3 ms·

I dunno that isolationism is going to produce better outcomes. I think we should demand transparency and control over our data, and offer the same in return. Re

I dunno that isolationism is going to produce better outcomes. I think we should demand transparency and control over our data, and offer the same in return. Refusing to exchange software seems liable to chill economic and diplomatic relations, and result in us all creating our own Great Firewalls. We were able to negotiate the reduction of nuclear capabilities during the height of the cold war. I don't see why we couldn't negotiate the reduction of cyber capabilities now, were we to make it a priority. Certainly seems worth a try, if the alternative is destroying the internet as an international commons.

toss1 4y ago
Maybe. Yes, the Internet was supposed to be an international commons. It had only a brief window when it was actually anything like that. That window has been closed for over a decade now, and it is time to recognize the facts. Considering the uncountable myriad of ways that such agreements could be evaded and subverted, and the fact that it is already rather uncool to be seen as spyware, yet the practice is so ubiquitous as to have a name of "surveillance capitalism", it seems like a fools errand. Also, CCP has already effectively blocked Google Facebook, etc., there is no reason to allow them continued free access. More broadly, the Grand Experiment has been fully and exhaustively tried, and it has colossally failed. The idea was that open trade and information exchange would inexorably lead to open markets and open democracies. This beautiful idea turned out to be entirely false. The measures from open markets and information exchanges have in fact been perverted to strengthen autocracies, and used in hybrid warfare to threaten democracy itself around the globe. It is past time to shut off access to those autocracies that wish us only harm. The days of the internet as an international commons are, sadly, long gone.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I regularly talk to people from all over the world and share ideas, so I just disagree that the internet has failed as a commons. Commons are messy and it might not feel like they're working, but I think when you're just not talking to each other and telling yourselves stories about the other party, things can go downhill quickly. The value of a commons isn't necessarily that its broadly a healthy place for discussion. It's that it makes such discussion possible, and in there will be pockets where it happens. Even in unhealthy communities, there will be times when healthy discussion happens on accident. Nuclear treaties are difficult to enforce too. Their enforcement isn't an unqualified success. But I think the world much better for them. I do agree that the strongest form of the liberalism thesis, where trade and cultural exchange make war impossible and such, is wrong, and was always farcical. That's not really what I'm advocating. I'm not a Liberal or Thatcherist or anything like that. I'm not saying that such exchange creates good as much as saying it reduces harm. If we break off into little internet fiefdoms, we will have more surveillance (as total surveillance is required to enforce these boundaries), which will empower and normalize authoritarianism.
  - toss1 4y ago
    The internet is only a small piece of the concept of trade and openness that has failed. The openness, instead of encouraging democracy, has merely strengthened the autocracies. Down to the Internet, the results are very ambiguous. I've also enjoyed conversations across borders. Yet, I've also seen apparently innocuous conversations about industry techniques (I work in carbon fiber composites) turn out to be likely attempts from Iran to get info, likely literally to be used in the Shahed drones now used to attack Ukraine. That particular conversation got shut down politely, but I'm sure there were hundreds more. Similarly, the western academic world is full of Chinese "students" working to both exfiltrate technology and to intimidate overseas Chinese into not opposing the CCP. The CCP has broken into the US Govt computers and basically exfiltrated the entire employee database. And this does not even begin to touch upon the threat of software and hardware spyware, which is the main focus. I could go on endlessly, but the point is that closed societies are taking advantage of open societies to literally destroy them. The benefit of our enjoyment of cross-border exchange is trivial compared to the national security situation. This is no longer a game or a 'let's all join hands' situation. It is literally a fight for the future of the free world. If there is a way to ban CCP, RU, Iranian, NK, etc software an hardware and still allow conversations, then that's maybe allowable. But there's a really easy solution without any surveillance — just logically or physically cut the cord - no routing packets to or from those countries.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      If this is a fight for the free world, the strategy you propose is capitulation. I think you should examine your views more closely; you're expressing contradictions that I think you have trouble seeing, and there's an ungrounded paranoia to your assertions. Your comments about Chinese students read like Red Scare propaganda. There's a lot of "clash of civilizations" style essentialism in your views. I think you might benefit from looking into criticisms of that idea.

