This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's a double-edged sword. Is a system more free if users can chose to do whatever they want or is a system more free if my non-technical aunt need not fear that every link or app or whatever is going to pwn her system or be some unremovable crap. She has no idea how to read or evaluate their privacy policy written in pages of legalize but would like something like "this company uses my data within the bounds of normal reason". And even if she could, half the time the whole thing is a complete and wholesale fraud by some random overseas firm in Kerbleckistan where all their policies and promises amount to nothing at all. And when you explain to her "hey, there's counterparty risk -- you need to actually attribute content you read online to a real legal entity and then decide if you trust that entity to make the representations therein, especially when executing their software on your device", she says great where to they print their true legal identity on the page and I have to again explain they don't do that either.
So yeah, unfortunately, it's both. Walled gardens are a cage to the tinkerers, openness is a cage of fear for the non-technical where slight missteps can occasionally have (seemingly randomly to the non-educated) huge consequences. That's not very free for them either.
What's worse, technical measures like code signing aren't really "what auntie needs" in any real sense. A code signature is only as useful as the CA that decides what code to sign and the CA is only as useful as the actual policy and governance that it employs in deciding what to sign. That in turn is subject to the usual caveat that governance is hard. And saying "well, we'll have a choice of CAs" is just recursing the problem a level without actually solving much at all.
Ultimately, I don't really have a good answer, but I have a good sense that it can't be "fuck the non-technical, let them be eaten by leopards". Not only because I think it's unworkable (they will find a new Steve Jobs) but because it's an abdication of the duty of those that understand technology.
I mean the trouble with walled gardens is similar to the problem of moderation. In both cases, my right to decide is outsourced to a keeper. There are sometimes good reasons to do this — letting just anyone mess with critical software in the OS is a very bad idea. Other times, it’s less about protecting the end user than enforcing ideas about what is good for that user, as when a mod to remove gay pride flags was banned. A policy that won’t let me or any program I use do things to my OS or access things like contact lists, social media accounts, or other critical data without at least making sure that I intend to do that is generally good. Likewise I think a moderation policy of keep on topic and be respectful is perfectly fine where a policy dictating the topics and allowed opinions isn’t.
What about my right to decide to outsource my right to decide to a keeper?
I tend to think that it's more important that people have a right to decide which platforms to take than they have a right to modify the internal rules of each platform to their liking.
Similarly, I think it's better for freedom of religion if people can decide where/how to pray but don't have a "right to decide" on the internal rules and content of each house of worship.
This is baffling. A golf forum cannot exist without a policy dictating the topics (related to golf) and the allowed opinions (you can't just flame bait with 'golf sux').
But given the near monopoly on cellular phones (only 3-4 major players) it’s not hard to create a situation in which unless you’re willing to void the warranty and risk an update bricking your jailbreak phone, you have no effective choice in whether you end up in a walled garden. The only question if all player in the game build a walled garden is “whose walled garden do I like the best. I suppose you technically have the choice to forgo cellphones entirely, though it would make communication difficult as land lines are down to about 30% of all homes.
Yeah, similarly you have to choose "which basketball league do I want to play in" rather than having a choice to join them and demand they change their rules to suit your preferences.
I sympathize in the sense that it is unfortunate that not everyone can get their way. But I don't think that justifies the right to demand you get yours.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link