
Encouraging individual sovereignty and a healthy commons - HurrdurrHodor
https://ar.al/notes/encouraging-individual-sovereignty-and-a-healthy-commons/
======
65827
We're really moving into the strange cyberpunk dystopian future when CEOs
start writing bizarre manifestos about how they want to reshape the world like
this. Really just a few years out from private corporate armies I think
(Zuckerberg already has a small private army protecting him with heavy
weaponry) and cyber wars and espionage and open defiance of governments.

Like we all knew this was an option of where we were going but to see it
actually happening is kind of surreal.

~~~
leggomylibro
Musk and Bezos both have access to the rocketry tech necessary to produce
ballistic missiles, along with autonomous machines which are starting to rival
the sort of things usually produced by DARPA. Meanwhile, Facebook is tinkering
with the best ways to influence masses of people and journalism/propaganda
channels.

So I'm not necessarily saying that we're living out a mashup between Shadowrun
and that Simpsons episode where Homer starts working for a supervillain, but
I'm also not ruling it out.

~~~
munin
DARPA is a funding agency, the only thing they produce are power points. They
fund labs and companies that make things. The people that own those labs have
this same power too but since they're not as cool as Bezos I guess we don't
talk about them?

~~~
supernumerary
If they loose DARPA funding they go away or re-organise e.g. innumerable
research Depts at universities they constantly have to hustle for funding and
follow the grant money, Musk and Bezos are independent, their income streams
are not going away.

------
concinds
The mainstream view is that for the world to be sustainable and stable, it
needs to be more centralized and governed from the top.

That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system. It needs to be more
functional, not more centralized.

The NNTaleb view is that to be sustainable and stable, the world needs to be
decentralized and antifragile. In other words: not 1 government, but 100 well
designed, functional governments with small, local democratic governance.

This seems necessary since societies are changing more rapidly, dealing with
more problems and crises than before that just can't be effectively solved by
bloated entities (see the EU), can't adapt quickly enough to various changes
(see all the places in the US without fast internet), and aren't future-
oriented enough because of inertia (see Singapore as a counterexample). It
also seems more realistic than the article.

Edit: I didn't expect this response to blow up, so let me address more of the
article:

1) Completely disagree that technology is "part of us". Amazon isn't a part of
me, just a company I shop at. The closest thing we have to "explants" are the
_platforms_ we use, like Facebook or WhatsApp. The article seems heavy on
buzzwords and light on common-sense. Encrypted messaging is the best solution,
to maintain freedom of communication and reduce corporations' influence. That
only requires installing Signal or WhatsApp, not "creating a new world".

2) People are not "property". You are free to share what you want. Others are
free, too. If you want to work (Naval-style) towards decentralized, encrypted
platforms, that's a step in the right direction. Doesn't require buzzwords
either.

3) It seems like the article's worldview is based in an even greater influence
of technology over our lives (as if the author realized that technology isn't
really part of us, but wanted to make it so). The personal cloud would be
hosted by "individual organizations", but what makes you think that 1 or 2
orgs won't emerge on top, and cause the exact same problem again?

~~~
Analemma_
> That doesn't work, because the world is a complex system.

You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it. I
could just as easily say "decentralization and local governance don't work
because the world is a complex system" and sound just as correct.

~~~
concinds
Ok, analogy time.

The bigger the banks, the more centralized the banks, the more fragile the
banking system. Same for governments. Systemic risk increases as you increase
the system's complexity, and you increase its complexity when you centralize
it.

~~~
qntmfred
> You've buried an awful lot in that sentence without justifying any of it.

~~~
concinds
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)

Explain what's missing then.

------
rdtsc
I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion.
Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist
idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0)
basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-
globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other
such stuff.

I think it is rather ironic that the new "left" love them globalization all of
the sudden, even when their younger brothers were tear-gassed protesting it,
just a decade ago or so protesting against it.

(More discussion here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260)
along with a promising book on the subject, 'The Technological Society' by
Jacques Ellul suggested by Drumlin. Still waiting for it to come from Amazon)

~~~
concinds
Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles,
who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom".
When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand
that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them,
you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live
close to where you were born, you won't be.

