canopic jug writes:
Aral Balkan has a blog post about
taking small steps to end surveillance capitalism. In particular he focuses on the need for federated services. He points out that the move to re-decentralize the WWW is difficult and needs to start at the beginning, using a comparison of Apple's original computers to their latest generation of tablets as an illustration.
Five years ago, when I decided to devote myself to tackling the problem of surveillance capitalism, it was clear what we needed: convenient and beautiful ethical everyday things that provide seamless experiences1 on fully free-as-in-freedom stacks.This is as true today as it was then and it will remain so. The only way to compete with unethical products built by organisations that have control over hardware + software + services is to create ethical organisations that have control over hardware + software + services and thus have at least the possibility to craft competitive experiences. We remove our eyes from this goal at our peril.
Five years ago, when I decided to devote myself to tackling the problem of surveillance capitalism, it was clear what we needed: convenient and beautiful ethical everyday things that provide seamless experiences1 on fully free-as-in-freedom stacks.
This is as true today as it was then and it will remain so. The only way to compete with unethical products built by organisations that have control over hardware + software + services is to create ethical organisations that have control over hardware + software + services and thus have at least the possibility to craft competitive experiences. We remove our eyes from this goal at our peril.
Related: Tim Berners-Lee Launches Inrupt, Aims to Create a Decentralized Web
Wrong again, the government has the full consent of the governed. Nobody can claim ignorance any more. Those innocent days are gone. Resistance is too feeble to notice.
Stability in society is definitely related to consent among individuals.
You would be wise to look for ways of organizing society around measurable consent rather decreed "consent".
The election results are as measurable as it gets. And that would include the people who choose not to vote. What are you looking for exactly?
Under Capitalism, not only is every decision you make a "vote" for how society should be shaped, but the weight of your "vote" is dependent on well your previous "votes" served society.
Capitalism provides a much finer-grained, much more dynamic measurement of consent.
>Under Capitalism, not only is every decision you make a "vote" for how society should be shaped, but the weight of your "vote" is dependent on well your previous "votes" served society.
do they don't, most "decisions" are inertia driven, pushed by market experts and with big pockets to follow. grow up from this libertarian nonsense
That may be so, but that's argument applies 10x to Democracy; the question was "What is a better way to measure consent?" The point stands: Capitalism.
Capitalism can only measure the consent of the well to do, one dollar, one "vote". The election results measure a far wider range of the population. But likely in both, the bottom 49% are screwed. The more you think about it, the most similarities you will find.
Your comment makes no sense.
Not only does capitalism measure the consent of the poor (better than democracy, mind you), but it also measures society's consent to the poor; under capitalism, if you're poor, that's a signal that you're not much worth to society—the few who can't help it will be helped by those who have compassion, and the rest should change their ways.
Capitalism (and most of society) sees the poor as a mule. Its consent (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
Capitalism has a good bit of control over the election results though. Poor people tend to vote less, because they can't get off work to go stand in line at the polls, or because they can't get a ride to one of the two remaining DMVs in their state to get a newly required photo ID.
And that's not even getting into the long-term structural issues...for example, corporations lobby for laws, those laws make people who oppose the agenda of the corporation into convicted felons...who then often lose their right vote. Once the ball gets rolling it gets harder and harder to stand up against it, because the people who would most want to would also be disqualified for that very reason.
Submissiveness is not an option if they want anything to happen. It's still up to the voters. You know, with all the excuses being made, I really wonder what people have to offer in place of voters taking their own initiative.
Oh, I absolutely am not suggesting "submissiveness" as a viable option; I'm merely pointing out that voting isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of peoples' preferences any more than a random sampling of TV commercials would be.
Plenty of alternative means of taking action are still available though...organize, unionize, and strike is one which has worked pretty well so far for my family in both the past and present...
Random TV samples involve maybe up to a thousand people. Voting counts over 200 million, including the non voting block (which can either be taken as consent, or 'no confidence', something we should demand on our ballots). I will take those numbers more seriously.
All those "alternative means of taking action" still comes down to us and our own ability to delegate. I don't understand the difficulty here. What do people expect? I mean, is everybody looking up to the sky, or what?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
If by full consent you mean a 20% approval rating.
Media ratings are bullshit. Your 20% is really 94.3% [wikipedia.org]. Same round numbers apply to most local elections also. If you're going to use numbers, use the ones that matter.
[Value not in citation given]
Oh? Then tell me, what is 46.1 and 48.2 in your world?
So what's your angle here? Are you an establishment shill saying "nothing to see here, move along" or are you a misanthrope saying "people are garbage and they have the garbage system that they deserve" ?
Quite some imagination you got there. The people have what they asked for. They can change it anytime. My opinion of them is totally irrelevant. Everybody's simply looking for the most advantage.
And yes, outside what's in the mirror, there is nothing meaningful to see. Believe it, or not... it's all perfectly natural and instinctive. All those books on animal psychology apply to humans too. Maybe that's why people are in such denial.
The North Koreans have what they've asked for; they can change their choice at any time.
So, unless you want to claim that the North Koreans are living under the consent of the governed, you have not made a convincing argument. And, if you did make that claim for NK (in order to remain consistent), well, then you'd be supporting a worthless point of view; it wouldn't help anyone design a society.
*sigh* such a weak tiresome old game... not worth the time
I find it rather curious. You choose to believe one number over the other. There must be a reason.
It's true that the people could change things. But they don't realize this, because the corporate media keep telling them the opposite.
But they don't realize this, because the corporate media keep telling them the opposite.
Sorry for the 2nd reply:
You choose to believe one number over the other. There must be a reason.
Yeah. I believe the one that counts. What are you getting at?
The people have what tjey asked for?
Ok, no more arguing with you, you are almost as bad as buzzy boy.
Ok, no more arguing with you
Excellent! I'm not looking for one. Especially from people who don't want to read correctly what was posted.
And I don't want to argue with riled up libertarians with misplaced superiority complexes.
Who's forcing you to stay??
Be off! You cease to amuse me
I am off, this is just another symptom of your multiple personality disorder. Apologies for the hard drop but you aren't really Jesus either.