
Pirate Bay Founder: ‘I Have Given Up’ (2015) - adamnemecek
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pirate-bay-founder-peter-sunde-i-have-given-up
======
zackmorris
I firmly agree that the free and open internet is in a slow state of decline.
The speed at which people are willing to accept that decline without even
realizing it’s happening is pretty staggering, and certainly not the
responsibility of one person to fix. I’m wondering though if maybe the
community can remedy that by bolstering the techniques that are still good.
Off the top of my head:

* Eliminate the notion of a second class netizen: WebRTC, STUN etc to overcome the mistake of NAT (which still exists in IPv6)

* Separate content from source: distributed hash table (DHT) in place of subresource integrity (SRI)

* Encryption everywhere: letsencrypt.org and other providers, with fast start (begin sending encrypted data before full handshake to eliminate startup delay)

* Trust networks that can be trusted to work: Diaspora, possibly others (I am the least familiar with this aspect of P2P networks)

* Nearly free backbone: cell phone hotspots and rooftop boxes that can run a meshnet at full bandwidth, using existing DHT and CDN concepts to cache data blocks locally

I’ve written these from easiest to hardest to the best of my ability. Maybe
part of the reason the web is failing is that its fundamental software and
hardware were created under assumptions that cater more to system
administration or the profit motive than they do to full self-actualization of
the user. Few of these infrastructure improvements will come from the
corporate sector, but they’re needed as a foundation for a real web 2.0 that
isn’t a walled garden.

------
subie
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8)

Really great doc about the Pirate Bay team.

------
demonshalo
Oooh the good old democratic myth. Perhaps Carlin was right all along (which
he usually is): "Inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist".

Sunde was one of my heroes growing up in Sweden when I was a socialist and
believed in the collective's ability to fight for the sake of what is deemed
as "good". But, like every child, I had to eventually grow up and realize that
most things are about trade-offs in this world - which is far better of a deal
than most think it is.

> "I'm a socialist. I know Marx and communism did not work before, but I think
> in the future you have the possibility of having total communism and equal
> access to everything for everybody."

I realize now, looking back at the ideas Sunde holds and in turns the ideas
that I held for a long time, that I was naive. Sunde, like everyone else in
that camp fails to realize what is right in front of their eyes. Capitalism
will not self-destruct. Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing
and instead empowered it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its
flaws and disgusting habits, is the only system that is able to empower and
uplift more people from poverty than all other systems COMBINED.

I understand his position yet I can't help but facepalm every time I hear
someone say "equal access to everything for everybody". This statement is
perhaps, one of the stupidest things that have EVER been uttered by a human
yet it is something that I used to deeply believe in.

Makes me kidna wonder where I would be today had I kept believing in fairy
tales...

~~~
dieppe
> Socialism prevented capitalism from self-destructing and instead empowered
> it by showing everyone that capitalism, with all its flaws and disgusting
> habits, is the only system that is able to empower and uplift more people
> from poverty than all other systems COMBINED.

I disagree. Capitalism has not empowered people
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation))
and does not uplift people from poverty. Human kind is now able to produce so
much that extreme poverty should not even exist anymore. We're able to produce
thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live
(and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich
countries) that much better than at that time? We produce enough food for
hunger to disappear on a global scale, and yet we prefer to burn or stock what
cannot be sold because we care more about the exchange value of things than
the lives it could save. We could use machines instead of workers in mines
(like in Congo), but we prefer to send workers through toxic muds because we
care more about profit than the lives of these workers.

I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on
our ability to produce more goods, and that in _some_ countries we can see a
positive impact (mostly due as you said to socialism and the fact that workers
actually fought to soften their living conditions), but look at it globally.
And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most
"advanced" countries.

~~~
demonshalo
Pay attention ladies and gents. This here is known as cognitive dissonance.

> Capitalism has not empowered people and does not uplift people from poverty.

Alright. So this is a definite statement. A conclusion. hmm interesting,
lets's continue reading to see what reasoning this follows from.

> We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the
> 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us
> with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time?

Ok so, capitalism created RICH countries, yet it did not uplift people form
poverty. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

If I were you, I would try to state my position a bit better because you sound
completely self-contradicting. What you mean to say is that capitalism have
created a lot of wealth, but it hasn't evenly distributed it.

>I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on
our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a
positive impact

ooh look. That IS the EXACT OPPOSITE statement to the first one you made.
Wow...

See, the reason I hate debating leftists is that they start by rejecting your
statement and move on to actually PROVE IT but provide some context in which
it does not satisfy what they deem to be "fair". Well, here is the thing chap.
If the Congo had capitalism, the Congo would reap the benefits of that
capitalism as you PROVED above that it has. It just so happens that the
poorest places in the world at the least capitalistic ones. Must be a
coincidence right?!

