5 ms·

Aral Balkan gave a superlative talk a few days ago at re:publica 2015, called Beyond The Camera Panopticon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c https://

by rashkov 11y ago

Aral Balkan gave a superlative talk a few days ago at re:publica 2015, called Beyond The Camera Panopticon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c It's a broad overview the current state of the internet as seen through a cyberpunk, pro- freedom, human rights, and privacy perspective. Aral is a dynamic speaker and delivers it with a delightfully dark and sardonic voice. Really one of the best talks I've seen on the topic.

dragontamer 11y ago
This was an absolutely disgusting talk. I prefer this style: http://dontbubble.us/ http://dontbubble.us/ http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/ You know... the kind of talks that don't constantly disparage audience members for being white, or religious... or those who have slightly political views.
- jchrome 11y ago
  "constantly disparage audience members for being white or religious.." Hyperbole much? He may have been disparaging of religions (once in the talk, mind you) but never white people. The talk's great.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=16m13s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=16m13s No one but the White man can bring the Internet to you. Dude, I'm not even white and I find it disparaging. The talk is terrible. It is politically charged when it really shouldn't be. The issue is simple: Privacy concerns are not being respected by Facebook or Google. I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all? If it were a black man in charge of Facebook violating our privacy, it'd be just as bad. Why did he have to bring Mark Zuckerberg's race into this? Its one thing to be against the system, or to expose the system's flaws to the world. But disparaging the audience is not the answer. His harmful speech is going to hurt the cause in the long term.
    - jchrome 11y ago
      "I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all?" You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point. I am* white and I don't find it disparaging.
      - dragontamer 11y ago
        > You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point. When Google starts to suck the blood out of southeast Asian coolies (to make it harder for them to run away) and furthers the Opium trade to establish economic dominance over China, then he can start comparing modern companies to 1800s-style century colonialism. Mind you, the East India Company was a privately owned enterprise. And as far as I can tell, that's what he's implicitly comparing Google to. And as he compares Google to 1800s colonialism, he is making a _complete_ mockery of history. Are you freaking serious? Free Internet offered on balloons is equivalent to EIC-style Imperialism / Colonialism ? It's equivalent to murdering hundreds-of-thousands of Zulu spearmen with Gatling Guns to establish South Africa Diamond Trade? His arguments are a mockery of history, and anyone who knows the brutal history of colonialism can only shake their head at the comparison. You are a FOOL to even attempt to draw an equivalency here. Again, I agree with the point he is _trying_ to make. The problem is that he's an absolutely horrible speaker and horrible arguer. I told you, I refuse to use Facebook or Twitter on privacy grounds. And I've switched my search engine to DDG.gg. I'm living the practice dude, I take online privacy very seriously. But the hyperbolic elitist aura eminated from Aral Balkan is going to harm the privacy cause in the long run. I prefer to see people on my side of the argument making solid points. Again: Search Bubble. Search privacy. Metadata collection. It is pretty easy to point out the issues of the modern internet: you don't need to make a mockery of history to make good points here.
        11y ago
- madez 11y ago
  The talk was about much more than tracking and search bubbles. This is like comparing a complaint of a little girl about wanting to have candy and the complaint of income-bringers of households about their jobs and thus their families being threatened. He argues that the very business model of Google, Facebook and co are a fundamental threat to democracy.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    I understand that point and agree with it. But the _way_ he states it is stuck-up, disparaging and elitist. He's a horrible speaker who is only able to "preach to the choir". Anyone who disagrees with _any_ of his minor viewpoints will end up hating this point of view.
    - madez 11y ago
