7 ms·

The entire world realized that now that the Internet has killed off all of the third places / IRL meetings, and social media killed off the decentralized Intern

The entire world realized that now that the Internet has killed off all of the third places / IRL meetings, and social media killed off the decentralized Internet, it's quite easy to fully control the discourse around any topic, since only a few social media organizations effectively decide what everyone sees (even if you're independent, Social Media decides which ideas/content gets traffic). Question is, how do we get ourselves out of this tar pit?

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> Question is, how do we get ourselves out of this tar pit? Simple: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto by Eric Hughes written 9 March 1993 https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html
- prophesi 1y ago
  I don't think there are actionable items in that manifesto, and was written during the RSA munitions debate.
  - atoav 1y ago
    I'd argue the actionable things are already happening: Hackers and cryptographers creating technical solutions that defy governmental control, people trying to sway public opinion (or trying to get people to realize that being surveilled isn't just about their secret it is about a fundamental balance of powers between companies/governments and individuals). All of those things are pushed by people right now. Maybe the scale isn't right, maybe the effort needs you as well.
  - kpcyrd 1y ago
    The actionable items are "write code" and "build systems". The cypherpunk scene is still alive and evolving, but it's fairly niche, and a tough environment for people driven by external validation while 'things are well'. But there are still people around making sure the necessary pieces are in place in case they become necessary.
    - prophesi 1y ago
      The privacy-preserving systems have been built and are finally making it into the mainstream, only to be uprooted by politics. Not that we no longer need to build more of such systems, but the root of the issue lies elsewhere.
      - zarzavat 1y ago
        Yes but the mainstream systems are not decentralized enough. We need better systems. We, the technological community, have failed the wider public by not creating decentralized alternatives that are as good as centralized ones. Chat Control shouldn't even be an issue, we should just be able to laugh it away. Is anyone concerned about Mastodon being banned? No right because it would be almost impossible to implement. Yet it is possible for WhatsApp/Telegram(yuck)/Signal. Even the tech darling Signal is centralized as fuck.
        hellojesus 1y ago
        Why wouldn't signal just move their company to some random other country? It's not like they make money from their users, and people can easily sideload the app.
        aleph_minus_one 1y ago
        It is suspected that Signal was originally financed by the CIA: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-facing-collapse-after-cia-cuts-funding https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...
        prophesi 1y ago
        Wasn't TOR originally funded by the CIA as well?
        hollerith 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
spencerflem 1y ago
My solice is that it’s all temporary, as climate catastrophe will bring down whatever system they’re building before too long
- Der_Einzige 1y ago
  When will you nuts finally realize that the many headed hydra of capitalism regains 2 heads for every 1 you cut off? Boom-bust cycles, including environmental ones don't do anything to harm capitalism. Rather, they just make it stronger. AI systems have locked in existing power structures forever and guarantee that we will technologically advance fast enough to solve for or at least adapt to climate change. I'd argue that the whole climate movement for the last 20 years stymed and significantly harmed the left as a result. The anti-nuclear and some anti-vax positions taken by parts of the green left in particular were anti-scientific and have cost that portion of the party the support of many scientist types. Scare porn about what will happen if you don't de-develop society and reduce your CO2 footprint just makes folks want to eat even more burgers. Same reason why the majority of non cyclists hate cyclists. It's the same thing when you show a ton of kids how a chicken nugget is made. They all go "eww" for a moment, then you ask them "who wants chicken nuggets?" and literally every hand goes up[1] . We want our slop. We don't care that it's slop, and these days, emotions of cruelty, subjugation, and schadenfreude are political dominant and in the zeitgeist. [1] https://youtu.be/mKwL5G5HbGA?t=148 https://youtu.be/mKwL5G5HbGA?t=148
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    Anti vax is nutty, anti nuclear makes some sense if the goal is worldwide disarmament. I agree AI is an incredible boon for surveillance and censorship but I’m highly skeptical that it will solve climate change and currently seems to be making it worse by measurably increasing power usage. XAI is using diesel for theirs and the air quality in town is measurably worse now. I’m with you that cruelty and domination is winning right now, and that a sizable fraction of people are fundamentally evil and an even more sizable fraction basically don’t care. I still eat meat and acknowledge that it’s immoral to do so. Just think that whatever happens after climate catastrophe / the water wars will likely be worse but it feels natural that it will at least be a different type of worse. I don’t see the global internet as being extremely relevant then. Idk, as an individual there’s nothing much I can do and arguing here won’t help anything so I guess agree to disagree.
marcosdumay 1y ago
Was it really the internet that killed third places? Among all candidates, it seems the least likely here. It didn't even happen at the same speed the internet grew. (The issues with monopolized editorial powers are still valid, it's just this one that I think is wrong.)
- bondeau 1y ago
  Say more?
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    You mean what other candidates are there? Overwork, lack of space, lack of transportation. I imagine people blames the internet for lack of interest (as in "social networks are a dopamine machine"). But IMO it's absurd to jump into a lack of interest when the physical means for people to get together are destroyed.
tavavex 1y ago
> Question is, how do we get ourselves out of this tar pit? I feel like it might be impossible. The people agree with the tar pit makers. Pass a mass surveillance law, 10% will be outraged, 80% will say "Well I don't have anything to hide. Oh well." Pass a censorship law targeting legal but unpopular/controversial material. 10% outraged, 80% say "Good, I never liked it anyway." Pass a preemptive policing law, 10% outraged, 80% claim "If it makes me safer, I like it. I'm not a criminal after all, I don't have anything to fear." Pass a law that codifies your nation's most popular religion as something to be promoted and enforced. 10% outraged, 80% cheer it on, because it agrees with their views. The 80% is illustrative here, but it seems like the people who agree with the above statements are a very solid and overwhelming majority. So why it did take us so much time to creep up to deliberate censorship and surveillance? As someone who was born in the 21st century, the freedom to access and do things on the internet had only ever been on the downhill, any small wins are overwritten by inevitable losses that make things more controlled, more 'safe'.
Gud 1y ago
By increasing the level of democracy and decentralizing the government. Generally the more democratic a country is, the less hostile the government is against the people, from my observations. If you decentralise, any damage will be localised and would affect fewer people.
- jbm 1y ago
  I semi-agree, but the type of democracy you are referring to would involve much smaller groups with more power and would ruin the political "economy of scale" that we get from having the same laws apply to everyone over vast spaces. I think having a mostly crippled central government is probably the most realistic alternative but you can see how that is taken advantage of in the US and how it fosters unnecessary discord between people whose interests are generally aligned.
  - Gud 1y ago
    It’s how the country I live in, Switzerland, is organised, one of the most prosperous places on earth. https://freedomhouse.org/country/switzerland https://freedomhouse.org/country/switzerland
- augment_me 1y ago
  What can a decentralized, democratic government do against foreign autocratic powers that can influence any election in WEEKS? A part of the problem today is that there are massive autocratic powers that have the resources, means and channels to influence any democratic powers. Decentralization in this case means less unity in opinion, and more opportunity for foreign influence. I dont see a way out of this, because essentially as a decentralized democracy, you are playing with your hands open to the whole world, and trusting that your decentralized people will filter out the noise/influence and make rational choices when they are open to any foreign influence. This is why we are seeing EU go more authoritarian. There is (rightfully so given the average technological literacy), no trust in that the individual will be able to see through foreign influence. Control of the individual is the only short-term solution.
  - 1y ago

