hanshan
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
-8
Submissions
27
Member since
Jul 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
One could indict every major world power for foreign election interference. Laws are meaningless if no one follows them.
Comment · 8 years ago
>The Internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,”
>“Together with our law enforcement partners, the Department of Justice is resolute in its commitment to locate, identify and seek to bring to justice anyone who interferes with American elections.
Sounds like Don Quixote is fighting the internet now. Unless you just shut it down how is it possible to not have world wide "interference" on the world wide web? Perhaps we need to think about how the instantaneous global communications network is obsolescing the concept of the nation state which was formed as a result of the printing press.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gutenberg_Galaxy
>Free and fair elections are hard-fought and contentious, and there will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us.
That sounds like a fitting description of mass media/news corporations everywhere.
Comment · 8 years ago
>Money gives you time.
Being alive gives you time.
>If you aren't being paid to do the journalism then you are getting paid to do something else
Yeah, you're getting paid to do whatever it is you're a subject matter expert in.
Reporting on it in important situations is simply a public service which people do all the time with blogs and such.
Implying people only want to do things if they're paid money is silly.
Comment · 8 years ago
If everyone can watch everyone with equal transparency, that would seem to imply a distributed system with information symmetry, which is antithetical to centralized authority. If there was a central authority/super admin in such a system, how would you keep them from covertly creating information asymmetry?
Comment · 8 years ago
Their best for you, or for advertisers?
Comment · 8 years ago
Care to elaborate on your concerns? We're obviously speaking theoretically here at a high level of abstraction
Comment · 8 years ago
>The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.
-John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975)
Comment · 8 years ago
>we could watch the people that watch us.
If this were possible, there would be no authority
Comment · 8 years ago
>This is literally Google donating money to charity.
I specifically said "product" donations.
>Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free
And they would be ignorant of the value of their information, attention spans, and technology in general. Many such people would also agree that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about"
Comment · 8 years ago
That's a lot like saying FB and GOOG are charitable because they give their products away for "free". How much money/data are those product donations extracting from the people they donated to?
Comment · 8 years ago
>The negatives are less tangible: giving up your personal data (this is complicated by the fact that the data didn't exist until you used their services), targeted advertising, I'm not sure what else there is.
You forgot about the elephant in the room: the imminent danger of cyberwarfare.
The reason the Holocaust was so efficient at mass murder was because of "giving up your personal data".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
These tech companies have aggregated the most detailed demographical and psychological profiles in history on billions of people.
Let's not pretend they're impervious to hackers.
The "weapons of mass destruction" of the future will be algorithms loaded with the dual-use munitions we call "big data".
Comment · 8 years ago
Time is more important than money, and expertise does not depend on the funding of a newspaper or media company
Comment · 8 years ago
So, a subject matter expert with a cellphone video?
Comment · 8 years ago
Where the problem arises is the degree to which one is affected by these emotions. Too much anxiety can lead to paranoia, schizophrenia and anti-social behavior, too little can lead to life threatening situations. Too much aggression can lead to irrational mass murder, too little can lead to slavery.
That's a false dichotomy which implies you missed my point. There is no such thing as sovereign democracy in a globalized world with omnipresence and instantaneous communication.