toss1 4y ago

Maybe. Yes, the Internet was supposed to be an international commons. It had only a brief window when it was actually anything like that. That window has been closed for over a decade now, and it is time to recognize the facts. Considering the uncountable myriad of ways that such agreements could be evaded and subverted, and the fact that it is already rather uncool to be seen as spyware, yet the practice is so ubiquitous as to have a name of "surveillance capitalism", it seems like a fools errand. Also, CCP has already effectively blocked Google Facebook, etc., there is no reason to allow them continued free access. More broadly, the Grand Experiment has been fully and exhaustively tried, and it has colossally failed. The idea was that open trade and information exchange would inexorably lead to open markets and open democracies. This beautiful idea turned out to be entirely false. The measures from open markets and information exchanges have in fact been perverted to strengthen autocracies, and used in hybrid warfare to threaten democracy itself around the globe. It is past time to shut off access to those autocracies that wish us only harm. The days of the internet as an international commons are, sadly, long gone.

maxbond 4y ago
I regularly talk to people from all over the world and share ideas, so I just disagree that the internet has failed as a commons. Commons are messy and it might not feel like they're working, but I think when you're just not talking to each other and telling yourselves stories about the other party, things can go downhill quickly. The value of a commons isn't necessarily that its broadly a healthy place for discussion. It's that it makes such discussion possible, and in there will be pockets where it happens. Even in unhealthy communities, there will be times when healthy discussion happens on accident. Nuclear treaties are difficult to enforce too. Their enforcement isn't an unqualified success. But I think the world much better for them. I do agree that the strongest form of the liberalism thesis, where trade and cultural exchange make war impossible and such, is wrong, and was always farcical. That's not really what I'm advocating. I'm not a Liberal or Thatcherist or anything like that. I'm not saying that such exchange creates good as much as saying it reduces harm. If we break off into little internet fiefdoms, we will have more surveillance (as total surveillance is required to enforce these boundaries), which will empower and normalize authoritarianism.
- toss1 4y ago
  The internet is only a small piece of the concept of trade and openness that has failed. The openness, instead of encouraging democracy, has merely strengthened the autocracies. Down to the Internet, the results are very ambiguous. I've also enjoyed conversations across borders. Yet, I've also seen apparently innocuous conversations about industry techniques (I work in carbon fiber composites) turn out to be likely attempts from Iran to get info, likely literally to be used in the Shahed drones now used to attack Ukraine. That particular conversation got shut down politely, but I'm sure there were hundreds more. Similarly, the western academic world is full of Chinese "students" working to both exfiltrate technology and to intimidate overseas Chinese into not opposing the CCP. The CCP has broken into the US Govt computers and basically exfiltrated the entire employee database. And this does not even begin to touch upon the threat of software and hardware spyware, which is the main focus. I could go on endlessly, but the point is that closed societies are taking advantage of open societies to literally destroy them. The benefit of our enjoyment of cross-border exchange is trivial compared to the national security situation. This is no longer a game or a 'let's all join hands' situation. It is literally a fight for the future of the free world. If there is a way to ban CCP, RU, Iranian, NK, etc software an hardware and still allow conversations, then that's maybe allowable. But there's a really easy solution without any surveillance — just logically or physically cut the cord - no routing packets to or from those countries.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    If this is a fight for the free world, the strategy you propose is capitulation. I think you should examine your views more closely; you're expressing contradictions that I think you have trouble seeing, and there's an ungrounded paranoia to your assertions. Your comments about Chinese students read like Red Scare propaganda. There's a lot of "clash of civilizations" style essentialism in your views. I think you might benefit from looking into criticisms of that idea.