6 ms·

If you look at a lot of old-fashioned documents like this - statements of principle, resolutions and declarations of one sort or another - you're likely to see

by Gormo 14y ago

If you look at a lot of old-fashioned documents like this - statements of principle, resolutions and declarations of one sort or another - you're likely to see a list of individual points, often making demands or other calls to action. But this will invariably be preceded by a preamble that indicates (a) who the specific people making the declaration are, and what their motivations are for doing so, (b) who the intended audience is, and what action, if any, is expected from them. This declaration lacks both of these important bits of information. We have a list of imperative bullet points - do this, don't do that - but no elaboration as to why these are desirable, to whom they're desirable, and who is expected to act on the imperative instructions. At best, it's a set of vague, aspirational intentions; at worst, it distracts us away from developing practical strategies for actually protecting internet freedom.

terryk88a 14y ago
Vague indeed. For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"? Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As in no cost? The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means. So I won't be supporting this declaration. I can't tell if it is demanding Free Internet, which is not a universal right.
- numeromancer 14y ago
  I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We implicitly give governments the rights to the use of force, and governments, like people (to whom we don't give such rights) will, in time, see any lack of interdiction as an implicit approval. And positive rights, such as declaring that “all shall be provided, gratis, access to the internet”, have an implicit coercion in them; someone must be forced to provide it.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    > I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We've got one of those already. It doesn't work as well as it was intended to, because, despite the idealistic "rule of law, not men" rhetoric, laws are just abstract concepts, and the world is always under the control of people, who will game and manipulate any system of rules to their advantage. If you build an institution and give it enough power, the people who run it will eventually find a way around their constraints.
- Gormo 14y ago
  If we stick to a reasonable interpretation of rights, that maintains the distinction between having a right and having the object of the right, I see no reason not to regard internet access as a fundamental right (or, more appropriately, as a facet of the fundamental right to free association and free communication). Unfortunately, a lot of discourse blurs that distinction. Having the right to internet access doesn't mean that you should receive state-subsidized internet access; not any more than the right to free expression guarantees you a state-subsidized printing press, nor the right to keep and bear arms guarantees you a state-subsidized rifle. Having a right to a thing means that your pursuit and enjoyment of that thing shall not be artificially hindered or suppressed; it's still up to you to obtain and make use of the object of that right by your own endeavors.
- bobds 14y ago
  "Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks." Affordable implies to me that they are not asking for free access.
morsch 14y ago
Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share precisely those values will support you. Most people -- even those who have a lot in common with your views -- will simply ignore the request. On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement. We might not agree whether taking down copyright infringement is censorship or not, but we can agree that censorship is bad. I'm sure this is a common technique in this kind of grassroots campaigning.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  <i>On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement</i>. This is how horoscopes work. That and 75% positive, 25% critical or cautionary.
- Gormo 14y ago
  I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decisively toward specific goals.
  - morsch 14y ago
    It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.
    - Gormo 14y ago
      Sure it is; it's just a slogan. "Don't censor the Internet" - Who are you talking to? What constitutes censorship? What actual means will prevent censorship, and how can we implement them? You're just saying that censorship is bad, which is almost a tautology, because the term itself carries negative connotations with essentially everyone: people who do advocate what you might describe as censorship aren't describing their own position as censorship, and the fault lines in your base of symbolic 'support' will appear once you actually get into details and attempt to answer the questions above.
pjscott 14y ago
If you like a little more rolling thunder in your declarations, it's hard to beat John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. It's a bit dated -- it was written back in the days when people un-ironically talked about "cyberspace," and it shows -- but there's some insightful vision beneath the poetic hyperbole. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

by Gormo 14y ago

terryk88a 14y ago

Vague indeed. For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"? Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As in no cost? The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means. So I won't be supporting this declaration. I can't tell if it is demanding Free Internet, which is not a universal right.

numeromancer 14y ago
I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We implicitly give governments the rights to the use of force, and governments, like people (to whom we don't give such rights) will, in time, see any lack of interdiction as an implicit approval. And positive rights, such as declaring that “all shall be provided, gratis, access to the internet”, have an implicit coercion in them; someone must be forced to provide it.
- Gormo 14y ago
  > I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We've got one of those already. It doesn't work as well as it was intended to, because, despite the idealistic "rule of law, not men" rhetoric, laws are just abstract concepts, and the world is always under the control of people, who will game and manipulate any system of rules to their advantage. If you build an institution and give it enough power, the people who run it will eventually find a way around their constraints.
Gormo 14y ago
If we stick to a reasonable interpretation of rights, that maintains the distinction between having a right and having the object of the right, I see no reason not to regard internet access as a fundamental right (or, more appropriately, as a facet of the fundamental right to free association and free communication). Unfortunately, a lot of discourse blurs that distinction. Having the right to internet access doesn't mean that you should receive state-subsidized internet access; not any more than the right to free expression guarantees you a state-subsidized printing press, nor the right to keep and bear arms guarantees you a state-subsidized rifle. Having a right to a thing means that your pursuit and enjoyment of that thing shall not be artificially hindered or suppressed; it's still up to you to obtain and make use of the object of that right by your own endeavors.
bobds 14y ago
"Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks." Affordable implies to me that they are not asking for free access.

morsch 14y ago

Your other arguments notwithstanding: Vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature. If you make a specific political request, only those people and groups that share precisely those values will support you. Most people -- even those who have a lot in common with your views -- will simply ignore the request. On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement. We might not agree whether taking down copyright infringement is censorship or not, but we can agree that censorship is bad. I'm sure this is a common technique in this kind of grassroots campaigning.

sageikosa 14y ago
<i>On the other hand, if you make it somewhat vague, lots of people will feel represented by the statement</i>. This is how horoscopes work. That and 75% positive, 25% critical or cautionary.
Gormo 14y ago
I don't think it's an effective strategy at all. You're building a coalition of 'support' based on vague, positive-sounding platitudes, and this precludes you from being able to take any specific strategic action without damaging your 'support'. See: modern politics, in which candidates are elected based on purely symbolic rhetoric, but actual policy-making is dominated by narrowly-defined factions that can act decisively toward specific goals.
- morsch 14y ago
  It's a balancing act, no doubt. But for something like a declaration of internet freedoms I think it's fair to err on the side of being broadly representative. And I don't think it's anywhere as bad as you make it sound, it's ambiguous, but Don't censor the Internet. is not a vague, positive-sounding platitude.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    Sure it is; it's just a slogan. "Don't censor the Internet" - Who are you talking to? What constitutes censorship? What actual means will prevent censorship, and how can we implement them? You're just saying that censorship is bad, which is almost a tautology, because the term itself carries negative connotations with essentially everyone: people who do advocate what you might describe as censorship aren't describing their own position as censorship, and the fault lines in your base of symbolic 'support' will appear once you actually get into details and attempt to answer the questions above.

pjscott 14y ago

If you like a little more rolling thunder in your declarations, it's hard to beat John Perry Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. It's a bit dated -- it was written back in the days when people un-ironically talked about "cyberspace," and it shows -- but there's some insightful vision beneath the poetic hyperbole. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html