←back to thread

The Public Interest Internet

(berjon.com)
113 points recifs | 9 comments | 18 Jun 24 05:37 UTC | HN request time: 1.185s | source | bottom
Show context
recifs ◴[18 Jun 24 05:37 UTC] No.40714372[source]▶
Allow me to open with a wildly speculative question: What if the internet were public interest technology? I mean "internet" the way most people understand it, which is to say our whole digital sphere, and by "public interest" I don't mean tinkering at the margins to reduce harm from some bad actors or painting some glossy ethics principles atop a pile of exploitative rent-seeking — I mean through and through, warts and all, an internet that works in support of a credible, pragmatic definition of the common good.
replies(3): >>40715101 #>>40717000 #>>40720543 #
Gormo ◴[18 Jun 24 12:27 UTC] No.40717000[source]▶
The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of.

Most people have an unfortunate tendency to project their own values and preferences onto the world at large, and fail to recognize when they cross the boundary out of their own spaces and into other people's.

Recognizing this means advancing solutions that primarily aim to minimize conflict among many parties, each pursuing their own particular concept of the good within their own boundaries, and avoiding trying to universalize any singular set of terminal values.

Attempting to pursue solutions that depend on everyone agreeing on the same set of terminal values will always fail, and will often generate intense conflict that escalates well beyond the bounds of the original question and causes a great deal of collateral damage.

replies(2): >>40718441 #>>40719021 #
digging ◴[18 Jun 24 15:33 UTC] No.40719021[source]▶
> The moment you try to define a singular "common good", you wind up with a variety of competing factions all putting forth their own wildly divergent and often contradictory notions of what that common good consists of.

Yes, that's called compromise. It's basically one of the foundations of society and civilization. It's not a blocker for public-interest projects.

replies(2): >>40719681 #>>40737860 #
1. cheeseomlit ◴[18 Jun 24 16:34 UTC] No.40719681[source]▶
'Compromise' paints an idealistic picture, its often just a euphemism for 'the more powerful/entrenched party gets what they want by default, but they'll let the other side vocally express their frustration to maintain the veneer of an actual conversation.' What you're describing sounds like a top-down restructuring of the internet at large, which is a golden opportunity for any interested party to restructure it in their favor. Whoever has the means will do so, and it will not be motivated by public interest since the public are not the ones with the means. When I hear "an internet that works in support of a credible, pragmatic definition of the common good", to me that translates to "we're going to turn the surveillance up to 11 and ban encryption to combat CSAM", because that's how such projects pan out in reality
replies(2): >>40719957 #>>40720646 #
2. digging ◴[18 Jun 24 17:05 UTC] No.40719957[source]▶
Honestly, I can't even finish reading through this comment. This is the opposite of idealism - is there a word for it? You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way. Well, guess what, we already have an implementation of the internet that imperfectly respects "the public good", and it sucks. Let's imagine something better.
replies(4): >>40720230 #>>40722142 #>>40723581 #>>40734038 #
3. cheeseomlit ◴[18 Jun 24 17:37 UTC] No.40720230[source]▶
>You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way.

That's not what I'm saying, in fact 'perfect utopian' projects are exactly what I'm expressing skepticism towards. The problems we have with the internet are mostly just symptoms of deeper societal issues, and they arent infrastructure problems that can be easily fixed like a road or bridge with some massive spending bill. If the US actually enforced anti-trust laws and broke up the tech cartels it would solve a whole lot of problems with the internet, but I doubt that idea would get much traction with whoever ends up on the 'new internet committee'. And I dont see it as a lack of idealism, its just plain pragmatism

4. mistermann ◴[18 Jun 24 18:24 UTC] No.40720646[source]▶
> which is a golden opportunity for any interested party to restructure it in their favor. Whoever has the means will do so, and it will not be motivated by public interest

What if the interested party is clever and defines "in my favor" to be equal to "the common good"? ;)

5. jujube3 ◴[18 Jun 24 20:57 UTC] No.40722142[source]▶
> Honestly, I can't even finish reading through this comment. This is the opposite of idealism - is there a word for it?

realism

replies(1): >>40722725 #
6. digging ◴[18 Jun 24 22:24 UTC] No.40722725{3}[source]▶
No, it's more like defeatism.
replies(1): >>40734049 #
7. Karrot_Kream ◴[19 Jun 24 00:43 UTC] No.40723581[source]▶
Just take a look at the schism between Japanese Mastodon instances vs Western Mastodon instances and their vehement disagreement on what constitutes pornography and CSAM. These are userbases composed of mostly developed country users with liberal values, high incomes, and varying degrees of social infrastructure. If you can't even get these entities to agree, how do you think you'll get NATO countries onboard, let alone BRICS?
8. Gormo ◴[20 Jun 24 01:34 UTC] No.40734038[source]▶
> This is the opposite of idealism - is there a word for it?

Far from being the opposite of idealism, this approach is in fact the only one by which high ideals can be approximated in reality.

> You seem to be complaining that something is impossible because it can't be implemented in a perfect utopian way.

Quite to the contrary, the complaint is not merely that the pursuit of these goals would fall short of perfection, but rather that the consequences would largely be the inverse of the intentions.

In essence, idealism is its own opposite -- if you're looking for a single word to describe this critique, some good options might be "correctness", "efficacy", and "reasonableness".

9. Gormo ◴[20 Jun 24 01:36 UTC] No.40734049{4}[source]▶
Nah, idealism is itself defeatism -- nothing sustains the status quo greater than people wallowing in speculation unmoored from reality instead of taking practical measures to address the problems before them.