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> Question is, how do we get ourselves out of this tar pit? Simple: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto by Eric Hughes written 9 March 1993 https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html

prophesi 1y ago
I don't think there are actionable items in that manifesto, and was written during the RSA munitions debate.
- atoav 1y ago
  I'd argue the actionable things are already happening: Hackers and cryptographers creating technical solutions that defy governmental control, people trying to sway public opinion (or trying to get people to realize that being surveilled isn't just about their secret it is about a fundamental balance of powers between companies/governments and individuals). All of those things are pushed by people right now. Maybe the scale isn't right, maybe the effort needs you as well.
- kpcyrd 1y ago
  The actionable items are "write code" and "build systems". The cypherpunk scene is still alive and evolving, but it's fairly niche, and a tough environment for people driven by external validation while 'things are well'. But there are still people around making sure the necessary pieces are in place in case they become necessary.
  - prophesi 1y ago
    The privacy-preserving systems have been built and are finally making it into the mainstream, only to be uprooted by politics. Not that we no longer need to build more of such systems, but the root of the issue lies elsewhere.
    - zarzavat 1y ago
      Yes but the mainstream systems are not decentralized enough. We need better systems. We, the technological community, have failed the wider public by not creating decentralized alternatives that are as good as centralized ones. Chat Control shouldn't even be an issue, we should just be able to laugh it away. Is anyone concerned about Mastodon being banned? No right because it would be almost impossible to implement. Yet it is possible for WhatsApp/Telegram(yuck)/Signal. Even the tech darling Signal is centralized as fuck.
      - hellojesus 1y ago
        Why wouldn't signal just move their company to some random other country? It's not like they make money from their users, and people can easily sideload the app.
        aleph_minus_one 1y ago
        It is suspected that Signal was originally financed by the CIA: https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-facing-collapse-after-cia-cuts-funding https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/signal-faci...
        prophesi 1y ago
        Wasn't TOR originally funded by the CIA as well?
        hollerith 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

spencerflem 1y ago

My solice is that it’s all temporary, as climate catastrophe will bring down whatever system they’re building before too long

