4 ms·

We arent discussing technicalities here but actual consequences. >I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why

We arent discussing technicalities here but actual consequences. >I think the burden is on those who think it should be a common-carrier system to justify why that's societally beneficial Thats a really easy way out of having to address how this isnt going to end in a totalitarian echo chamber. Unfortunately just ignoring it and feeling right isnt a promising strategy.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Because an organization can always keep seeking someone who will host them. And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." There is some risk of cleaving along ideological lines (so you end up with, like, "corporate Internet" and "KF-friendly internet"). I expect that process is currently in progress and I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Maybe putting everyone on the planet on a flat communications plane was never an experiment that was going to succeed. Maybe we have countries and individual and collective ideologies for a reason.
- cf141q5325 3y ago
  >And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." Thats framing that doesnt change the end result. There wont be any cleaving but anything differing from dominant doctrine no longer available. With no regard for who determines that other then the currently loudest screaming mob. That describes a totalitarian society in which truth has lost all meaning because people favor signaling despite knowing better. I find it highly irresponsible to push for defacto censorship with a complete disregard for very clear threat, namely the power to censor not only getting abused but being by its very nature uncontrollable. Especially in this form. Nobody being able to even describe how this could function without ending in tragedy means its likely impossible. Which should surprise nobody. edit: China described it as the peoples will as well if i am not mistaken. Which meant having a set ratio of the population that had to confess their reactionary thoughts in front of a screaming mob before being thrown into Gulags.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    By definition totalitarian and will of the people are disjoint. Totalitarian systems are centralized. The people deciding, each of their own, to shun that which their consciences tell them is harmful to their society is the opposite of totalitarian. If KF can't find a home with any provider, and if providers they do find a home with are themselves shunned... That's just two tribes circling the wagons. Totalitarianism would look a lot more like some force external to those operators stepping in and forcing them to interact, regardless of their will. And that's the rub. If we don't trust the owners of the machinery to decide how it is used, what's the proposed alternative? If we pass laws to tie the hands of corporations on who's data they must carry, then we've taken the cudgel away from the Hurricane Electics of the world and given it to the Richard Blumenthals. I trust corporations about as far as I can throw them, but I trust them more to decide what bits are on the wire than I trust governments.
    - cf141q5325 3y ago
      Making sure that we have robust system in place that makes silencing dissenting voices impossible. Because it does not work, you have nobody (and no institution) competent enough to decide this. And we will have to rely on this system if history is any measure. Just wanting this to work is not a valid strategy. You can and should know better.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        So your alternative to distributed corp-by-corp decisionmaking is... A centralized set of rules, from a central authority, that corps must abide. That looks a lot closer to totalitarianism than "KF has to keep changing who it works with because individual companies think they're not a good client."
        cf141q5325 3y ago
        The only way you can equate censorship with banning censorship is if the death penalty and the bill of rights are also both just laws. The difference here is that its impossible to push society into a censored echo chamber through banning censorship. You cant create the dangerous blind spots this way that are at the core of totalitarian risks. You really should read up on totalitarianism. Your definition is quite distorted and you hit a lot of the marks when ignoring consequences in favor of frames. I can recommend Meerloos Rape of the Mind.

shadowgovt 3y ago

Because an organization can always keep seeking someone who will host them. And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." There is some risk of cleaving along ideological lines (so you end up with, like, "corporate Internet" and "KF-friendly internet"). I expect that process is currently in progress and I'm not convinced it's a bad thing. Maybe putting everyone on the planet on a flat communications plane was never an experiment that was going to succeed. Maybe we have countries and individual and collective ideologies for a reason.

cf141q5325 3y ago
>And if nobody will host them, it's not a totalitarian echo chamber, it's just "the people's will." Thats framing that doesnt change the end result. There wont be any cleaving but anything differing from dominant doctrine no longer available. With no regard for who determines that other then the currently loudest screaming mob. That describes a totalitarian society in which truth has lost all meaning because people favor signaling despite knowing better. I find it highly irresponsible to push for defacto censorship with a complete disregard for very clear threat, namely the power to censor not only getting abused but being by its very nature uncontrollable. Especially in this form. Nobody being able to even describe how this could function without ending in tragedy means its likely impossible. Which should surprise nobody. edit: China described it as the peoples will as well if i am not mistaken. Which meant having a set ratio of the population that had to confess their reactionary thoughts in front of a screaming mob before being thrown into Gulags.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  By definition totalitarian and will of the people are disjoint. Totalitarian systems are centralized. The people deciding, each of their own, to shun that which their consciences tell them is harmful to their society is the opposite of totalitarian. If KF can't find a home with any provider, and if providers they do find a home with are themselves shunned... That's just two tribes circling the wagons. Totalitarianism would look a lot more like some force external to those operators stepping in and forcing them to interact, regardless of their will. And that's the rub. If we don't trust the owners of the machinery to decide how it is used, what's the proposed alternative? If we pass laws to tie the hands of corporations on who's data they must carry, then we've taken the cudgel away from the Hurricane Electics of the world and given it to the Richard Blumenthals. I trust corporations about as far as I can throw them, but I trust them more to decide what bits are on the wire than I trust governments.
  - cf141q5325 3y ago
    Making sure that we have robust system in place that makes silencing dissenting voices impossible. Because it does not work, you have nobody (and no institution) competent enough to decide this. And we will have to rely on this system if history is any measure. Just wanting this to work is not a valid strategy. You can and should know better.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      So your alternative to distributed corp-by-corp decisionmaking is... A centralized set of rules, from a central authority, that corps must abide. That looks a lot closer to totalitarianism than "KF has to keep changing who it works with because individual companies think they're not a good client."
      - cf141q5325 3y ago
        The only way you can equate censorship with banning censorship is if the death penalty and the bill of rights are also both just laws. The difference here is that its impossible to push society into a censored echo chamber through banning censorship. You cant create the dangerous blind spots this way that are at the core of totalitarian risks. You really should read up on totalitarianism. Your definition is quite distorted and you hit a lot of the marks when ignoring consequences in favor of frames. I can recommend Meerloos Rape of the Mind.