Clicking on this link just reminded me again that science (like all such restricted access journals) is an operation that relies heavily on publicly funded research and unpaid academic labor.
And yet their access restriction not only removes the public from consuming the fruits of their labor, but it also systematically harms less well-resourced institutions, independent scholars and impedes the spread of knowledge (particularly in areas of the world that need it most).
I wish we could reach a point where we wouldn't allow this anymore.
Plato's works surrounding Socrates' death: Phaedo, Crito, Euthyphro, The Apology.
Its fascinating to discover how many thoughts and ideas they had which are still relevant in our societies today. Also, they are incredibly readable, its like taking part in on a conversation among friends.
> The internet we rely on today is a chain of single points of failure. Cut the undersea cable, and a continent goes dark. Shut down the power grid, and the cloud evaporates. Deprioritize the "wrong" traffic, and the flow of information is strangled.
The deep brokenness of the current internet, specifically what has become the "cloud" is something I've been thinking about a lot over the past few years. (now I'm working on trying to solve some of this - well, at least build alternatives for people).
and this:
> The way you build a system determines how it will be used. If you build a system optimized for mass surveillance, you will get a panopticon. If you build a system optimized for centralized control, you will get a dictatorship. If you build a system optimized for extraction, you will get a parasite.
Seems to be implying (as well as in other places) that this was all coordinated or planned in some way, but I've looked into how it came to be this way and I grew up with it, and for me, I think a lot of it stemmed from good intentions (the ethos that information should be free, etc.)
I made a short video recently on how we got to a centralized and broken internet, so here's a shameless plug if anyone is interested: https://youtu.be/4fYSTvOPHQs
But the part about the undersea cable is simply wrong! Major undersea cables have been disrupted several times and never has a "continent gone dark".
I think this betrays a severe misunderstanding of what the internet is. It is the most resilient computer network by a long shot, far more so than any of these toy meshes. For starters, none of them even manage to make any intercontinental connections except when themselves using the internet as their substrate.
Now of course, if you put all your stuff in a single organization's "cloud", you don't get to benefit from all that resilience. That sort of fragile architecture is rightly criticized but this falls flat as a criticism of the internet itself.
People naturally want to maximize the value they extract from any system.
If you hand individuals or groups the internet, they will naturally use it for spam, advertisement, scams, information harvesting, propaganda, etc - because those are what gain them the most.
The 'enshittification' if the internet was inevitable the moment it came into existence, and is the result of the decision of its users just as much as any one central authority.
If you let people communicate with each other on a large scale at high speeds, that's what you get.
The only way to avoid the problem is to make a system that has some combination of the following:
* No one uses
* Is slow
* Is cumbersome to use
* Has significant barriers to entry
* Is feature-poor
In a such a system, there's little incentive to have the same bad behaviors.
We'd probably agree on this: people respond to incentives created by system design. One example that comes to mind is how London's Congestion Charge and how it has changed traffic behavior over the years depending on how the rules change.
There is nothing inherent about fast, large-scale, or user-friendly communication that forces spam, scams, or propaganda. Its just that those outcomes emerge when things like engagement, attention, or "reach" are rewarded without being aligned to quality, truth, or mutual cooperation.
This is a well-studied problem in economics, but also behavioral science and psychology: change the incentive and feedback structure, and behavior reliably changes.
Based on the studies I've read in and around this topic, I think harmful dynamics are not inevitable properties of communication, but really contingent on how each system rewards actions taken by participants. The solution is not slowness or barriers, but better incentive alignment and feedback loops.
I would argue that it's not the systems of the internet that are the problem. The problem is the other structures (governmental, economic, etc.), which have bad incentives, which leads to using tools like the internet in a negative way. If it wasn't the internet, it would simply be whatever other form of communication was available. But the Internet's enormous speed and reach make it especially susceptible/tempting for those kind of behaviors.
Not sure I follow the allegory, could you substantiate?
