4 ms·

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

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

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.