@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.
@dredmorbius @email@example.com @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 @firstname.lastname@example.org @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 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...
@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.
To experiment these new telecommunication networks P2P ledher physical topologies, all we need is this :
A long one, 50 cm long, and start making holes in the walls we have with all our neiboors when we live in flats to put some CAT5 ethernet cables. Then we need to invent a new native P2P protocol...
Some say it is impossible to deploy, they are wrong, it's fucking easy. Then we need things like small RONJA's to jump between flats...
It's all at our reach, indeed. The only thing we lack is experimentation and organization to elaborate these new standards.
@kick @email@example.com @enkiv2 @dredmorbius @stman @freakazoid he's not a parody, I think, just young and struggling to figure out how to navigate a legitimately very complicated political landscape. I wish I could tell you how many of my friends have committed suicide, been interrogated by grand juries, been betrayed by those they trusted most, etc. It's a situation that's difficult for even the best grounded and most experienced.
There is an issue that was hard to see by the time Aaron was, it's how US/UK cyber-imperialism hegemonism fits in all this. The crypto-anarchist community had not enough maturity by that time to perceive it, how it forms, how it is maintained, what are the strategies and propagands done to do this.
We now see very clear on all these topics. This is why I was telling you that the new form of crypto-anarchism folks like me are now pushing
don"t allow any longer any form of cyber-imperialism, wherever it comes from.
We know what makes it, as we know what made cyber-chaos. And the intellectual tools to see both are the same by the way.
To summerize all this, the old crypto-anarchist scene was saying "code is law" and was talking about "the" cyberspace.
The new crypto-anarchist mouvement, which can be called post-crypto-anarchism, or I prefer crypto-anarhism situationism,
Situationism ? Why ? For both reasons, first because we value architectures, in all known technological layers, as the root of all our new forms of fundamental reasonning, and then, for the political project of the situationist mouvement that used to exist.
Our new mouvement therefore say "Architecture is law", and we don't talk any longer about "the" cyberspace, but we do recognize that there are indeed an infinity of possible
alternative cyberspaces architectures, all having a different cyber-power and cyber-right model.
We aknowledge the fact that talking about "The" cyberspace was a cyber-imperialist manipulation in order to let us think that all architectures were equal, which is absolutely not the case.
We have successfully demonstrated that the cyber-power and cyber-rights model of a given cyberspace architecture, including all its underlying
technological layers, is exclusively and directly caracterized by all the architectural choices of the cyberspace architecture itself, and of all of its underlying technological layers forming it.
It starts from the architecture of a single transistor within an intergrated circuits, and ends to top level application and software.
Indeed, to summerize our work, the abstraction level we are working with don't make any difference, any
longer between hardware (Integrated circuits architectures, motherboards or digital electronic system architectures), software (Including kernel, OS, applications), protocols (Either for networks or embedded motherboard protocols like USB, PCIe), and networks (including motherboard PCB routing) physical topologies and architecture.
Blowing away the artificial borders or boundaries between all these currently separated scientific
matters or specialities, is at the root of most of our discoveries.
In this new abstraction paradigm, even the "all turing machine", in other words, the "all micprocessor paradigm" imposed by current standards for computation is seriously challenged, and it has opened our minds and creativity to unknown terrorities where we can now see all those alternatives ways of doing things, of designing alternatives cyberspaces architectures.
It's really highly motivating intellectually, and we are barely starting to categorize all those new concepts for digital systems and alternative cyberspaces architectures. We start inventing sorting criterias to compare them between each other, to compare their cyber-power models.
When I was introducing you the concept of the paradox we have found, this paradox, as I defined it, the impossibility to fight simultaneously chaos and
cyber-chaos at the same time, must be seen as the first revelant sorting criteria I have discovered, invented, to classify the first different alternative cyberspaces architectures I was studying, and their respective cyber-power an cyber-rights models.
There is a whole new lot of vocabulary we have progessively invented or defined, every time more precisely, to express all these new things.
cyber-power and cyber-rights models being a
In the light of this new paradigm, we therefore "talk" about "paradoxal" and "non-paradoxal" cyberspaces architectures. But there are many other criterias to be invented or discovered to handily classify all the possible alternative cyberspaces architectures or concepts we are discovering all along with our studies.
Understand that we are just starting to invent criterias for sorting them into "families" and so on.
We are indeed creating a new research domain which can be called "cyberspaces theoricians" or researchers.
By the way, a last word about cybernetics, it's the same issue than with the old crypto-anarchist mouvement talking about "the" cyberspace. There are as many cybernetics theories possible as different cyberspaces architectures.
Cybernetics concept has been jailed too, like the cyberspace concept, and for the same ugly reasons.
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)