I'm not sure specifically e.g. why being an engineer would put someone at an outsized disadvantage against the already hopeless notion of "understanding how the world works [in its totality?]".
One would think being smart and educated would put them ahead of the pack, even if they overestimate how smart and educated they are compared to others, or fall victim to the consequences of that - an accusation engineers commonly recieve on social media, with similarly high suggestiveness, and similarly little substantiation.
If creative people don’t think at a systems level or a political intersectional level when doing design then they will completely ignore or miss the fact that engineering is a subset of a political or otherwise organizational goal
The key problem with most engineers is that they don’t believe that they live inside a political system
I think that's an important consideration, especially with telecommunications technologies, but the author seems to have been pretty mindful of that angle from the get go, i.e. they seem to have been frustrated with the state of affairs from the beginning.
Or do you mean that to you it all reads as yet another case of someone thinking their technology is what's going to right the ship that is society's current trajectory, then bailed when that didn't come to be? Cause while I can certainly see that being the case, I'd say such a cycle is as much desperation as it it naivety. I think this is even reflected in it being a PHY-agnostic thing, meaning as far as an effort into anything goes, it's a fairly enduring one.
> Or do you mean that to you it all reads as yet another case of someone thinking their technology is what's going to right the ship that is society's current trajectory, then bailed when that didn't come to be?
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Desperation is just a manifestation of manic ignorance unfortunately
The only solution to ignorance is education and I’ll go back to my original point which is this precise thing was discussed over and over and in detail over the last half century of computing in multiple places
Most notably one of the most popular well distributed books that discusses this explicitly is Rodney Brooks’ mythical man month
So my original critique is that engineers do not even utilize the core literature for which there is global consensus on these problems
How would desperation be "manic ignorance", when desperation is specifically when you think/know something is unlikely to impossible, yet feel cornered enough to go for it anyways? The only interpretation I can imagine that fits, you clearly did not mean.
This really just reads like finding their efforts unreasonable, then presenting that opinion as a foregone logical conclusion they were merely too stupid / ignorant to realize, and doing so from a position of hindsight with zero evidence no less. It's purely just tropes and ideas. And even if we keep to just reasoning about ideas, if technology was not able to shape society, politics, or the way people interact, we ourselves wouldn't be talking, so I beg to differ on it being such a foregone conclusion in general.
If I really had to consider a critique along these lines, the only salient difference I see specifically to ventures like this is that they concern themselves very little with what there's a cultural moment and narrative space for, due to being convinced whatever they're doing needs to happen. Ventures need these though, hard work and a sound idea is not sufficient (or sometimes even required), just like with anything else. It needs to find and retain an audience, and have that scale. Same for purely political ventures, really. Opportunity, luck, commitment, and capability is what takes the win. This project, and ones similar, do provide at least the last one for those coming later.
It's Fred Brooks by the way, and the book is about project management deadlines vs staffing strategies according to the synopses I found. I continue to fail to find the connection between that and this. Conversely, the proverbial law usually mentioned in relation with the book is Brooks' law, not Conway's. Not sure if that was a mistake or intentional.
Being free to vote doesn't make you feel free and secure.
It's not even safe to attend to a protest to ask for a ceasefire in Gaza. So yeah, you can say "I hate Merz", but don't even try to say "Free Palestine"...
Free Palestine. There, I said it. Although I think it's a rather dumb slogan, and doesn't even remotely do the situation justice.
Seriously though, the notion that free speech is impaired in Germany is completely ridiculous and just a massive hoax. Compare this with the situation in the USA where the same people - like Vance who brazenly attacked Germany for an alleged lack of free speech - were super quick to demand a cancellation of Kimmel, because "you can't say that!"
We have laws against hate speech, and they may not be perfect, but they have a reason - we simply don't want to tolerate something like the Nazis shouting "burn the jews" in the name of free speech. Calling for violence does not have to be protected by speaking your mind. That's completely silly.
But the idea that Germany is anything but a completely free country is ridiculous. Some of the shit that people say (AfD, BSW) drives me nuts, but well, it's a free country.