> And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most
> "advanced" countries.

 _facepalm_

------
nafizh
" I couldn't vote, but I was hoping Sarah Palin won last time in the US
elections. I'm hoping Donald Trump wins this year's election. For the reason
that it will fuck up that country so much faster then if a less bad President
wins. Our whole world is just so focused on money, money, money. That's the
biggest problem. That's why everything fucks up. That's the target we have to
fix. We need to make sure that we are going to get a different focus in life."

------
catenthusiast
We shouldn’t be glorifying criminals like this. I hope we can move to an
online culture that is more respectful of content-creators.

~~~
johnfn
It's funny to me that even on a community like HN, suggesting rights for
content creators gets you downvoted immediately without explanation. As a
content creator myself, I side very strongly with you. Well, I don't think we
should be jailing the Pirate Bay guys - that's quite extreme - but we
definitely shouldn't be idolozing them either, as we often do.

To be honest, all the people who try to moralize piracy be saying "oh content
creators never would have made any money off things that were torrented
anyways" or today's rationalization du jour remind me of slave owners that
came up with post-hoc rationalizations for why slavery was totally fine. I'M
NOT COMPARING FILESHARING TO SLAVERY. I'm just saying that in both cases,
people made whatever decision they wanted to make and screw whoever it
effected, and then once they had done that they scrambled to come up with some
reason why it was actually okay.

I find myself wishing for a karmic equalization such that everyone who
espouses those rationalizations could feel the pain that I - like every
content creator - has to bear for them. I know it will never happen, but it's
an idealistic dream of mine.

~~~
lettergram
I don't believe most people think content creator's shouldn't get paid.

My circle of friends have quite a few people who download stuff illegally.
However, most just want to try it out / watch it and if they like it they'll
pay money for it. The problem with content creation, is your content can suck.

I think my favorite example of someone creating content and essentially
letting it be copied (but asking everyone not to) is Louis C.K. [1] He made
his stuff easy to download (hell I bought it), priced it reasonably, and asked
everyone to please pay.

I actually saw the comedy show first through a friend. I paid him because it
was good, and I wanted more content.

In the reverse case, I'm gambling that the content is not only good and worth
my time to watch / read / look at, but that it's worth the $X I am being
charged. I can see why people don't like this method, and why people download
pirated software, movies, TV shows, etc.

 _Edit_ : FYI I create a lot of content. Blogs, youtube videos, software. I
find the Warren Buffet approach of giving everyone a fair deal, with a terms
sheet that's readable works best.

One thing I personally would love to see more of is a full or partial refund
policy for every piece of content I buy. I guarantee 99% of people wont use
it, but when a movie really sucks or a game doesn't live up to what's
promised, you can get your money back. It incentivizes honesty, and it'll help
you similar to how it helps stores like LL Bean (where it actually gets more
people to buy your product(s)).

[1] [https://louisck.net/news/a-statement-from-louis-
c-k](https://louisck.net/news/a-statement-from-louis-c-k)

~~~
johnfn
> I don't believe most people think content creator's shouldn't get paid.

Of course not. For most, it's a clear case of cognitive dissonance. People say
things like torrenting should be legal because information wants to be free
and copying is different than stealing and you know all the rest. Then you ask
them if content creators should get paid and they say of course. Then you ask
them how, and you get blank stares.

They haven't thought that far. Maybe they say "it's not my job to figure it
out, the content creators should do that." Interesting. Have you considered
the fact that maybe it's not as simple as it seems? That maybe a single indie
content creator like you or me will very poissbly NOT be able to solve this
incredibly difficult problem that is LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS
WE STAND DEBATING WHETHER IT'S POSSIBLE? That, for example, journalism has got
their smartest minds working on it, and nothing workable is popping out? And
so god help an indie like me who doesn't have a fraction of a fraction of the
clout of, say, the WSJ?

I mean, your Louis C. K. example is fine, but I'm sure you realize that not
everyone in the world is Louis CK. That not everyone has his reach and his
reputation, and those are both huge contributing factors to the success of his
campaign?

~~~
pjc50
> LITERALLY DESTROYING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AS WE STAND

HOME TAPING IS KILLING MUSIC!

 _This_ is why pro-copyright arguments get downvoted, we've heard the
hyperbole for decades and got fed up with it.