Maybe none of this is in the interest of factory workers, but that's not what
the left is about anymore, and it's not the left's fault either. The world
moved on. You will never get the "old left" back. Weakening the influence of
corporations will still be popular on the left, but reversing globalization
and freedom of movement will hopefully never be a left-wing position again.

The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he
only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.

~~~
rdtsc
> The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he
> only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the
> left.

What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA
stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a
smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from
his family. Is he the future of the left.

> I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-
> globalization.

I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not
the future of the left either.

> The reason in a nutshell is "freedom".

When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive
dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping.

> you'll be pro-freedom of movement.

That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the
concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want
to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they
want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or
resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely
even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites
more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction,
passport controls, visas and the poor get.

~~~
xemoka
The freedom of movement for capital without the freedom for movement of humans
is the problem here—you seem to be indicating that without directly pointing
at it.

~~~
dragonwriter
Neoliberal globalization is precisely the free movement of capital and goods
and services to exploit opportunities created by restrictions on the movement
of people (whether as consumers or as labor).

Movement of people (labor) at the behest of capital (but not freely on their
own)—e.g., various employer-sponsored work visas—is often part of that.

------
Ygg2
Preface: I might be too influenced by Adam Curtis.

But what I find most interesting about this reply/rant, is that it - like most
of left, always seems to envision a world without power. And you can't
confront entrenched power, without seizing power, and using it to transform
society.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It's worse than that. Fundamentally, the problem is that people are not
angels.

The left recognizes, correctly, that the people in power - the leaders - are
not angels. So the left wants them gone - wants there to be nobody in power.

The problem is that the people who are _not_ in power also are not angels.
Left to themselves, a fair number of them will find ways to harm (economically
or even physically) people around them. They need someone with power to
restrain them.

But then you're back to having people in power, and they're not angels...

~~~
Ygg2
People might not be angels, but they aren't devils either.

The way I see it, left doesn't want people to have power. So it limits
politician's power. And then, the financial/corporate interest seize all
powers, and use it as they will.

~~~
Pokepokalypse
Funny thing is: corporations really don't have ANY power. If the government
doesn't like a corporation, they can simply pull the corporate charter.
Corporate personhood is a legal fiction, allowed by law. There are some
tortured legal arguments that it becomes "personal property" which can not be
deprived without due-process - and in practice, this simply is never done
anymore.

But any legal fiction can be simply signed-away into non-existence. There is
no technical reason this can't happen. In theory.

The problem is, there is no political will to ever actually do it, even when
it's necessary. Our entire facade of legality rests on political willpower.

------
m-j-fox
What's boring here is there's no suggestion as to how this utopia of digital
parks can come to be. Even if we have the resources to invest in development
and operations, who without a profit motive, will devise the marketing
campaign for privacy and common good?

This guy wants a world like Craigslist, but Airbnb already taught us that free
and p2p is easily subsumed by slick and centralized.

In BitTorrent and Usenet we've had great, free p2p media distribution for
years. How does iTunes, Netflix and the rest compete? By doing all the evil,
centralized, corporate stuff -- like advertising -- the pirates won't do
because pirates have morals.

------
MrZongle2
FTA: _" Where Mark asks you to trust him to be a benevolent king, I say let us
build a world without kings."_

I'd also submit that even if you trust Zuckerberg to be a benevolent king, he
won't be king forever. He may grow bored of Facebook and move on, have an
untimely accident or a poor diagnosis...these are all events that can put all
things Facebook in the hands of somebody far less (presumably) benevolent.

Imagine it in the hands of a Larry Ellison. Or Martin Shkreli. Or Keith
Alexander. Or Dick Cheney, if you will.

~~~
hourislate
All those you listed are Saints compared to Mark who is one of the most
dangerous men in the world.

facebook needs to be torn down. It is a toxic apparatus, being used against
the population.

