This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What do you think about cyberlibertarianism?
Cyberlibertarianism is exactly what it sounds like: the belief that the internet should be fully unrestricted and ungoverned. The idea coalesced in the 1990s when the consensus on tech was far more optimistic.
I think it's a beautiful, unattainable ideal. It symbolizes (more than libertarianism) a broader absolute freedom and physical transcendence, to realize whatever you dream. But in reality, absolute freedom is impossible, power hierarchies are inevitable, and the internet is a physical construct that can be seized (on the other end of the spectrum, individuals and companies bypass without consequence internet restrictions like copyright, even in repressive countries via complex VPN setups). Intersectionally, the internet has led to good (e.g. long-distance communication with friends/family) and bad (e.g. asociality and toxicity from social media); should it be as unregulated as today if individuals and groups won't stop themselves from negative spirals (which may anyways lead to future violence and restrictions)?
Cyberlibertarianism's Origins
The ideas of cyberlibertarianism have been described in Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age (Esther Dyson, George Gilder, George Keyworth, Alvin Toffler, 1994) and A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (John Perry Barlow, 1996).
Basically to summarize the latter, it begins with
and includes statements like
Langdon Winner's "foresight"
The actual term "cyberlibertarianism" first appeared in Cyberlibertarian Myths And The Prospects For Community (Langdon Winner, 1997).
I think this is a good read. In a sea of cyberlibertarian idealism and optimism, Winner was realistic and pessimistic. He actually defines cyberlibertarianism in detail, then predicts how it will be adopted and warped, in practice, with outcomes.
Specifically, Winner defines cyberlibertarianism by breaking it into four sub-beliefs:
Then he pivots to realism with this (IMO) excellent paragraph
In the remainder, Winner successfully predicts that cyberlibertarian dogma will lead to:
Winner didn't have extreme foresight, just observation. These "predictions" had already began: the television industry (e.g. CNN) was already large and influencing the zeitgeist to further its interests, toxic online communities had already started forming (e.g. Usenet), and local stores were already being replaced (e.g. by Amazon). Winner also looked at historical literature on philosophy, economics, and politics.
The Intolerable Hypocrisy of Cyberlibertarianism
This blogpost showed up on Hacker News and inspired my post.
tl;dr: the author of this rambling blogpost describes the evolution of the internet under cyberlibertarianism (the dominant viewpoint in its early years), then criticizes cyberlibertarianism using the problems of today's internet.
I don't really like it: it's full of ad hominems, meaningless analogies, and overconfident claims (especially about other's thoughts). But it's somewhat informative, and I agree with the underlying ideas: cyberlibertarianism is naively optimistic, hence today's internet has failed to reach its full expectations.
The underlying wrench in the works for cyberlibertarianism is spam. This is a fundamental problem that messes with the very notion of free speech. This was true even before LLMs, though obviously the problem is much worse now.
In case it’s not clear how this is related, consider trying to run a website like this one according to cyberlibertarian ideals: ideally, the website would be distributed somehow, not hosted on a centralised server where whoever is paying the bill has arbitrary control over what happens on the site. Each participant on the network would contribute some minor amount of resources for storing messages, and messages would be synced by having the peers talk to each other. But what do you do when someone spams the network with terabytes of messages? You say "Ok, well let’s put a rate limit for each user" alright, the spammer makes new accounts and uploads at the max rate for each account as fast as they can create accounts. You say "Ok, well let’s limit account creation." But how? Who decides whether you’re allowed to make an account or not?
With the advent of blockchain, I actually do think there are some answers here—you can bind account and post creation to payment on a blockchain, and that will cull the spam. But now you have a pay-to-play system, which is arguably not very cyberpunk-ish at least according to colloquial intuition, but moreover, who’s going to participate when they could just join a forum like this one for free?
