4 ms·

Cory Doctorow at keynote in Pycon this year said pretty much the same thing - now that tariffs had imposed the cost that US always used as a threat to get their

Cory Doctorow at keynote in Pycon this year said pretty much the same thing - now that tariffs had imposed the cost that US always used as a threat to get their own way, what’s to lose now? I tend to agree but 1. We risk Balkanisation of the internet 2. Enforcing interactivity (sharing posts between instagram and X sounds lovely) but the search and discovery is still the secret sauce - and once you regulate that the only fair way is a time based feed - which will just end looking like a sped up version of the Matrix screen 3. If we do this, we don’t get our own (European) unicorns - what we get is regulated utilities (which let’s face it is the destination of search and posting text or photos). The power of social media is the power of a phone in every frigging pocket of every adult on the planet. So we end up with normcore social media, partly because regulation will ramp down the extreme reactions of the algorithm, and partly because LLMs will replace a lot of queries, and they are mostly normcore because they are based on every written word ever, and that is a huge anti-extremism weighting

marcinzm 1y ago
> what’s to lose now? The natural gas supply among other things. Europe has made itself first dependent on Russia and then on the US for the basic survival of its population.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  You underestimate how fast Europe in crisis can reactivate direct imports from Russia. Trump pushing for peace doesn’t understand that it will also open the way for lifting sanctions on Russian energy sector. If he succeeds but alienates Europe, that will inevitably happen. We are back in the age of realpolitik.
  - marcinzm 1y ago
    Handing over a loaded gun pointed at your head from one dictator to another is hardly a wining strategy. You also underestimate how much Russia and the US are likely colluding.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    Realpolitik would be for Europe to exploit its shale gas reserves instead of banning doing so. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels but the reality is that we are still dependent on them so we may as well look at strategic independence and economic gains and produce what we can ourselves.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      That is not a viable option for us if we need full replacement. Strategic independence will remain a goal, but in the meantime we need whatever works. Let Trump and Putin compete for access to European energy market.
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        It is a viable option. It might not cover all our needs (I don't know) but that does not mean we should not minimise imports and maximise domestic production.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - m000 1y ago
      Realpolitik would be for Europe to understand that geography isn't going to change. Russia will always be your next-door neighbour. USA will always be an ocean away. Also, Putin is not immortal. So, your long game should be to forge amicable relations with your next-door neighbour, rather betting everything in your relationship with your manipulative friend on the other side of the pond. In the meantime, you should also become self-dependent.
      - azmodeus 1y ago
        Realpolitik would be to arm yourself and project your influence like your big brothers are doing next door and across the pond. Russia would love to regain the European land the Soviet Union lost.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    And you think that Russia is a better option? I hope the EU isn't that dumb, but it's hard to underestimate them.
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      It is not a better option. It’s the way to have competition among suppliers.
      - marcinzm 1y ago
        If you think Putin and Trump will compete versus simply colluding against Europe then you're really delusional.
        terminalshort 1y ago
        I see US made weapons destroying Russian assets in Ukraine every day. I see US troops facing off against Russia in Poland and the Baltics. This is a nonsense conspiracy theory.
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        One of those suppliers demanding you don't tax and censor their online services. The other is pointing weapons (that they buy with your money) at you. There is a time for market competition, but this ain't it. Now if you were suggesting developing domestic energy supplies, that would be a different story.
        ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Please don’t expect me writing a full political program here elaborating all aspects of foreign and energy policy. It’s a forum. Domestic energy supplies won’t come faster than imports from existing sources. They are imperative but need time.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      You don't understand. The situation in Europe is: the left has failed, and broken into pieces that are currently mostly still in a few parties, but those are ready to shatter into 100, at which point ... the extreme right has 35% of the vote, and the center parties has all but broken down. That means the moderate right (think laissez-faire pro-immigration pro-business, the only remaining other voting bloc) and extreme right (hate based parties) control, easily, 50% of the vote. They are not currently allied but the problem is that a shattered left is not something the right (or anyone) can work with. If the left fully shatters, the right will be forced to join the extreme right. So right now, it takes essentially EVERY small insignificant party cooperating not to hand EU countries to the extreme right (yes, in Germany there's more margin, in the Netherlands less, France is on the brink, ...) That makes your "dumb" not dumb but a serious catch-22. Any compromise that makes ANY party that has 5% of the vote walk out is a total non-starter, because one vote of non-confidence and "hitler gets elected again" so to speak.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  Man, if only humans could have invented splitting of the atom, it might have made a nice energy source, especially for countries with low oil and gas reserves.
- verzali 1y ago
  Europe is hardly dependent on the US for gas. Russia still supplies more gas than the US does, and even when the current US and Russian supplies are combined they are less than the total Russian supply in 2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
  - marcinzm 1y ago
    I understand how economics function. If you drop supply 10% for a basic necessity then prices will go up by much more than 10%. You don't need to stop something, just reduce it enough to drive prices way up to the point where people can't afford them.
    - verzali 1y ago
      Gas is stored over many months and then mostly used in the winter. So you cannot quickly impact consumer prices in the way you suggest. Supplies in general are now more diversified and flexible, so any supplier can be replaced more easily - LNG by ship is far easier to replace than gas that relies on pipelines.
inetknght 1y ago
> We risk Balkanisation of the internet Until nations actually implement serious cybersecurity enforcement, this is a good thing. > Enforcing interactivity (sharing posts between instagram and X sounds lovely) but the search and discovery is still the secret sauce - and once you regulate that the only fair way is a time based feed A massive part of the modern-day propaganda machine. It's worse than awful and it's intended. > If we do this, we don’t get our own (European) unicorns - what we get is regulated utilities Ultimately, this is a better direction. But the regulations need to be carefully curated for freedom instead of suppression. Unfortunately, current political climate and public sentiment isn't going well for public safety.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > Ultimately, this is a better direction Strongly disagree on this one. Utilities and heavy regulation are a necessary evil that should be used sparingly, not as the norm.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    > Strongly disagree on this one. Utilities and heavy regulation are a necessary evil that should be used sparingly, not as the norm. I mean it seems like social networks (and potentially search, but I'm less certain here) seem like a natural monopoly, so it would make sense to turn them into utilities.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      I wouldn't reach for making an industry a utility just because it became a monopoly. It should probably be considered a public good as well, I'm not sure social media would fit that. I'd look to why it became a monopoly. I'm not sold on social media being a monopoly given the number of services out there, but either way they only got so large because they were effectively given get out of jail free cards with regards to legal liability protections given to the by the government. Removing those rather than standing up all the plumbing needed to regulate them as utilities seems like a much more simply approach.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Normcore is fine. I'd rather have normcore than rage porn curated for profit. What's not fine is US oligarchs using social media platforms to influence elections - something Musk and Zuckerberg have both done, on the record, with fines to match. That's not fine anywhere. The US seems to have persuaded itself it is, but the EU - rightly - has other priorities.
dartharva 1y ago
There used to be a very vibrant internet before "search and discovery", it was very balkanized and that was GLORIOUS. Social media is cancer anyway, if people stop using them altogether it will be a net benefit to humanity. So I see all this as a good thing.