But its never just 'free palestine' or 'stop the war', is it. Its always mixed with 'from river to the sea', mixed with calls for hatred towards jews, sometimes even jewish genocide.
Extremists doing what extremists can, which is being extreme as a default. Don't expect much support from public, and greta's gradual slide to political extremism isn't helping much, most people are fed up with her and her persona just poisons topics with... extremism.
Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity.
Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.
The OP claimed that people's homes got raided for "daring to insult the ruling class", your source claims that people's homes got raided for posting extremist racist speech online. Unless you believe in some ridiculous conspiracy where ZE JEWS CONTROL ZE BANKS, this has absolutely no relation to your ability to insult the ruling class: Black people and Muslims are not "the ruling class".
And if you do believe in such a conspiracy, please post your personal information such that I can forward it to the relevant agencies and have your house raided. Because we have been through that shit in this country and have no desire to ever see it again.
Your comment has been debunked countless times. This man's home was not raided for his antisemitism (which is really damn bad!) but for calling a guy an idiot [1]. I suggest you stop spreading lies.
That's a different case though. The Habeck meme thing happened somewhere near Bamberg, the CBS article recounts "state police [...] raided this apartment in northwest Germany".
Look, I'm not saying that the police or the ministry of the interior never abuse their power, far from it. (There was also the Andy Grote case a few years back.) But please remember that the original claim we are discussing, from a few comments up in this chain, was that Germany has neither "Freiheit noch Sicherheit" right now. It's ridiculous rabble-rousing to insinuate that because of these outlier events, while concerning, Germany has neither freedom nor security.
Germany does have limited Freedom. I won't move an inch in this matter. The exact paragraph behind the Habeck or Grote case is now being abused by the literal thousands each year. And violent crime is on the rise, we are currently back at a 2005 level. It is very easy to find sources on this matter.
Your claim is blatantly false. Any claim of the contrary is wrong. I won't go as far as to insult you in the way you did. I was talking about violent crime, which is indeed on the rise [1] (here sourced by the far right "Tagesschau" \irony), you are linking a study on crime, which includes non-violent crime such as petty theft. Violent crime is at a level not seen for 15 years. I suggest you read the comments of people thoroughly before embarassingly accusing them of spreading propaganda - which can be disproven with a 5 second google search.
No place has absolute freedom, not sure what you are rambling about. Making up some extra categories that suit your own narrative doesn't change reality.
You are making typical argument shifting excuses. No one is talking about "absolute freedom" no matter how that is defined, notwithstanding even your infantile attempt at using insult in your absence of rational argument.
Please don't paint an - given wired and unjust - incident as the norm and not as am exception.
Extrapolation from one local incident to Germany is unfree is like extrapolation from one politically motivated murder, that a country is in a civil war...
Sure, I have painted the incident, let‘s paint the norm. Just two ministers of the last government have sued 1400 people using 188 StGB [1]. An FDP politician sues 250 people this way in a month alone. We have seen an increase of lawsuits using this paragraph of 215% in the last three years.
Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is.
Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems.
Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again.
I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subscribe to it if it wasn't that groups like AfD, or Trump's flavor of conservatism, hide behind it to achieve their authoritarian goals. To avoid that authoritarian result, you have to police certain types of speech like Germany does.
I say it again, it's nasty and needs a very strong set of counterbalances, which Germany - unlike the US - still has. Therefore this remains a much more freer country than Say-whatever-you-like-on-Rogan America. Freedom for us is free healthcare, a welfare state, an ethics-based concept of societal rights and obligations.
We don't market ourselves as the beacon of free speech and FREEDOM by making both empty words fueled by extreme individualism. We still believe in Solidarität and on social-oriented policies, both on the right and left side of the isle. We have ferocious political battles about topics that are too violently policed, by the way, like right now about Palestine and Israel, and people take to the streets FREELY, despite some despicable police brutality episodes. We do have the contradictions and complexities of any modern western society.
Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that.
