5 ms·

Not my point. The original comment said the tech industry can decide to break up the federal government because they don't want to be forced to clean up their a

Not my point. The original comment said the tech industry can decide to break up the federal government because they don't want to be forced to clean up their act. Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. If the tech industry is against that, then they should be the ones broken up.

jMyles 10mo ago
> Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. But societies also need to be stronger than states, especially in an age of connection and sharing. States are the main source of uncertainty and violence in the world right now, and I think it's reasonable to hope that the internet will bring the age of peace we pray for. Obviously the social media giants are not it. They are closer to states than they are to algorithms. But I'm wary of siding with states over web apps. What we need are healthier (meaning, chiefly, more decentralized and less rent-seeking) web apps.
- betteryet 10mo ago
  Exactly, societies need to be stronger than states too and really need to act early. States can become one person or party and it's game over for a long time. Actually, the American Constitution is pretty great at preventing this exact outcome and I still have a lot of faith in it.
  - kazen44 10mo ago
    but the constitution is just a piece of paper with some words written on it. Without an active civic society protection what is enshrined in the document, it is all but powerless.
- eddythompson80 10mo ago
  > I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. As long as it's not farming, defense or healthcare of course. Historically speaking at least.
- thegrimmest 10mo ago
  > They are closer to states than they are to algorithms This seems like nonsense. All the tech industry does is convince people. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. States have a monopoly on violence. No one holds a gun to anyone's head forcing them to consume <insert content you disagree with>. In a country of equals, everyone's opinion, including <position you disagree with>, should hold equal sway, and be resolved via democratic due process. Just because many people hold <position you disagree with> and vote for <politician you find repugnant> doesn't give you any sort of reasonable justification to limit the freedom of others to advocate (including on social media) for it.
  - jMyles 10mo ago
    I agree with everything you've said with regard to the justice of the matter, but I don't think that there is a free market at work in social media. * So-called "intellectual property" laws dramatically skew what can and cannot be shared * Censorship at the behest of world governments is rampant, and completely overran anything representing a nonviolent scientific dialogue during the recent COVID19 pandemic * States, with their monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force, pick winners and losers at every level of the experience, from chip makers to the duopolistic mobile OS vendors to their app stores to the social media offerings. Sure, network effect may describe the reason people join and stay, but the availability of places to join and stay is in no sense a market phenomenon Consider: the major social media barons meet with POTUS all the freakin' time. Do you suppose that's just because they enjoy his company?
    - immibis 10mo ago
      Is this a new technique where you put COVID denialism into an otherwise good comment? Does it have a name?
      - jMyles 10mo ago
        I think you may have misunderstood my comment - or perhaps misunderstood the consequences of the censorship regime. If anything, it seemed like the denialism was amplified by the censorship. What fell by the wayside were the serious, rigorous dialogue that had previously been the best thinking on epidemiology and public health. I was a moderator and frequent contributor to /r/ebola during the 2014 outbreak; during that time I reached out and began to form relationships with (and respect spectrums for) various epidemiologists and academic departments. And it was really hard during the COVID19 pandemic to watch people like John Ioannidis, David Katz, Sunetra Gupta, Michael Levitt, etc. be totally cut out of the conversation while a group of second-stringers who were willing to toe the corporate line took their place. Was it your experience that the censorship worked to _stem_ denialism? It seemed to me that it made it much louder and much worse, muddying the water of genuine discussion and research.

jMyles 10mo ago

> Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. But societies also need to be stronger than states, especially in an age of connection and sharing. States are the main source of uncertainty and violence in the world right now, and I think it's reasonable to hope that the internet will bring the age of peace we pray for. Obviously the social media giants are not it. They are closer to states than they are to algorithms. But I'm wary of siding with states over web apps. What we need are healthier (meaning, chiefly, more decentralized and less rent-seeking) web apps.

betteryet 10mo ago
Exactly, societies need to be stronger than states too and really need to act early. States can become one person or party and it's game over for a long time. Actually, the American Constitution is pretty great at preventing this exact outcome and I still have a lot of faith in it.
- kazen44 10mo ago
  but the constitution is just a piece of paper with some words written on it. Without an active civic society protection what is enshrined in the document, it is all but powerless.
eddythompson80 10mo ago
> I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. As long as it's not farming, defense or healthcare of course. Historically speaking at least.
thegrimmest 10mo ago
> They are closer to states than they are to algorithms This seems like nonsense. All the tech industry does is convince people. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. States have a monopoly on violence. No one holds a gun to anyone's head forcing them to consume <insert content you disagree with>. In a country of equals, everyone's opinion, including <position you disagree with>, should hold equal sway, and be resolved via democratic due process. Just because many people hold <position you disagree with> and vote for <politician you find repugnant> doesn't give you any sort of reasonable justification to limit the freedom of others to advocate (including on social media) for it.
- jMyles 10mo ago
  I agree with everything you've said with regard to the justice of the matter, but I don't think that there is a free market at work in social media. * So-called "intellectual property" laws dramatically skew what can and cannot be shared * Censorship at the behest of world governments is rampant, and completely overran anything representing a nonviolent scientific dialogue during the recent COVID19 pandemic * States, with their monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force, pick winners and losers at every level of the experience, from chip makers to the duopolistic mobile OS vendors to their app stores to the social media offerings. Sure, network effect may describe the reason people join and stay, but the availability of places to join and stay is in no sense a market phenomenon Consider: the major social media barons meet with POTUS all the freakin' time. Do you suppose that's just because they enjoy his company?
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Is this a new technique where you put COVID denialism into an otherwise good comment? Does it have a name?
    - jMyles 10mo ago
      I think you may have misunderstood my comment - or perhaps misunderstood the consequences of the censorship regime. If anything, it seemed like the denialism was amplified by the censorship. What fell by the wayside were the serious, rigorous dialogue that had previously been the best thinking on epidemiology and public health. I was a moderator and frequent contributor to /r/ebola during the 2014 outbreak; during that time I reached out and began to form relationships with (and respect spectrums for) various epidemiologists and academic departments. And it was really hard during the COVID19 pandemic to watch people like John Ioannidis, David Katz, Sunetra Gupta, Michael Levitt, etc. be totally cut out of the conversation while a group of second-stringers who were willing to toe the corporate line took their place. Was it your experience that the censorship worked to _stem_ denialism? It seemed to me that it made it much louder and much worse, muddying the water of genuine discussion and research.