marcinzm 1y ago

> what’s to lose now? The natural gas supply among other things. Europe has made itself first dependent on Russia and then on the US for the basic survival of its population.

ivan_gammel 1y ago
You underestimate how fast Europe in crisis can reactivate direct imports from Russia. Trump pushing for peace doesn’t understand that it will also open the way for lifting sanctions on Russian energy sector. If he succeeds but alienates Europe, that will inevitably happen. We are back in the age of realpolitik.
- marcinzm 1y ago
  Handing over a loaded gun pointed at your head from one dictator to another is hardly a wining strategy. You also underestimate how much Russia and the US are likely colluding.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  Realpolitik would be for Europe to exploit its shale gas reserves instead of banning doing so. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels but the reality is that we are still dependent on them so we may as well look at strategic independence and economic gains and produce what we can ourselves.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    That is not a viable option for us if we need full replacement. Strategic independence will remain a goal, but in the meantime we need whatever works. Let Trump and Putin compete for access to European energy market.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      It is a viable option. It might not cover all our needs (I don't know) but that does not mean we should not minimise imports and maximise domestic production.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - m000 1y ago
    Realpolitik would be for Europe to understand that geography isn't going to change. Russia will always be your next-door neighbour. USA will always be an ocean away. Also, Putin is not immortal. So, your long game should be to forge amicable relations with your next-door neighbour, rather betting everything in your relationship with your manipulative friend on the other side of the pond. In the meantime, you should also become self-dependent.
    - azmodeus 1y ago
      Realpolitik would be to arm yourself and project your influence like your big brothers are doing next door and across the pond. Russia would love to regain the European land the Soviet Union lost.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  And you think that Russia is a better option? I hope the EU isn't that dumb, but it's hard to underestimate them.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    It is not a better option. It’s the way to have competition among suppliers.
    - marcinzm 1y ago
      If you think Putin and Trump will compete versus simply colluding against Europe then you're really delusional.
      - terminalshort 1y ago
        I see US made weapons destroying Russian assets in Ukraine every day. I see US troops facing off against Russia in Poland and the Baltics. This is a nonsense conspiracy theory.
    - terminalshort 1y ago
      One of those suppliers demanding you don't tax and censor their online services. The other is pointing weapons (that they buy with your money) at you. There is a time for market competition, but this ain't it. Now if you were suggesting developing domestic energy supplies, that would be a different story.
      - ivan_gammel 1y ago
        Please don’t expect me writing a full political program here elaborating all aspects of foreign and energy policy. It’s a forum. Domestic energy supplies won’t come faster than imports from existing sources. They are imperative but need time.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    You don't understand. The situation in Europe is: the left has failed, and broken into pieces that are currently mostly still in a few parties, but those are ready to shatter into 100, at which point ... the extreme right has 35% of the vote, and the center parties has all but broken down. That means the moderate right (think laissez-faire pro-immigration pro-business, the only remaining other voting bloc) and extreme right (hate based parties) control, easily, 50% of the vote. They are not currently allied but the problem is that a shattered left is not something the right (or anyone) can work with. If the left fully shatters, the right will be forced to join the extreme right. So right now, it takes essentially EVERY small insignificant party cooperating not to hand EU countries to the extreme right (yes, in Germany there's more margin, in the Netherlands less, France is on the brink, ...) That makes your "dumb" not dumb but a serious catch-22. Any compromise that makes ANY party that has 5% of the vote walk out is a total non-starter, because one vote of non-confidence and "hitler gets elected again" so to speak.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Man, if only humans could have invented splitting of the atom, it might have made a nice energy source, especially for countries with low oil and gas reserves.
verzali 1y ago
Europe is hardly dependent on the US for gas. Russia still supplies more gas than the US does, and even when the current US and Russian supplies are combined they are less than the total Russian supply in 2021. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-the-eu-s-gas-come-from/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/where-does-t...
- marcinzm 1y ago
  I understand how economics function. If you drop supply 10% for a basic necessity then prices will go up by much more than 10%. You don't need to stop something, just reduce it enough to drive prices way up to the point where people can't afford them.
  - verzali 1y ago
    Gas is stored over many months and then mostly used in the winter. So you cannot quickly impact consumer prices in the way you suggest. Supplies in general are now more diversified and flexible, so any supplier can be replaced more easily - LNG by ship is far easier to replace than gas that relies on pipelines.

inetknght 1y ago

> We risk Balkanisation of the internet Until nations actually implement serious cybersecurity enforcement, this is a good thing. > Enforcing interactivity (sharing posts between instagram and X sounds lovely) but the search and discovery is still the secret sauce - and once you regulate that the only fair way is a time based feed A massive part of the modern-day propaganda machine. It's worse than awful and it's intended. > If we do this, we don’t get our own (European) unicorns - what we get is regulated utilities Ultimately, this is a better direction. But the regulations need to be carefully curated for freedom instead of suppression. Unfortunately, current political climate and public sentiment isn't going well for public safety.

_heimdall 1y ago
> Ultimately, this is a better direction Strongly disagree on this one. Utilities and heavy regulation are a necessary evil that should be used sparingly, not as the norm.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  > Strongly disagree on this one. Utilities and heavy regulation are a necessary evil that should be used sparingly, not as the norm. I mean it seems like social networks (and potentially search, but I'm less certain here) seem like a natural monopoly, so it would make sense to turn them into utilities.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    I wouldn't reach for making an industry a utility just because it became a monopoly. It should probably be considered a public good as well, I'm not sure social media would fit that. I'd look to why it became a monopoly. I'm not sold on social media being a monopoly given the number of services out there, but either way they only got so large because they were effectively given get out of jail free cards with regards to legal liability protections given to the by the government. Removing those rather than standing up all the plumbing needed to regulate them as utilities seems like a much more simply approach.

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago

Normcore is fine. I'd rather have normcore than rage porn curated for profit. What's not fine is US oligarchs using social media platforms to influence elections - something Musk and Zuckerberg have both done, on the record, with fines to match. That's not fine anywhere. The US seems to have persuaded itself it is, but the EU - rightly - has other priorities.

dartharva 1y ago

There used to be a very vibrant internet before "search and discovery", it was very balkanized and that was GLORIOUS. Social media is cancer anyway, if people stop using them altogether it will be a net benefit to humanity. So I see all this as a good thing.