doesn't change that they are very useful and here to stay, and for better or worse a vital part of how we relate to people near and far. Consider the postal service — imagine if you could permanently lose the right to send things in the mail at the whim of an unaccountable customer service rep in the USPS. No trial, no recourse. Unthinkable. I suspect you CAN be banned if, e.g. you commit mail fraud or send something hazardous, but only after you're convicted with due process. That's the part that's missing. You can argue that the USPS is a government-owned entity and thus different rules apply... but again, that's the point. The carrier of last resort, at least, should be run in a way that is accountable, whether technically government or not.

qzx_pierri 4y ago

The internet is not real life. It seems a lot of people who hold your opinion are in the 18-24 age range. Those people who grew up thinking the internet is the only way to communicate or “make things happen”. But I assure you these private companies do NOT have to let you use their services, and common excuses such as “Online communication is like a public square!” is not rooted in the desire for free speech, but is rooted in the desire for instant gratification. Yes it’s easier to gain a following online, but throughout MOST of history, people started these movements/conversation offline. Don’t let these companies trick you into thinking you don’t have a voice, or power, without voicing your thoughts on their “platforms”. You have a voice, and you can use it. You’ll just have to get out the house and start talking to people face to face. Edit: I didn't mean to establish a condescending tone with the second sentence - I was simply making an observation.