Journalism has a lot of problems, but I don't think actual copyright
infringement is at the root of them, it's more a combination of unbundling
classified ads etc. and the nasty realisation that lots of the public doesn't
actually want _accurate_ news so much as confirmation of their prejudices.

~~~
johnfn
You've confused my argument. I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe you should
read it again? Let me see if I can explain it better.

First, the fact that people refuse to pay for journalism online is very truly
killing journalism online. There was nothing hyperbolic about what I said in
GP, and there's nothing hyperbolic about this statement now. This is, I think,
indisputable.

What I'm arguing is that people pervasively and stubbornly refuse to pay for
things online, but then then turn around and say "content creators should
solve the problem that I don't want to pay for things online." It doesn't
cross their mind that this is a massive problem that is crushing entire
industries, and Joe "I have an online indie band" Schmoe might not be able to
reconcile it himself.

~~~
stonith
If the reputable publishers banded together and created a single platform that
I paid for, where my payment was weighted towards the sites that I actually
read articles from, then maybe they wouldn't be in so much trouble. Instead
they each create their own platform and ask for a price that simply doesn't
represent the value they provide, then bitch that nobody's taking them up on
the offer.

Spotify works because they have large enough catalogues that I don't need to
also have an Apple Music and a Google Play Music subscription, whereas the New
York Times is basically just a donation since I'm inevitably going to have to
go elsewhere for other journalism even in the same categories as they report
on.

For the case of video, Disney + co have been attacking consumer rights for
nearly a century via lobbying and as a result I don't care if they all go out
of business. Fuck them for making copyright the 70+ year joke it is today.

------
gremlinsinc
>>So, we should just let it crash and burn down, pick up the pieces and start
over?

Yes, with the focus on the big war on this extreme capitalism. I couldn't
vote, but I was hoping Sarah Palin won last time in the US elections. I'm
hoping Donald Trump wins this year's election. For the reason that it will
fuck up that country so much faster then if a less bad President wins. Our
whole world is just so focused on money, money, money. That's the biggest
problem. That's why everything fucks up. That's the target we have to fix. We
need to make sure that we are going to get a different focus in life.

[09:20] Hopefully technology will give us robots that will take away all the
jobs, which will cause like a massive worldwide unemployment; somewhat like 60
percent. People will be so unhappy. That would be great, because then you can
finally see capitalism crashing so hard. There is going to be a lot of fear,
lost blood, and lost lives to get to that point, but I think that's the only
positive thing I see, that we are going to have a total system collapse in the
future. Hopefully as quick as possible. I would rather be 50 then be like 85
when the system is crashing.

\-- ^^ THIS THIS THIS. This is what I hoped for when Bernie Sanders lost, and
it looks like it's coming to fruition, Trump is king, and America's going to
shit pretty darn fast, soon things will get so bad that people wake up and
demand real change. I don't think all capitalism is bad, I think unchecked
corporate/chrony capitalism is. Was a time in America where we had capitalism
but every dollar over like $10 mill was taxed at near 100% --so that CEO's
would instead pay their employees more, or hire new ones and grow the company
instead of pad their pockets.

~~~
DannyB2
The problem is human greed. Even if you burn everything down and rebuild, the
problem of greed remains. Oh, and lust for power. See all of human history.

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. (Usually in summer
school.)

~~~
nickthemagicman
If greed was the only driving force in human history we wouldn't have
democracy, philosophy, sciences, etc.

There's plenty of other powerful counteracting forces to greed in the human
psyche and society, like justice, social consciousness, and fairness.

It takes education and awareness, I think to really feel like those are
important. And America is increasingly becoming less educated and aware.

~~~
tertius
> And America is increasingly becoming less educated and aware.

I would think the opposite is true.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Well actually you're correct! More people are getting college educated
nowdays. The issue is that this is concentrated in certain regions of the
country, while vast swaths of the country have much poorer education outcomes.
These are primarily Red States.

I have to do a little more research to get some cites when I have a free min,
but you are correct and thanks for the clarification.

------
sremani
People esp. promoting Marxism, do not even footnote mention the human cost of
Soviet gulags or Mao's cultural revolution. If Marxism is so awesome, why did
the Chinese reform in 1979, did any one care to understand? What was the state
of China and Russia in these periods?

Capitalism has flaws and number of them, no doubt, but best of options
available on table. The only way out is improving Capitalism, not subverting
it, but if that is your choice, many nations tried that and have failed
miserably.

If you love Price Controls, go ask Indian farmers the havoc it creates

If you want fixed exchange rates, go look at Venezuela and black markets

If you want subsidies, look at Venezuela or any n number of nations, where
smuggling is rampant

The alternative paths are taken the better ones ended up as dead-ends and the
worse ones, swallowed people like quagmires.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. Such discussions
are predictable, therefore uninteresting, therefore off-topic on HN.

If you want to debate capitalism vs. communism in the glory of full
generality, this is not the website you're looking for.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107884](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14107884)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
sremani
>>If you want to debate capitalism vs. communism in the glory of full
generality, this is not the website you're looking for.

I respectfully urge you to confine the justification for your action to the
comment itself, rather than making it personal.