Der_Einzige 1y ago
When will you nuts finally realize that the many headed hydra of capitalism regains 2 heads for every 1 you cut off? Boom-bust cycles, including environmental ones don't do anything to harm capitalism. Rather, they just make it stronger. AI systems have locked in existing power structures forever and guarantee that we will technologically advance fast enough to solve for or at least adapt to climate change. I'd argue that the whole climate movement for the last 20 years stymed and significantly harmed the left as a result. The anti-nuclear and some anti-vax positions taken by parts of the green left in particular were anti-scientific and have cost that portion of the party the support of many scientist types. Scare porn about what will happen if you don't de-develop society and reduce your CO2 footprint just makes folks want to eat even more burgers. Same reason why the majority of non cyclists hate cyclists. It's the same thing when you show a ton of kids how a chicken nugget is made. They all go "eww" for a moment, then you ask them "who wants chicken nuggets?" and literally every hand goes up[1] . We want our slop. We don't care that it's slop, and these days, emotions of cruelty, subjugation, and schadenfreude are political dominant and in the zeitgeist. [1] https://youtu.be/mKwL5G5HbGA?t=148 https://youtu.be/mKwL5G5HbGA?t=148
- spencerflem 1y ago
  Anti vax is nutty, anti nuclear makes some sense if the goal is worldwide disarmament. I agree AI is an incredible boon for surveillance and censorship but I’m highly skeptical that it will solve climate change and currently seems to be making it worse by measurably increasing power usage. XAI is using diesel for theirs and the air quality in town is measurably worse now. I’m with you that cruelty and domination is winning right now, and that a sizable fraction of people are fundamentally evil and an even more sizable fraction basically don’t care. I still eat meat and acknowledge that it’s immoral to do so. Just think that whatever happens after climate catastrophe / the water wars will likely be worse but it feels natural that it will at least be a different type of worse. I don’t see the global internet as being extremely relevant then. Idk, as an individual there’s nothing much I can do and arguing here won’t help anything so I guess agree to disagree.

marcosdumay 1y ago

Was it really the internet that killed third places? Among all candidates, it seems the least likely here. It didn't even happen at the same speed the internet grew. (The issues with monopolized editorial powers are still valid, it's just this one that I think is wrong.)

bondeau 1y ago
Say more?
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  You mean what other candidates are there? Overwork, lack of space, lack of transportation. I imagine people blames the internet for lack of interest (as in "social networks are a dopamine machine"). But IMO it's absurd to jump into a lack of interest when the physical means for people to get together are destroyed.

tavavex 1y ago

> Question is, how do we get ourselves out of this tar pit? I feel like it might be impossible. The people agree with the tar pit makers. Pass a mass surveillance law, 10% will be outraged, 80% will say "Well I don't have anything to hide. Oh well." Pass a censorship law targeting legal but unpopular/controversial material. 10% outraged, 80% say "Good, I never liked it anyway." Pass a preemptive policing law, 10% outraged, 80% claim "If it makes me safer, I like it. I'm not a criminal after all, I don't have anything to fear." Pass a law that codifies your nation's most popular religion as something to be promoted and enforced. 10% outraged, 80% cheer it on, because it agrees with their views. The 80% is illustrative here, but it seems like the people who agree with the above statements are a very solid and overwhelming majority. So why it did take us so much time to creep up to deliberate censorship and surveillance? As someone who was born in the 21st century, the freedom to access and do things on the internet had only ever been on the downhill, any small wins are overwritten by inevitable losses that make things more controlled, more 'safe'.

Gud 1y ago

By increasing the level of democracy and decentralizing the government. Generally the more democratic a country is, the less hostile the government is against the people, from my observations. If you decentralise, any damage will be localised and would affect fewer people.

jbm 1y ago
I semi-agree, but the type of democracy you are referring to would involve much smaller groups with more power and would ruin the political "economy of scale" that we get from having the same laws apply to everyone over vast spaces. I think having a mostly crippled central government is probably the most realistic alternative but you can see how that is taken advantage of in the US and how it fosters unnecessary discord between people whose interests are generally aligned.
- Gud 1y ago
  It’s how the country I live in, Switzerland, is organised, one of the most prosperous places on earth. https://freedomhouse.org/country/switzerland https://freedomhouse.org/country/switzerland
augment_me 1y ago
What can a decentralized, democratic government do against foreign autocratic powers that can influence any election in WEEKS? A part of the problem today is that there are massive autocratic powers that have the resources, means and channels to influence any democratic powers. Decentralization in this case means less unity in opinion, and more opportunity for foreign influence. I dont see a way out of this, because essentially as a decentralized democracy, you are playing with your hands open to the whole world, and trusting that your decentralized people will filter out the noise/influence and make rational choices when they are open to any foreign influence. This is why we are seeing EU go more authoritarian. There is (rightfully so given the average technological literacy), no trust in that the individual will be able to see through foreign influence. Control of the individual is the only short-term solution.
- 1y ago