And this isn’t even touching on the fact that building decentralised systems is really hard compared to building a typical centralised website. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together and a bit of grit can make their own website. But making your own decentralised system requires you to be a legit 140+ IQ big brain who knows the arcanery of software engineering inside and out.
For these reasons, the ideal is rarely pursued, and even when it is, it’s in clunky ways that don’t provide the "full service" experience you get with centralised software. For example, torrents are decentralised, but they don’t address the very-much-relevant question of "where do you get the metadata for the torrent you want in the first place?" And answering that question has traditionally landed right back at "use a centralised service like ThePirateBay," where you get the regular old whac-a-mole dynamics of law enforcement seizing domain names and issuing warrants while the devs run off to some Pacific island and register a new domain there (and the US government will promptly bribe the local government to close the domain and arrest the devs, which may or may not work—they tend to just take the bribe money and not actually do what was asked, so you have to resort to aggressive negotiations, yada yada, but I digress)
Proof-of-work was invented specifically to solve this problem, and it did. Sybil attacks are not a fatality.
We can own purely digital goods now.
That hasn't been true for more than two decades. Magnet links date back to 2002. And we have far more sophisticated things like IPFS or eth.limo now.
Dapps are not the future, they're the present. Hyperliquid moves hundreds of millions of dollars every day and it completely decentralized. This isn't the 2010s anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not sure Cyberlibertarianism implies that companies (or other owners) should be unable to moderate their forums, since normal libertarianism doesn't argue that people and companies should be unable to trespass unwanted guests and intruders in their owned buildings.
In your home, you can kick out people for any reason. You don't like their hair, you think they suck too much at Mario Party, and yes, because you don't like something they said or they were too loud or they wouldn't shut up. Why shouldn't that be the same rights to your privately owned internet forum?
This is what I call the "mandated friend" issue. Your friend choosing to not hang out with you after you called his mom a whore isn't a free speech issue, they're exercising their own right to association which is an associated right of free speech. Free speech does not mandate you a friend.
It's when government gets involved, as the party that claims a monopoly over violence and whose every action is subtly backed with that potential violence in the background, that rights start to be violated. Bad individuals use violence from time to time too, whether a bar fight or a political assassination, but those are not accepted and they get arrested and charged. It is government that asserts a monopoly on force.
Most free speech complaints in the western democracies nowadays are mandated friend style complaints, government does get involved at points, sometimes overtly bullshit but these tend to stick out because they're relatively rare now.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh great, I just got a spam email that hacked one of my email accounts to send me "pay us bitcoin or we send your naughty browsing history to everyone" blackmail attempt.
I don't have a camera and microphone attached to my PC so I laugh to scorn your clumsy efforts at "we took control and recorded you self-abusing to disgusting porn", criminals!
But these idiots want to make it even easier for criminals to scare money out of the gullible, and more importantly, clog up the inboxes of those of us who don't care if the world sees our perverted kinks history?
No, thank you. That's like the "all drugs of whatever sort should be legal and available without limit" notion, only considered a good idea by those who don't have to deal with the kinds of people who want to take all sorts of drugs all day long and/or deal in same.
Also this kinda super libertarian internet ethos essentially means you've gotta boot the elderly and mentally impaired off it. I'd get it if the internet was wholly an artistic and communicative realm for nerds but the second you move commercial functions on it you need guardrails or it's an absolute PVP mess.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What? Nonsense! That's the purest expression of cyberlibertarianism!
People are too used to everything on the internet being "free". Many people who might be associated with cyberlibertarianism in truth really want cybersocialism.
But in the long run, if the internet is indeed to retain some degree of liberty instead of being turned into a state-controlled panopticon, more granular and automated models of actually paying for what you want are going to become the norm, or else we will drown in ads and spam as you correctly pointed out.
