3 ms·

One problem is that consequences are difficult to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be. This friction has been around

by zokier 2y ago

One problem is that consequences are difficult to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be. This friction has been around since the very early days of the net, some thinking that internet should exist outside the traditional governance and loudly rejecting any government involvement in the internet. In practice that has proven to be untenable but that legacy still lives on.

barfbagginus 2y ago
I feel like I could soon be able to make some kind of free standing communistic enforcement bot that stockpiles and develops cyber weapons, then uses them to unilaterally fingerprint and police bad actors in an anonymous community. If they cause too much trouble, then the community bands together to nuke the bot. If it provides useful service, it is allowed to feed off the digital detritus of bad actors.
- godelski 2y ago
  (I'm assuming this was a joke) And who watches the watchmen? Who's watchmen should be the watchmen?
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    I'm just gonna build it and hope it doesn't kill me!
godelski 2y ago
> to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be. To be fair, there's a lot of those ideas I like. There's I think some naivety too, which I think you point out, but I'm glad these people exist. I think you need _some_ radicals (size is arguable) to push things in certain directions and challenge the status quo to ensure that we don't get stuck in our ways. Definitely seems like an optimal thing to have most people in a median and constant challengers, even if at times they are silly, it doesn't mean all their points are. I think a good example of this might even be crypto currencies. There is definitely something to be said about the privacy of transactions and the power of government or any body has when they can see all your financial data. But this doesn't mean that MMT is complete bullshit and that there is something wrong with currencies not being on the gold standard. Similarly, while I strongly support Section 230, I'm glad people push back against it. We need to be aware of its limitations and failures. Perhaps we can improve upon it (most certainly we can). But at the end of the day I'm on the side of Blackstone: It's better that $N guilty men go free than $M ($N > $M) innocent men be stricken of their freedom. No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that we can't write laws to accurately codify the precise nature of our intentions (even if we removed much of the aggregation and wrote incredibly complicated laws) without erring in one direction or another (innocent being condemned, or guilty slipping free). It just means we need to approach things in a nuanced way and be aware that we need to tread carefully. So I'm happy radicals exist, but I also fear them gaining too much power.

by zokier 2y ago

barfbagginus 2y ago

I feel like I could soon be able to make some kind of free standing communistic enforcement bot that stockpiles and develops cyber weapons, then uses them to unilaterally fingerprint and police bad actors in an anonymous community. If they cause too much trouble, then the community bands together to nuke the bot. If it provides useful service, it is allowed to feed off the digital detritus of bad actors.

godelski 2y ago
(I'm assuming this was a joke) And who watches the watchmen? Who's watchmen should be the watchmen?
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  I'm just gonna build it and hope it doesn't kill me!

godelski 2y ago

> to ensure in the anonymous crypto-anarchist utopia some users wish internet to be. To be fair, there's a lot of those ideas I like. There's I think some naivety too, which I think you point out, but I'm glad these people exist. I think you need _some_ radicals (size is arguable) to push things in certain directions and challenge the status quo to ensure that we don't get stuck in our ways. Definitely seems like an optimal thing to have most people in a median and constant challengers, even if at times they are silly, it doesn't mean all their points are. I think a good example of this might even be crypto currencies. There is definitely something to be said about the privacy of transactions and the power of government or any body has when they can see all your financial data. But this doesn't mean that MMT is complete bullshit and that there is something wrong with currencies not being on the gold standard. Similarly, while I strongly support Section 230, I'm glad people push back against it. We need to be aware of its limitations and failures. Perhaps we can improve upon it (most certainly we can). But at the end of the day I'm on the side of Blackstone: It's better that $N guilty men go free than $M ($N > $M) innocent men be stricken of their freedom. No system is perfect. It's unfortunate that we can't write laws to accurately codify the precise nature of our intentions (even if we removed much of the aggregation and wrote incredibly complicated laws) without erring in one direction or another (innocent being condemned, or guilty slipping free). It just means we need to approach things in a nuanced way and be aware that we need to tread carefully. So I'm happy radicals exist, but I also fear them gaining too much power.