Just saying.

~~~
MrZongle2
Well, don't count me among those who trust Zuck. I stopped using Facebook
years ago when I opened my eyes to what a massive intelligence-gathering
operation it is.

And the names I listed are just examples; my point remains that one cannot
predict who will hold the reins in the future. We can debate how much of a
monster Zuckerberg may be, but I'm convinced that there can be somebody much
worse in charge.

I think the most productive thing most of us can do in the short term is to
convince everyone we know to _stop_ using that platform.

------
kelvin0
Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and
how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving
their own agenda.

Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the
'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and
impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part
in putting him into power.

~~~
bresc
It's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it
became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything.
So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose
movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions
for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that
the once/few in charge right now do the right thing. But it's not up to the
masses and it has never been.

~~~
kelvin0
If everyone stopped using FB (not saying they should), what do you think would
happen? As individuals we have a choice in certain actions and their impacts.
I agree with you that having an opinion on everything and boycotting this and
that can lead down a rabbit hole ... but we did bring this upon 'ourselves'.
(I am not a FB user, but I do respect peoples use of it)

~~~
eropple
If "everyone" did something, we'd have all the unicorn hides we could ever
want. Expecting "everyone" to do _anything_ is silly and is frequently used--
not saying you are, but it's a thing that happens--to delegitimize concerns by
whatabouting them to death.

~~~
kelvin0
OK, here's my last stab at making this small point: The only reason FB is
successful is because 'we' CHOOSE to use it. No one is coercing FB users
physically into it's usage.

Thus, once we acknowledge this simple fact, we can also CHOOSE not to use it
anymore.

That's the core of my point I tried to make originally.

Thanks for your patience and feedback.

~~~
eropple
I understood your point. You were not unclear. You're just not talking about
anything meaningful. That we can "choose" to do something is irrelevant _when
the choice is not impactful_. You aren't turning two billion people. You
aren't going to make them _choose_. If a million people left Facebook
tomorrow, Facebook would not notice nor be materially weakened. Your "choice"
is noise.

And the harping on that choice is, by people much more malicious than you,
designed to disempower movements to rein in organizations like Facebook,
because--hey, people can just not use it. (Even though choosing to not use it
_doesn 't do anything_.)

You're providing cover for a narrative that wants to hurt you.

~~~
kelvin0
Glad to see my point was clear, so I guess we agree to disagree. In the
meantime, I choose (and have done so ever since it first launched) to not use
such platforms as FB.

------
gph
Not a bad rebuttal, I have to agree that Zuckerberg is trying to position
Facebook as the end all be all of social contact in the future. I don't think
that's a good solution.

But in reference to this quote:

>The reason we find ourselves in this mess with ubiquitous surveillance,
filter bubbles, and fake news (propaganda) is precisely due to the utter and
complete destruction of the public sphere by an oligopoly of private
infrastructure that poses as public space.

That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since
forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems. Certainly
with facebook and social media it's changed the whole landscape, and perhaps
made it worse given what happened during the last election. But returning
social interactions to the public sphere isn't going to entirely fix the
dissemination of fake news or suddenly pop the filter bubbles we live in.

If social media were outlawed tomorrow it might weaken filter bubbles, but a
suburban upper middle class republican from Kansas is still going to be
getting way different info and building a much different world view than a
barista in Brooklyn would.

~~~
humanrebar
> That's going a little far, filter bubbles and propaganda have existed since
> forever. The public sphere was never a panacea for these problems.

I'm not sure the kinds of bubbles we have aren't brand new. The bubbles used
to map pretty closely to geography and political structures. The bubbles now
are oriented around where our _information_ lives, not where we physically
are.

Also, I think you're overstepping with 'panacea'. I don't think anyone who
believes in decentralized life thinks universal panaceas even necessarily
exist. But it can still be true that central planning has displaced local
living without fulfilling all the same purposes. And if so, the result could
be a net negative.

------
billiam
When will the Bond villains that run the largest tech companies realize that
they can't own the Internet? Zuckerberg, your algorithms turned half my
relatives into crazy Trump supporters that don't talk to the other half, is
that your idea of bringing families together?

