Moldbug: "How to regulate the tech platforms" -

[CrunkLord420]

Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) gives his take on social network/230 regulation. He basically advocates for open APIs while mentioning federated protocols like the fediverse and shills for Urbit without calling it by name. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/how-to-regulate-the-tech-platforms

 

[ditto]

Protocol transparency means banning secret Internet protocols, at least for monopolies

Stallman already debunked this line of thinking 20 years ago, leading to the Affero GPL.

 

[The Real SVP]

His premise is wrong. There is no way to success. There is no saving the Internet. Mass communication is wrong and contrary to human nature.
Doesn't matter if it is broadcast (old media), peer to peer (what the internet could have been), or bounce-back (what it is now). It will destroy any society that engages in it. Even printing is dangerous. We will not go on unless/until we introduce a species wide taboo against anything but direct, person to person, communication.

 

[Rusty Crab]

His premise is wrong. There is no way to success. There is no saving the Internet. Mass communication is wrong and contrary to human nature.
Doesn't matter if it is broadcast (old media), peer to peer (what the internet could have been), or bounce-back (what it is now). It will destroy any society that engages in it. Even printing is dangerous. We will not go on unless/until we introduce a species wide taboo against anything but direct, person to person, communication.

Listening to those Ted Talks, I see.

 

[Alrakkan]

His premise is wrong. There is no way to success. There is no saving the Internet. Mass communication is wrong and contrary to human nature.
Doesn't matter if it is broadcast (old media), peer to peer (what the internet could have been), or bounce-back (what it is now). It will destroy any society that engages in it. Even printing is dangerous. We will not go on unless/until we introduce a species wide taboo against anything but direct, person to person, communication.

What about Posthumanity?

 

[The Real SVP]

What about Posthumanity?

Fuck those guys. As a human, I'd rather work on making humanity prosper.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

His premise is wrong. There is no way to success. There is no saving the Internet. Mass communication is wrong and contrary to human nature.
Doesn't matter if it is broadcast (old media), peer to peer (what the internet could have been), or bounce-back (what it is now). It will destroy any society that engages in it. Even printing is dangerous. We will not go on unless/until we introduce a species wide taboo against anything but direct, person to person, communication.

Destroy written communication, he says on a platform devoted to written communication.
Writing is literally one of the first human inventions- if it's "contrary to human nature", you should just go full anprim and advocate destroying the wheel and fire as well.

 

[The Real SVP]

Destroy written communication

First of all: I am not a virtuous man. Second: Writing, by itself, is fine. Cave drawings, paintings, illustrated church walls, even sermons and speeches and songs are fine. Mass dissemination without a personal context is the problem. If you write something down for the other guys in the office, or if your grandmother hands you your grand-grand-grand-mother diary, there is still a living person providing context to the.. well, text.
Without this living element information can become confusing and self serving, and too many people will concentrate on the medium rather than the message.

 

[barbellister]

Listening to those Ted Talks, I see.

while I disagree with the idea that the written word is a bad thing, I honestly think he's on to something with the "mass media taboo" business.
there will be a point in the near future at which face deepfakes and voice replication are advanced enough that distrust of everything that isn't an in-person face to face conversation would be entirely reasonable

 

[Rusty Crab]

while I disagree with the idea that the written word is a bad thing, I honestly think he's on to something with the "mass media taboo" business.
there will be a point in the near future at which face deepfakes and voice replication are advanced enough that distrust of everything that isn't an in-person face to face conversation would be entirely reasonable

Being the cynic I am, I'm more inclined to believe the "solution" will be RealID and everything will simply be digitally signed on upload so you know who it came from.

 

[The Real SVP]

RealID

That's not enough. Granted, I am stating a belief rather than making an argument, but I do believe that any form of communication that does not allow you to literally punch the other side in the face (be it the messenger in the case of time-shifted communication) is potentially harmful. We are made/evolved to communicate with an immediate face punch always in the picture. Taking the human element away is bound to lead to consequences our human minds and souls can neither predict nor fully comprehend.
Edit: I am not opposed to remote communication for professional reasons, or for hobbyists, BTW. The technology is way to useful to not use it at all. I just don't think that normal people should have to deal with it, and that it does them more harm than good.

 

[Ledj]

We are made/evolved to communicate with an immediate face punch always in the picture. Taking the human element away is bound to lead to consequences our human minds and souls can neither predict nor fully comprehend.

Evolution follows the contours of environmental pressures; viewing an arbitrary slice of time as proof of a static, immutable construct is to misunderstand the process entirely. Consider how wildly you might have gesticulated in protest were you alive during the period of natural language development.

 

[Marissa Moira]

The quickest way to destroy something is to make it free.

 

[Dick Justice]

The quickest way to destroy something is to make it free.

The quickest way to save something is to make it libre.