3 ms·

> 1. regulation through network architecture (code) > 2. societal regulation (what is considered appropriate social behavior) > 3. the market costs associated

> 1. regulation through network architecture (code) > 2. societal regulation (what is considered appropriate social behavior) > 3. the market costs associated with maintaining parts of the Internet > 4. the law It sounds like what Lessig is proposing is whole cloth oversight of the Internet, presumably by some government entity up to and including monitoring speech and the way the actual internet is built and used. "To protect freedom on the Net." EDIT: Reminder that this book was published in 2006. You can read the whole thing in PDF form here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Code_v2.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Code_v2.pdf

mark_l_watson 3y ago
Thanks for listing his 4 main points. I always associate Lessig with the Creative Commons family of licenses. When he was first formulating these licenses, I had a publisher return the rights of my Java AI book to me because I was doing a startup and didn’t have time to do a new edition. I chose a Creative Commons license and released my revised book. Lessig sent me several emails over that time period and I was the featured Creative Commoner on their web site for a few months. I still release all of my new books with a CC share and share alike, no commercial reuse license.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  I personally like and use CC licensed material, even contributing very small bits here and there. To your point this is probably Lessig's greatest accomplishment. His desire for government intervention on the internet at every level is a bridge way too far though.
godojo 3y ago
Sounds like pretty basic observation of society, as in people are driven by: 1. What what they can do -- the tools. 2. What others do. 3. Costs / benefits. 4. What hurts -- laws and consequences of not following the law. I wouldn't be surprised students of sociology would have better models to describe this.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  There probably is. And this book is a little relatively old. If you read the book though, many of the solutions/policies proposed were considered an abhorration in 2006 and are still not so palatable even today. I fear he'll eventually get his way.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  They do. One of the most powerful behavior-modulating mechanisms is reality building. Think of the folks who self-censor imagination because Truth/Reality/Nature align with their views. "That's just how things are" is more powerful than laws, norms, or costs. In fact the acceptance of laws norms and costs as legitimate rest firmly on legal realism, social realism, and economic realism - all flavors of the same substrate.
kmeisthax 3y ago
Lessig was arguing, back in 2006[0], that privatized ownership of code would effectively create privatized legislation - i.e. corporations could write their own laws by just making the machines not do certain things they don't want done. Since code still has to exist, we can't exactly remove this mechanism of control. And capitalist ownership and the corporate form it loves so much is a brutal dictatorship bounded only by the fact that some people can leave if they have the money to do so. So the mere existence of software and corporations equals little kings running around extending their freedom to swing their arm directly into your solar plexus. Since Code was published, the government has largely not regulated the tech sector at all, and the end result is that the tech sector wrote its own laws to benefit itself. This is where we get tech companies that operate more like religions[1] whose commandments include "thou shalt have no third-party app distributor before me". In this way Lessig is prophetic. >It sounds like what Lessig is proposing is whole cloth oversight of the Internet, presumably by some government entity up to and including monitoring speech and the way the actual internet is built and used. "To protect freedom on the Net." Lessig is arguing that if we don't subject Apple and Google to constitutional oversight, they'll just write their own constitution and use the existing one as toilet paper. I don't understand how you go from that to sardonic scarequotes. [0] Code was published earlier than this, largely as a reaction to DMCA 1201, the linked article is for the 2006 update [1] Dictators love state religions because it lets them use control over the law to control social regulations. It's one thing to ban something you don't like and another to convince people they will go to hell if they evade the ban.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  It’s hard to put corporations at the same level as the actual government when it comes to “how I am governed.” Corporations can’t (in general) put me in jail or issue fines against me if I don’t interact with them. I am not forced to do business with them or use their services. For example, I’m not a Twitter user, so nothing they write in their code “regulates” me, and nothing other Twitter users say affects my behavior.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    "Government" is a monopoly on the use of force. When a corporation gains monopoly power they also become more like a government in that you don't have the ability to not do business with them. Think of it like Comcast: if you want someone else's Internet service, then you have to move to another town or state, which is significantly more expensive than just changing companies. Twitter isn't the best example since people have been able to switch to other platforms, but there are still occupations where interacting with it is basically mandatory. Better examples would be Apple or Google - if you decide to completely cut both of those companies off, you are cut off from modern life.