      I wrote what I wrote not because I thought you'd disagree with it, but to make understandable why he is so energetic. He speaks about dangers a lot of people ignore unwillingly and some willingly because they get rich by doing so. [1] If you see a fundamental threat in doing a thing and everybody is ignoring your warnings, then it's natural to start to speak more drastic and alarming. Having this in mind, I think he is a terrific speaker. He speaks fluently and easily understandable. The presentation was creative and informative. He seemed to speak what he thinks, honestly and openly. I didn't agree with all of what he said. For example, the connotation of the word "start-up" he suggested is non-existent to me. His talk was still one of the most interesting I listened to in a long while. And, I don't see why it was elitist or disparaging. He complained about dangerous power imbalances in the world. About the fact that mostly white people try to bring their vision of a modern society into other cultures. Can you quote problematic parts? [1] This needs to called out, and he did. People are ridiculously blind to injustice and dangers when they profit by it.
      - dragontamer 11y ago
        https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=1m29s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=1m29s > A lot of us already subscribe to the mass psychosis of a all seeing White Man in the cloud watching over us. Erm... really? He wants to bring Religion into this? This isn't the only time he references Religion either, but its the most noticeable. https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=13m59s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=13m59s > Like these _beautiful_ Nexus phones Rather disparaging to owners of Nexus phones. He's pretty much calling you a dumb-fuck at this point for buying into Android. On the contrary, if you wish to "Red Pill" a Nexus user, you don't start off the argument by calling them a dumb fuck. In fact, you need to be sure to NEVER call them a dumb fuck throughout the entire presentation. And yes, he is calling members of the audience who disagrees with him, dumb fucks. https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=6m46s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=6m46s > Dumb Fucks. And maybe we deserve it. Lets be frank here, his point is "If you disagree with me, you're a Dumb Fuck". That is about as disparaging as you can get. Imagine if you will, you were a normal person who didn't care about this privacy stuff. None of the above techniques would win you over. In fact, I'm probably going to have to apologize on behalf of privacy advocates for this guy's disparaging remarks. Again, I fully agree with what he's _trying_ to do. But he's so disparaging and elitist it is very hard to actually recommend this video to anyone I know. Tell me, would you really have your Grandmother watch this guy, to try and win her vote over to the privacy conscious? These disparaging remarks are fine for rallying up a crowd or preaching to the choir, but as soon as you start splitting the crowd up on Religious or "WHITE POWER!!!?!?!?" grounds, it becomes harder and harder to find the subset of people who actually agree with him throughout the whole video. > I wrote what I wrote not because I thought you'd disagree with it, but to make understandable why he is so energetic. <start persona> He's not "energetic". He is a disparaging douchebag on stage who is getting high off of insulting the audience who is dumb enough to listen to him all the way through. If you're the "dumb fuck" who can't see the insults he's constantly slinging towards you, I guess you deserve such a crappy speaker. </end persona> Get the point? If I start disparaging YOU for disagreeing with me, does that make me a better debater? Or does that just piss you off and shut off your mind? Do you really want to argue against the above persona? > He complained about dangerous power imbalances in the world. About the fact that mostly white people try to bring their vision of a modern society into other cultures. Yes, this is a common criticism of 1800s colonialism. As I stated elsewhere in this thread... when Google starts to literally suck the blood out of Coolies and spreads the Opium over other countries to establish economic dominance over the drug-filled populace, we can start comparing Google to the East India Company. Until then, he's hyperbolic and his points make a mockery of history. 1800s Imperialism was horrible. I don't exactly see the equivalency between 1800s Colonialism / Slave Trade / Zulu Genocide and Google Internet Balloon projects however.
sebastianconcpt 11y ago
Thanks for sharing! I don't agree with all what he says but that talk is superb and thought provoking
madez 11y ago
This talk is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