Everyone, since again as you correctly pointed out, public and free spaces will be utterly destroyed by bots sooner or later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, Duggan is imo 100% wrong. This has nothing to do with ideology - today's social media is anything but cyberlibertarian anyway - and everything to do with what stupid and crazy people are like. They always existed, and always had these ideas. The only thing that has changed is that Duggan can now see them. Nothing got worse - if anything from my impression, the internet makes correct information easier to get than ever: Before, if you grew up in a crackpot community you might literally be unaware of the viability of alternative viewpoints well into your teens. Same deal for the relatively ubiquitous benign moderate religious communities. I've grown up in the latter, and we still had plenty of crackpots, too. Not to mention that Duggan seems like the kind of person who would like to just generally ban any speech to the right of Bernie Sanders.
I think unfortunately, this also goes the other way. Misinformation is also much easier to get, giving us the toaster fucker problem:
"Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends "I want to fuck a toaster" Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds "Toaster Fucker Support group" where he reads that he's actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers."
'Man wakes up in 2040, tells his friend "I want to fuck a toaster". The friend replies "You know you can just order a sexbot, right? I really don't want to know about the details."'
I mean with AI we're prettymuch already there in terms of art and fiction. Which is probably enough considering I've heard sufficient stories of 'person with massive boner for X fetish art/writing actually tries X fetish and squicks ungodly hard' on the internet
More options
Context Copy link
“Look, it’s been over 30 years since the show ended. Let it go.”
Obligatory.
Also extremely impressive considering it predates any non-research AI models by at least half a decade or more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The EFF and their dreams of a digital frontier were both right and wrong. Right in that it was a frontier, right in that it did create a new world, wrong in that the new world wasn't one of anarchy, wrong that its tether to realspace didn't allow it to survive as an independent entity.
I've expanded on this idea before, but all politics are ultimately totalitarian. In this sense the lover of liberty has a duty to fight a vain and unending war on all attempts at control. What may be called cyberlibertarianism is just one more battle, one that was, as all battles for liberty, ultimately lost.
Now we fight a new fight, one of cypherpunks against totalizing surveillance and enforcement. One that we will most likely lose too. With our only solace being the fact that total power is ultimately self defeating. And that what few cracks we create may grow large and destroy our enemies long after we are all dead.
Take whichever sides you want. But man's lust for freedom isn't hypocritical, it is, if anything, tragic.
When I was younger, this seemed a fun sort of ideal. Now that I'm older, it sometimes seems like the only thing keeping our moderate-trust society from falling into a low-trust society is that digital everything makes the verify in "trust but verify" cheap.
A few decades back you'd see "no out of town checks" because nobody knew if your bank out of state existed. Today, merchants (maybe excepting tradesmen who have other recovery options and dislike merchant fees) often dislike checks and prefer credit cards, where the system can verify available balance before completing the transaction. The technology is certainly fallible in its own ways, but better than poorly-trained human operators is a low bar. That said, the line between "high-trust" and "totalitarian panopticon" isn't completely clear in my mind, and people occasionally call out analog high-trust societies as stifling and such.
You misunderstand the nature of high trust. In a high trust society, the panopticon is unnecessary and useless, because people do the right thing when nobody is watching. This is why the shopping cart test is what it is, because defection is consequence free.
Totalitarian regimes are inherently low trust, because the infrastructure is always built around the idea that power is unsecure and must guard itself against enemies.
"If we don't spy on everyone, people will take advantage" is not something Singaporeans or Swiss or Japanese would say about their neighbors. In fact the opposite would be their reaction, incensed indignation and disgust that someone would dare disobey the law.
I think I'd push back on that: the general examples of high-trust societies that get brought out are often either totalitarian (by American standards) and/or have very different (looser) privacy norms than Americans are used to. Singapore bans chewing gum, and is happy enough to cane tourists caught being mischievous with spray paint in ways I suspect apply to locals too. The Nordics require a degree of financial transparency that would at least make most Americans I know a bit uncomfortable. And most of these also depend heavily on distributed public stigma for violating social norms in ways that look rather like a panopticon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link