It's boring, but it works.
AfD is against all this, and it is because it's provenly funded by Russia and other enemies of the west. They appeal to the Volk, but in reality are infested by double-standards, hate, and a specific type of political individualism and authoritarian views that need to be stopped with all legal and societally-acceptable means possible.
It’s worth remembering who actually made the strategic choices that strengthened Russia’s hand and left Germany dependent and militarily weak. Those weren’t the AfD’s doing — they came from the CDU–SPD coalition governments, the same lineup that’s currently in power again.
• 2011: Under Angela Merkel (CDU) and the SPD coalition, Germany decided to abolish nuclear power after Fukushima, dismantling one of the few sources of domestic energy independence.
• 2011–2015: The same governments backed and defended Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, tying Germany’s critical infrastructure even closer to Russian gas — despite repeated warnings from Eastern European neighbors.
• 2011: The abolition of compulsory military service further weakened Germany’s defense capacity and NATO readiness.
These weren’t minor policy missteps — they systematically made Germany more vulnerable to Russian influence.
And it’s also worth noting a historical irony: Angela Merkel’s family moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954, one of the very few families to go in that direction. Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 to 3 million East Germans fled the communist East for the capitalist West — virtually nobody went the other way.
> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.
A literal millionare is chancellor.
> reedom for us is free healthcare,
Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?
I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.
I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.
We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
That is how a social-democratic society work.
The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You are arguing with a person who doesn't care what people say, facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs, the story is set in their head and thats it. Not a discussion really. Usual avoiding of hard facts that challenge their fantasies.
A fairly typical behavior I've seen countless times in topics about russian war in Ukraine in recent years. No point at all, a wasted time.
> facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs,
This is dishonest at best. It's a matter of opinion. I rarely - if ever - think of anyone who disagrees with me as spreading "propaganda". This is a dangerous narrative you have built in your head. I suggest you stop.
> But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.
> If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.
> e: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
So it's not free.
> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.
> Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.
I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.
Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.
And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.
> The different political labels are interesting but also deeply frustrating because it paints people at odds when they're not.
I agree.
I don't necessarily think the two baskets analogy is even the right framework tbh. The important issues imho are transparency, corruption, incentive alignment, feedback loops, it doesn't really matter to me - and I think probably most people - if its in the government or business space.
What matters, at least to me, is how decisions are made, how information flows, and how citizens (or employees) can see whats going on, influence and hold accountable the decision-makers.
There are many lessons to be learned from history. One of them is that you should never trust your government to not abuse its power. Even the most progressive welfare states like Sweden end up doing horrible things (see how Sweden sterilized thousands based on eugenics policies (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319507778_Eugenics_...).
If you want some recent examples for Switzerland (beyond the dozens upon dozens the further you go back in History) look up, Verdingkinder, Swiss eugenics after 1945, Holocaust Assets (Volcker Commission Report), Post-War Forced Labor and Slaver Switzerland, Secret Police and Surveillance (Swiss Federal Parliamentary Report of 1990), etc, etc.
Some level of trust is required for a functioning society, but there are so many natural factors (human psychology, evolution, national security, crisis situations, elite capture, economic incentives, legitimizing narratives, etc.) which all lead to the abuse of power and the violation thereof that IMHO you can never limit and check it too much.
The government power abuse is the only one that can be stopped by citizens at large. Making it significantly different from corporate power abuse, where there's no law or mechanism reeling them in.
Without governmental systems, these ID approaches tend to end up in private corporate hands instead.
interesting. I agree that governmental power should be stoppable in a functioning democratic republic. At least, we have some such examples. However, I would think, at least in the examples that come to my mind, it is far easier to end corporate abuse, although I will admit often the two are tightly intertwined with governmental overreach working hand-in-hand with private corporations so its quite commonly a blurred line.
Lifters (Ivan Llamarazares) - short weight lifting and training tips
Sozusagen - interesting stories and etymologies of words
The Reinsurance Podcast - name sums itself up pretty good
reply