by rashkov 11y ago

dragontamer 11y ago

This was an absolutely disgusting talk. I prefer this style: http://dontbubble.us/ http://dontbubble.us/ http://donttrack.us/ http://donttrack.us/ You know... the kind of talks that don't constantly disparage audience members for being white, or religious... or those who have slightly political views.

jchrome 11y ago
"constantly disparage audience members for being white or religious.." Hyperbole much? He may have been disparaging of religions (once in the talk, mind you) but never white people. The talk's great.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=16m13s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=16m13s No one but the White man can bring the Internet to you. Dude, I'm not even white and I find it disparaging. The talk is terrible. It is politically charged when it really shouldn't be. The issue is simple: Privacy concerns are not being respected by Facebook or Google. I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all? If it were a black man in charge of Facebook violating our privacy, it'd be just as bad. Why did he have to bring Mark Zuckerberg's race into this? Its one thing to be against the system, or to expose the system's flaws to the world. But disparaging the audience is not the answer. His harmful speech is going to hurt the cause in the long term.
  - jchrome 11y ago
    "I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all?" You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point. I am* white and I don't find it disparaging.
    - dragontamer 11y ago
      > You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point. When Google starts to suck the blood out of southeast Asian coolies (to make it harder for them to run away) and furthers the Opium trade to establish economic dominance over China, then he can start comparing modern companies to 1800s-style century colonialism. Mind you, the East India Company was a privately owned enterprise. And as far as I can tell, that's what he's implicitly comparing Google to. And as he compares Google to 1800s colonialism, he is making a _complete_ mockery of history. Are you freaking serious? Free Internet offered on balloons is equivalent to EIC-style Imperialism / Colonialism ? It's equivalent to murdering hundreds-of-thousands of Zulu spearmen with Gatling Guns to establish South Africa Diamond Trade? His arguments are a mockery of history, and anyone who knows the brutal history of colonialism can only shake their head at the comparison. You are a FOOL to even attempt to draw an equivalency here. Again, I agree with the point he is _trying_ to make. The problem is that he's an absolutely horrible speaker and horrible arguer. I told you, I refuse to use Facebook or Twitter on privacy grounds. And I've switched my search engine to DDG.gg. I'm living the practice dude, I take online privacy very seriously. But the hyperbolic elitist aura eminated from Aral Balkan is going to harm the privacy cause in the long run. I prefer to see people on my side of the argument making solid points. Again: Search Bubble. Search privacy. Metadata collection. It is pretty easy to point out the issues of the modern internet: you don't need to make a mockery of history to make good points here.
      - 11y ago
madez 11y ago
The talk was about much more than tracking and search bubbles. This is like comparing a complaint of a little girl about wanting to have candy and the complaint of income-bringers of households about their jobs and thus their families being threatened. He argues that the very business model of Google, Facebook and co are a fundamental threat to democracy.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  I understand that point and agree with it. But the _way_ he states it is stuck-up, disparaging and elitist. He's a horrible speaker who is only able to "preach to the choir". Anyone who disagrees with _any_ of his minor viewpoints will end up hating this point of view.
  - madez 11y ago
    I wrote what I wrote not because I thought you'd disagree with it, but to make understandable why he is so energetic. He speaks about dangers a lot of people ignore unwillingly and some willingly because they get rich by doing so. [1] If you see a fundamental threat in doing a thing and everybody is ignoring your warnings, then it's natural to start to speak more drastic and alarming. Having this in mind, I think he is a terrific speaker. He speaks fluently and easily understandable. The presentation was creative and informative. He seemed to speak what he thinks, honestly and openly. I didn't agree with all of what he said. For example, the connotation of the word "start-up" he suggested is non-existent to me. His talk was still one of the most interesting I listened to in a long while. And, I don't see why it was elitist or disparaging. He complained about dangerous power imbalances in the world. About the fact that mostly white people try to bring their vision of a modern society into other cultures. Can you quote problematic parts? [1] This needs to called out, and he did. People are ridiculously blind to injustice and dangers when they profit by it.
    - dragontamer 11y ago
      https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=1m29s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=1m29s > A lot of us already subscribe to the mass psychosis of a all seeing White Man in the cloud watching over us. Erm... really? He wants to bring Religion into this? This isn't the only time he references Religion either, but its the most noticeable. https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=13m59s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=13m59s > Like these _beautiful_ Nexus phones Rather disparaging to owners of Nexus phones. He's pretty much calling you a dumb-fuck at this point for buying into Android. On the contrary, if you wish to "Red Pill" a Nexus user, you don't start off the argument by calling them a dumb fuck. In fact, you need to be sure to NEVER call them a dumb fuck throughout the entire presentation. And yes, he is calling members of the audience who disagrees with him, dumb fucks. https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=6m46s https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=6m46s > Dumb Fucks. And maybe we deserve it. Lets be frank here, his point is "If you disagree with me, you're a Dumb Fuck". That is about as disparaging as you can get. Imagine if you will, you were a normal person who didn't care about this privacy stuff. None of the above techniques would win you over. In fact, I'm probably going to have to apologize on behalf of privacy advocates for this guy's disparaging remarks. Again, I fully agree with what he's _trying_ to do. But he's so disparaging and elitist it is very hard to actually recommend this video to anyone I know. Tell me, would you really have your Grandmother watch this guy, to try and win her vote over to the privacy conscious? These disparaging remarks are fine for rallying up a crowd or preaching to the choir, but as soon as you start splitting the crowd up on Religious or "WHITE POWER!!!?!?!?" grounds, it becomes harder and harder to find the subset of people who actually agree with him throughout the whole video. > I wrote what I wrote not because I thought you'd disagree with it, but to make understandable why he is so energetic. <start persona> He's not "energetic". He is a disparaging douchebag on stage who is getting high off of insulting the audience who is dumb enough to listen to him all the way through. If you're the "dumb fuck" who can't see the insults he's constantly slinging towards you, I guess you deserve such a crappy speaker. </end persona> Get the point? If I start disparaging YOU for disagreeing with me, does that make me a better debater? Or does that just piss you off and shut off your mind? Do you really want to argue against the above persona? > He complained about dangerous power imbalances in the world. About the fact that mostly white people try to bring their vision of a modern society into other cultures. Yes, this is a common criticism of 1800s colonialism. As I stated elsewhere in this thread... when Google starts to literally suck the blood out of Coolies and spreads the Opium over other countries to establish economic dominance over the drug-filled populace, we can start comparing Google to the East India Company. Until then, he's hyperbolic and his points make a mockery of history. 1800s Imperialism was horrible. I don't exactly see the equivalency between 1800s Colonialism / Slave Trade / Zulu Genocide and Google Internet Balloon projects however.

sebastianconcpt 11y ago

Thanks for sharing! I don't agree with all what he says but that talk is superb and thought provoking

madez 11y ago

This talk is awesome. Thanks for sharing.