@zardoz@cybre.space @dredmorbius @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid yeah, they kind of already did. the question from my point of view is how to change the rules of the game to keep them from creating barriers to entry that allow them to dollar-auction their way into net-negative social value

@kragen You'd likely have to undermine their business model.

On the positive side, this is a dynamic which can be used to play megacorps (and possibly other interests) off one another.

That notion goes back to IBM's Earthquake Memo, ~1998.

I'm not sure if you were at the LinuxWorld Expo where copies of that were being shown around, probably 1999, NYC.

Tim O'Reilly wrote on that in Open Sources.

@zardoz @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid

@dredmorbius @zardoz@cybre.space @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid I think it goes back longer than that; IIRC Gumby commented on the fsb list in the mid-1990s that he wasn't worried about other companies contributing code to GCC and GDB because Cygnus could then turn around and sell the improved versions to Cygnus's customers. Of course those customers could get the software without paying, but they found Cygnus's offering valuable enough to pay for, and competitors' contributions just increased that value.

@dredmorbius @zardoz@cybre.space @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid the big insight Tim had, which took the rest of us a while to appreciate, was how this gave new market power to companies that own piles of data, like Google or the ACM or Knight Capital. And now we have AWS and Azure and Samsung capturing a big part of the value from free software instead.

@kragen Incidentally, the Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein stories have made me aware just how much wealth, power, and corruption are also fundamentally network phenomena. Something I've touched on in a couple of Reddit posts IIRC.

@zardoz @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid

@kragen Weinsteinomics 101: Monopoly is fundamentally a control dynamic, not a marketshare proposition

...Harvey Weinstein and the Economics of Consent by Brit Marling is one of the more significant economics articles of the past decade, though I'm not sure Ms. Marling recognises this. In it, she clearly articulates the dynamics of power, and re-establishes the element of control so critical to understanding monopoly...

old.reddit.com/r/MKaTH/comment

@zardoz @kick @enkiv2 @freakazoid

@dredmorbius @kragen @zardoz @enkiv2 @freakazoid You made a post earlier about economics being a religion rather than science, and I think it's relevant here.

@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid This is a very interesting thread you had, but reading it rapidely, none of you has envisionned that changing radicaly of cyberspace architecture was the solution. From what I saw, all your reasonning are still imprisonned by the current norms and standards imposed by the Empire for the current cyberspace architecture.

@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid

According to my cryto-anarchist studies on cyber-powers genesis, the architecture of all known technological layers and of a cyberspace architecture caracterize what I call the cyber-power model and which in turn caracterize the economical model.

The current statut quo is definitely pushing for the neoliberal surveillance capitalism model we have today.

But different cyberspaces architectures can have cyber-power models that lead to

@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid

fully different economical models, and therefore, a radicaly different society.

Crypto-Anarchist like me are studying how, by changing those architectures, we can restore human rights, have a fully social and solidary society, ecologicaly and sustainabily driven, with alternative economical models and new forms of self governance handle by new forms of cybernetics of trust.

@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid

To show you how I "think" differently, I could even ask the following question to Edward Snowden, I'm sure he would answer like most of you would, at least for now :

Let's take this simple question :

"How to fight mass surveillance ?"

Most of you would answer : By implementing end-to-end cryptography making mass surveillance very costy and therefore discouraging it.

That's the answer I get in 99% of the time.

@dredmorbius @kick @zardoz @enkiv2 @kragen @freakazoid

And here is what a crypto-anarchist situationist like me would answer to this question :

Mass surveillance is first a matter of telecommunication networks physical topology. By creating an alternative cyberspace architecture that would be a true fully P2P ledger physical network (You create physical links with all your physical neiboors), you make mass surveillance impossible first because there is a fully distributed physical network,

Follow

@stman @dredmorbius @kick @zardoz@cybre.space @enkiv2 @freakazoid I think Freifunk-like privacy-protecting mesh physical layers are a necessary ingredient, but by themselves they aren't sufficient either; and they introduce some new vulnerabilities that must be defended against.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 3
Sign in to participate in the conversation
NerdCulture

All friendly creatures are welcome. Be excellent to each other, live humanism, no nazis, no hate speech. Not only for nerds, but the domain is somewhat cool. ;) No bots in general! (only with prior permission)