mistermann 4y ago
> The internet is not real life. Ok, if the internet is not "real" life, then what is it? Is it "in" reality? Do we interact with it? Does it interact with us, or within the ineffable, largely unseen soup of causality from which how things are/become in this world emerges? Does anything matter?
ruined 4y ago
the internet is, unfortunately, real life
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  I acknowledge your feeling that the internet is real life, and I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. I'll repost part of a comment I made 5 months ago because I think it's very relevant: "Don't forget that everything you see online is a facade. 15+ years ago, I fell in love with the internet because it's somewhere I could go to be something that I'm not. I could be LOUD, or I could say things I would normally never say away from the keyboard, and I think everyone bonded together online with this fact in mind. The internet was an escape. Soon, people began to view the internet as a reality due to the rapid homogenization into 3-4 major websites which are controlled mostly by advertisers. But what I've noticed is that most of the opinions you read online aren't very honest. Commenters on reddit will grift in the comment section for upvotes. Some commenters on HN will purposely avoid certain topics because their account is tied to their reputation in certain very partisan circles in California. Both of these examples are often the loudest and MOST SEEN (or unseen...) replies due to the low effort alignment with the popular opinion at the time. Although the internet seems more real everyday, I truly believe it's never been further from reality. No one is truly able to say what they want due to the (seemingly) dire consequences of saying "F*ck it" and stating your true opinion (which isn't all the time, but the option no longer exists). And this even applies in the short term. If you aren't banned, you're downvoted (HN, reddit, Lobste.rs, every website with a comment section...) or filtered by an algorithm tuned to keep corporate sponsors and advertisers happy (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)."
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Many government functions (unemployment, DMV appointment scheduling, etc) can not be accessed from any place but the internet. It's one reason that Public Libraries are so important these days. That our government requires you to use the internet puts lie to the idea that you can live a complete life without the internet.
    - qzx_pierri 4y ago
      Yes, but those government services are funded using taxes, so yes, you ARE entitled to those services. You are not entitled to the use of any private service.
TakeBlaster16 4y ago
https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disintermediating_Friends.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_et_al_Disinterm... Most couples now meet online. Good luck convincing them all the internet is not real life. And those stats are from 2017. Given a few years of lockdown the trend has surely accelerated. Discord is how a lot of young people talk these days. If you're banned from Discord, it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends."
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > it's not very comforting to hear "you don't need Discord son, in my day we didn't have Discord and we wrote to our pen pals. I'm sure you'll make some new friends." >it's not very comforting That's the problem. Your comfort doesn't matter. If you want comfort, go buy a hammock. If you want to boss companies around with overreaching regulations, then get into politics. The fact is, companies can do what they want (within existing regulations). "They should" or "They shouldn't" arguments are outside of both of our control.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Lets use your example of a dating app. Lets say someone makes a Catholic-focused dating app. People make their bio state "Mary was a prostitute! Jesus is a lie!" What should the platform do?
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    The platform should ban the user, with an explanation written by a human being explaining what rule they broke. And no, "our shiny new machine learning algorithm flagged your account" doesn't cut it. Arbitration should be an option. I could write a lot more, but hopefully you get the idea.
    - vel0city 4y ago
      Ban the user? But how would that person ever find a match with a dating site banning them? It's completely socially ostracizing for that user to not be able to use the app. How would they ever be able to function in society without access to the Catholic dating app?
conradfr 4y ago
Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box. Why can't it be regulated? Phone is and it's provided by private companies. The law even allows me to port my number between them.
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > Losing my gmail account would have way more effect on my "real life" than if I had suddenly no letter box Yes, due to your own lack of contingency planning. I respect your intentions, but government regulation is not always the answer. At some point, we have to admit that we are far too reliant on these services (that many luddites refuse to use, and live a normal life). My second sentence is true as of now, but maybe things could change in the future. However, I only base my arguments on present circumstances. I do agree that some of these companies need to at least offer some sort of human support team or call center available to serve users that were falsely banned or randomly booted. However, forcing the hand of these companies is not only unfair, but pretty entitled. Gmail is a free service.
- achenatx 4y ago
  you absolutely shouldnt rely on a single email provider. Instead own a domain and use that domain to forward to whatever email provider is most convenient.
  - conradfr 4y ago
    I can, and actually have <my-name>.com, but you can't expect the general population to do the same.
horsawlarway 4y ago
I'm 33. I think you're wrong. I suspect you're older - imagine the US without a public highway system. Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation? Idea not that appealing? That's what you're advocating for today. A complete loss of a highway system that has no public replacement. By the way - those "18-24 age range" are all being forced to help pay for those "private highways" with their tax dollars anyways, in the form of govt subsidies to private cable companies. Should we discount the ability to still communicate face to face? Nope. Damn well shouldn't. Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't.
- ehutch79 4y ago
  A private company didn't 'build' the highways. (yes i'm sure a private company laid the asphalt, but at the direction of the government)
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > I suspect you're older No, I'm younger than you. > Imagine every highway is private. Imagine what arbitrary bans from those highways would do to impact how you live. Talk to me about how well we should communicate face to face in that situation First off, this is a flawed argument because my taxes don't pay for the servers running Discord or other similar services. Also, your response is proving my point. I said in my original comment that your entire argument is based on the desire for instant gratification through through the use of private services that can boost your voice/reach online - These are private services, and you are not entitled to them at all. I understand you want faster results (in a time where you can go online), but it's still very possible to get results face to face - That was my response. This is a fact that doesn't lean on any quasi-moral bulwarks to manipulate the conversation. Your example ignores the fact that you can get anywhere using public roads instead of highways - Which would take more time, but are still very functional. This reinforces my original point. Additionally, beginning your response with made up scenarios is generally a low quality way to frame an argument to your liking, but I'll give you a pass on that. > Does that make this ok? Nope, Damn well doesn't Says who? You aren't entitled to any private service. Mind you, you're the one using words like "shouldn't" that don't fall under any moral authority other than the owner of the platform itself.
sriram_malhar 4y ago
No, it isn't always about social media, or free speech, or 18-24 year olds. An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend .... They work on children's education, and have lots of photos of children attending their workshops. My biggest fear is that Google AI will identify some photo as objectionable and shut the entire operation down in a hurry. Without recourse.
- qzx_pierri 4y ago
  > An NGO I consult for runs its entire business on Google. All its documents are on Google docs, all digital assets on google drive, using google play store for their mobile app, using firebase on the backend Sounds like an egregious lack of contingency planning. This situation is the fault of the engineer who stood up their infra. Your argument wouldn't exist if there were a Plan B and Plan C in place. Do you believe it's fair that your client's lack of preparation is somehow grounds for overreaching government regulation?
  - rini17 4y ago
    Good luck trying to convince an resource-strapped nonprofit to implement contingency plan for this. No government regulation means existence of these will for all practical purposes depend on Google's whim. I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate?
    - qzx_pierri 4y ago
      > I don't see any other viable option, you do? can you elaborate? lol you're a consultant?
      - rini17 4y ago
        Why lol? I do have some nonprofit experience not as consultant but as voluntary admin and I did consider google dependence a problem. But there was no other easy option, that's why I'm asking.
kemiller 4y ago
For the record, I'm 46. I clearly remember what it was like before, during, and after the internet revolution and I've seen how things have changed. I actually partially agree with you that part of the solution may be to simply stop relying on these new media quite so much and rediscover more analog ways of relating to one another, and I actually see signs of a movement to do just that (among young people!) but that doesn't change that they are very useful and here to stay, and for better or worse a vital part of how we relate to people near and far. Consider the postal service — imagine if you could permanently lose the right to send things in the mail at the whim of an unaccountable customer service rep in the USPS. No trial, no recourse. Unthinkable. I suspect you CAN be banned if, e.g. you commit mail fraud or send something hazardous, but only after you're convicted with due process. That's the part that's missing. You can argue that the USPS is a government-owned entity and thus different rules apply... but again, that's the point. The carrier of last resort, at least, should be run in a way that is accountable, whether technically government or not.