undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstego-tech10mo ago0 comments

Then maybe don’t put critical services on the open internet. I know most tech people would balk at such a possibility, but the status quo isn’t really compatible with either long-term goal:

* If we want the internet to be a place of anonymity and free speech, then we shouldn’t be putting critical services on the public internet - or we need to stop using intermediaries like Cloudflare where a single court order could disrupt legal services

* If we want critical services online and widely available, then verifiable identity is a must from the outset, such that these sorts of blocks can be highly targeted when enforced.

Piracy exists between those two forces: an anonymous internet would be rife with piracy, while an authenticated internet would see minimal amounts of it because it’s so easily eradicated. Coexistence of both worked because the internet was optional, which is no longer the case.

But nobody wants to talk about that, I find. Everyone wants the status quo to continue unabated forever, because it’s familiar. Familiarity does not mean permanent, though.

0 comments

jfengel10mo ago

I think the status quo exists as a more-or-less stable equilibrium between those forces. (Plus another equilibrium of people wanting to get paid for content and the people who don't want to give cash but will sell their attention and privacy.)

It's more than just familiarity. It's what works.

If someone had a significantly better alternative I think the world would jump on it. But many have tried to disrupt this equilibrium and failed.

brookst10mo ago

What if there’s no singular “we” and different people / companies have different needs?

stego-techOP10mo ago

That’s basically what I was getting at, albeit in (deliberately) far more inflammatory terms. There’s this misconception at a very fundamental level that the internet is a “place” that can be regulated, or obstructed, as human needs change and evolve.

It is little more than a multitude of computers talking to each other in a similar “language”. It is not a singular place or entity, and attempting to regulate the entirety of it as such is fundamentally impossible.

And the sooner people and governments understand that, the sooner we can resume difficult discussions on its use.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse