4 ms·
There are two kinds of freedom [0]. What we are missing in our society today is some essential negative freedoms. Most of us follow J.S. Mill's idea on restri
by nonrandomstring 2y ago
There are two kinds of freedom [0].
What we are missing in our society today is some essential negative
freedoms.
Most of us follow J.S. Mill's idea on restricting the influence of the
state. See the many comments in this thread decrying government
intervention to ban social media. That's a negative freedom, from
tyranny.
Mostly, we tend to emphasise positive freedoms, freedom to; run a
business, share speech, own technology. And that is good.
But there are negative freedoms, freedom from; coercion, the scourge
of drugs, poverty, censorship. Obviously many positive freedoms can be
expressed as negative ones, but how that logic is formulated in law
really matters.
Now the controversial bit:
What we are missing is laws that give people freedom from technology
The supposed "choice" to participate is not enough.
Like others here I've been a non participant in social media and
smartphones. I'm not a Luddite, I'm a computer scientist, but I
twigged this problem very early having dealt with addiction and
recognising how abuse is mediated by technology. I even wrote a book
about it [1].
The problem is, life is made very difficult for those who want to
exercise choice. Presently one must live as a second class citizen, in
what feels like racism and prejudice of technological snobbery. It is
utterly unnecessary.
Governments do not need to ban smartphones or social media for kids or
for anyone. Making this only about kids is a cop-out. It's
leveraging emotional messaging to side-step a bigger problem nobody
wants to face - that our whole society is under siege from technology
overuse. The more general problem is that we've entered a period of
technological over-reach. Kids don't just feel peer pressure to get a
smartphone and social media, they live in a society that wants to
mandate it.
Whether for kids or adults, we need to strongly protect the rights of
those who want a less technologically mediated (and encumbered - yes
it's not all "convenience") lifestyle. This needs us to maintain
plurality of access;
No services for government, schools, health available *only* on
proprietary and "smart" platforms. Requirement to maintain
traditional paper and interpersonal modes.
End the insanity of a "cashless society", and "smart societies"
that exclude basic human interaction and require and assume
smartphones with apps.
Strongly protect the rights of parents to choose how their kids use
technology, for example in schools, and the attitudes they are
raised with.
Governments can ensure negative freedoms without just banning stuff.
[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative...
[1] https://digitalvegan.net/ https://digitalvegan.net/
- wepple 2y agoVery well written > No services for government, schools, health available only on proprietary and "smart" platforms I wish this were a movement, I feel very strongly about this.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoWhatever would we call a movement like that?
- Aerroon 2y ago"The freedom from the scourge of drugs" is why I can't buy an asthma inhaler without paying out the nose to see a specialist that will prescribe it to me. As a result I don't have an asthma inhaler. I feel very free when breathing gets hard. This is a snarky comment, but this is the consequence of this "negative freedom". I do think that there's some merit to these ideas, but I think it would always leave the choice to the individual. But we also have to realize that some things you just can't opt out of, eg electromagnetic radiation from cell towers.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoI'd really like to understand your comment better Aerroon. Is this something to do with the US healthcare system? Can you elaborate please? (BTW if it is, one of my friends who is a type-1 diabetic was involved in the very political "humanitarian airdrop" of insulin to the USA. - so I kind of get it)
- Aerroon 2y agoI'm not in the US, but drug politics is pretty similar globally due to the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and its successors. Asthma inhalers just happen to fall under a prescription requirement in my country like most other drugs. Sure, this has its benefits, but also downsides. That's really all there is to it. I only brought it up, because I rarely see this side mentioned. Everybody seems to think that prescriptions aren't a barrier, but from my experience that's not true.