------
callmeed
I feel like we're living in _The Circle_ to some degree.

I hadn't read Zuck's manifesto until now. I literally laughed out loud reading
it. It makes me wonder if he ever actually looks at the news feeds regular
people see.

The reason I quit Facebook was precisely because its uninformed and non-
inclusive. From what my wife tells me, nothing has changed. Like-minded people
reinforce each other and people with conflicting viewpoints just argue.

I hope Zuck at least has good intentions with his post and he's just slightly
short-sighted.

------
supernumerary
I like this idea of technical organs, that are enmeshed with notions of self-
hood.

Another person who has been talking in this way is the philosopher Bernard
Steigler, he uses this term 'general organology' in an attempt to rehabilitate
our technological entanglements from the skeptical cul-de-sac demonstrated by
the OP and supported by most recent philosophy (e.g. Adorno, Debord, although
crucially not Walter Benjamin)

Although I am sure he would be equally vitriolic about FB the general overview
of Steigler's thought here is a neat compliment to the POV of the OP.

[http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-
individuati...](http://nootechnics.org/general-organology-the-co-
individuation-of-minds-bodies-social-organizations-and-techne/bernard-
stiegler/)

I have corrupted this angle a little bit and tried to treat Facebook with kid
gloves here:

[https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-
object.htm...](https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html)

------
zekkius
I appreciate Aral's general issues with Facebook. Privacy rights in the
digital age are issues we face not just with SV, but with every corporation we
interact with. I appreciate the EU's interest in this sphere and I worry the
rights of US citizens will be co-opted by corporate lobbying, not to mention
other parts of the world.

~~~
Tharkun
The EU's interest in this sphere is bizarre to say the least. It's very much a
fan of surveillance. It pays lipservice to privacy, while actively engaging in
dragnet surveillance.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The EU believes in people's privacy from corporations, and even from foreign
(non-EU) governments. Just not from themselves.

------
breckinloggins
This is what services like urbit are after. If you don't understand urbit,
think of it as a step towards what this post is advocating. Whether they can
escape from the gravity well of their own obfuscation is, however, another
matter.

------
unicornporn
Let me recommend Carr's take on the manifest:
[http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651](http://www.roughtype.com/?p=7651)

------
onmobiletemp
Im not sure what mark expects his user base to accomplish given that he
believes they are "dumb fucks." I know people like mark so i know that he
still thinks ordinary people are dumb fucks and that the only reason behind
any action he takes is the advancement of his own position in life and
business.

------
__jal
A righteous rant.

------
bordercases
Heartening to see this on HN.

------
bordercases
Uh.

This is Urbit.

------
sandworm101
Am i the only one here that doesnt use facebook? I think i logged in once
eight or so years ago. My clients dont use it. My friends do ... well _did_.
But it was never an issue. My students avoid it due to the "creep factor". I
still live life via email and telephone and that isnt unussual. Even my tech
clients, some in downtown SF, expect email to be the norm.

So when I see zuck going on about revolutions I have to wonder where he gets
his information. Does he really think a large and growing percentage of the
planet uses his website for everyday tasks? That's marketing spin. I think
reality is much more humble.

~~~
k-mcgrady
1.8 billion DAU's. They must be getting something out of it. You're definitely
in the minority (even on HN, but I'm sure there are a sizeable number of
people here not using it). I think every B2B scenario would expect tel/email.
I have never encountered any that asked me to interact over Facebook and I'd
be shocked if they did. Is it possible your view of Facebook is skewed by not
using it in the last 8 years? A lot of people I know seem to be using it more
and more for everyday tasks, for example:

1\. Address book, messaging (FB & Whatsapp)

2\. News

3\. Buying/selling through a newish marketplace feature

4\. Event organisation (events & groups)

5\. Promoting business and communicating with customers (B2C and vice versa
through enabling messenger feature for a page)

~~~
glup
Is there any independent verification of 1.8b DAUs? How could one go about
assessing that?

~~~
k-mcgrady
Not that I know of but as a public company I doubt they could lie about that
number without the potential for serious consequences.

