3 ms·

I don't know how serious this take is or if it's more emotional than not. This is probably the same reaction regulators have around the world, where they'd pre

I don't know how serious this take is or if it's more emotional than not. This is probably the same reaction regulators have around the world, where they'd prefer to have their own walled garden where they apply their own rules and don't need to talk to anyone else. Except when there's lot of money down the line, then they'll do an effort and make exceptions. That's how many US services reacted to GDPR. That's how many Japanese services reacted to VISA/Mastercard ban on sexual content. That's how China is reacting to many things. I think we'll see more and more example of it down the line. On one side, balkanization can probably help to get more diversity and allow local content to thrive with less competition. On the other side, it's basically reversing decades of cultural evolution that happened on the net, which I personally think sucks a lot.

Analemma_ 3y ago
> the same reaction regulators have around the world, where they'd prefer to have their own walled garden where they apply their own rules and don't need to talk to anyone else I don't like the trend of balkanization, but I have to say that this is kind of suffering from a lack of perspective. What you call "their own walled garden" a lot of people call "national sovereignty", especially people who dislike the fact that the "unregulated" internet was actually regulated by the United States for all intents and purposes, and so "lack of regulation" was equivalent to letting the US run a critical piece of their national infrastructure. It should be understandable that people kinda didn't like that.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  You're right that it comes down to national sovereignty. I'll show my bias: I don't think a complete lack of sovereignty is viable nor desirable. Completely erasing cultures and local specificities won't help, and I agree there is way too much US centralized critical infrastructure. But I prefered a kind of status quo where the big players are in a standstill and can't make bold moves that could destabilize the whole board. Basically the state where the US couldn't abuse too much their position in fear of the other entities calling it quit, and the other entities couldn't completely close their borders in fear of losing too much as they retreat. In recent years we've seen more and more moral/cultural rules getting applied to critical infra (payment, communications etc.), and I guess we're not getting that standstill back anytime soon. That also means we're back to black market style communication, as it was in the earlier decades, when we were looking for a common ground less constrained by national limitations.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > In recent years we've seen more and more moral/cultural rules getting applied to critical infra (payment, communications etc.), and I guess we're not getting that standstill back anytime soon. This really depends on what the response to that is. People tolerated centralized chokepoints because they were neutral. That was why they historically feared doing otherwise -- it would give people an incentive to disintermediate them. So now people are going to try to disintermediate them. Question is how long it takes to happen.

Analemma_ 3y ago

> the same reaction regulators have around the world, where they'd prefer to have their own walled garden where they apply their own rules and don't need to talk to anyone else I don't like the trend of balkanization, but I have to say that this is kind of suffering from a lack of perspective. What you call "their own walled garden" a lot of people call "national sovereignty", especially people who dislike the fact that the "unregulated" internet was actually regulated by the United States for all intents and purposes, and so "lack of regulation" was equivalent to letting the US run a critical piece of their national infrastructure. It should be understandable that people kinda didn't like that.

makeitdouble 3y ago
You're right that it comes down to national sovereignty. I'll show my bias: I don't think a complete lack of sovereignty is viable nor desirable. Completely erasing cultures and local specificities won't help, and I agree there is way too much US centralized critical infrastructure. But I prefered a kind of status quo where the big players are in a standstill and can't make bold moves that could destabilize the whole board. Basically the state where the US couldn't abuse too much their position in fear of the other entities calling it quit, and the other entities couldn't completely close their borders in fear of losing too much as they retreat. In recent years we've seen more and more moral/cultural rules getting applied to critical infra (payment, communications etc.), and I guess we're not getting that standstill back anytime soon. That also means we're back to black market style communication, as it was in the earlier decades, when we were looking for a common ground less constrained by national limitations.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > In recent years we've seen more and more moral/cultural rules getting applied to critical infra (payment, communications etc.), and I guess we're not getting that standstill back anytime soon. This really depends on what the response to that is. People tolerated centralized chokepoints because they were neutral. That was why they historically feared doing otherwise -- it would give people an incentive to disintermediate them. So now people are going to try to disintermediate them. Question is how long it takes to happen.