mark_l_watson 3y ago

Thanks for listing his 4 main points. I always associate Lessig with the Creative Commons family of licenses. When he was first formulating these licenses, I had a publisher return the rights of my Java AI book to me because I was doing a startup and didn’t have time to do a new edition. I chose a Creative Commons license and released my revised book. Lessig sent me several emails over that time period and I was the featured Creative Commoner on their web site for a few months. I still release all of my new books with a CC share and share alike, no commercial reuse license.

brodouevencode 3y ago
I personally like and use CC licensed material, even contributing very small bits here and there. To your point this is probably Lessig's greatest accomplishment. His desire for government intervention on the internet at every level is a bridge way too far though.

godojo 3y ago

Sounds like pretty basic observation of society, as in people are driven by: 1. What what they can do -- the tools. 2. What others do. 3. Costs / benefits. 4. What hurts -- laws and consequences of not following the law. I wouldn't be surprised students of sociology would have better models to describe this.

brodouevencode 3y ago
There probably is. And this book is a little relatively old. If you read the book though, many of the solutions/policies proposed were considered an abhorration in 2006 and are still not so palatable even today. I fear he'll eventually get his way.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
They do. One of the most powerful behavior-modulating mechanisms is reality building. Think of the folks who self-censor imagination because Truth/Reality/Nature align with their views. "That's just how things are" is more powerful than laws, norms, or costs. In fact the acceptance of laws norms and costs as legitimate rest firmly on legal realism, social realism, and economic realism - all flavors of the same substrate.

kmeisthax 3y ago

Lessig was arguing, back in 2006[0], that privatized ownership of code would effectively create privatized legislation - i.e. corporations could write their own laws by just making the machines not do certain things they don't want done. Since code still has to exist, we can't exactly remove this mechanism of control. And capitalist ownership and the corporate form it loves so much is a brutal dictatorship bounded only by the fact that some people can leave if they have the money to do so. So the mere existence of software and corporations equals little kings running around extending their freedom to swing their arm directly into your solar plexus. Since Code was published, the government has largely not regulated the tech sector at all, and the end result is that the tech sector wrote its own laws to benefit itself. This is where we get tech companies that operate more like religions[1] whose commandments include "thou shalt have no third-party app distributor before me". In this way Lessig is prophetic. >It sounds like what Lessig is proposing is whole cloth oversight of the Internet, presumably by some government entity up to and including monitoring speech and the way the actual internet is built and used. "To protect freedom on the Net." Lessig is arguing that if we don't subject Apple and Google to constitutional oversight, they'll just write their own constitution and use the existing one as toilet paper. I don't understand how you go from that to sardonic scarequotes. [0] Code was published earlier than this, largely as a reaction to DMCA 1201, the linked article is for the 2006 update [1] Dictators love state religions because it lets them use control over the law to control social regulations. It's one thing to ban something you don't like and another to convince people they will go to hell if they evade the ban.

ryandrake 3y ago
It’s hard to put corporations at the same level as the actual government when it comes to “how I am governed.” Corporations can’t (in general) put me in jail or issue fines against me if I don’t interact with them. I am not forced to do business with them or use their services. For example, I’m not a Twitter user, so nothing they write in their code “regulates” me, and nothing other Twitter users say affects my behavior.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  "Government" is a monopoly on the use of force. When a corporation gains monopoly power they also become more like a government in that you don't have the ability to not do business with them. Think of it like Comcast: if you want someone else's Internet service, then you have to move to another town or state, which is significantly more expensive than just changing companies. Twitter isn't the best example since people have been able to switch to other platforms, but there are still occupations where interacting with it is basically mandatory. Better examples would be Apple or Google - if you decide to completely cut both of those companies off, you are cut off from modern life.