site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   24830 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 6, 2024

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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"well you want to turn software into an over-regulated morass similar to what aerospace / pharma / construction have become".

In support of this interpretation:

https://www.themotte.org/post/995/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/210060?context=8#context (whole thing)

https://www.themotte.org/post/995/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/209894?context=8#context ("Maybe their little subculture will change.")

https://www.themotte.org/post/995/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/209881?context=8#context ("coloring inside the lines")

Not once in there did I say anything about it becoming an over-regulated morass. You can change your culture enough to do the trivial fucking basics without becoming an over-regulated morass.

If your idea is to change the culture of tinkerers, then I must withdraw what I said about you, and conclude you're not interested in reasonable regulations at all, but rather are getting off on imposing your views on others / are seething that so many people have managed to escape you for so long.

Fair enough. If there is literally no way to change the culture to something that doesn't have trivially-hackable default passwords on billions of devices with anything other than unreasonable regulations, if this is honestly the dichotomy that you think exists in the world, then I guess I have to throw my lot in with the unreasonable regulations folks. But if you can come up with any plausible way to change the culture enough so that we don't have a spigot of trivially-hackable devices with default passwords on them, and your method is anything other than 'unreasonable regulation', I will jump to your side immediately. Nybbler has already committed to the claim that this is a complete impossibility, that the only options are "a culture that churns out trivially-hackable devices with default passwords" and "unreasonable regulations". Do you embrace this position, that those are the only two options?

If there is literally no way to change the culture to something that doesn't have trivially-hackable default passwords on billions of devices

The approach I outlined earlier, which you called reasonable, was to regulate mass produced end-user consumer goods, and let people who build stuff on their own, or otherwise are reasonably expected to know what they're getting into, have a large degree of freedom. There wasn't a word there about changing anyone's culture, in fact the whole approach is designed to let everyone keep their culture the way they like it.

if this is honestly the dichotomy that you think exists in the world

I don't think it does, but I think the things you are saying here strongly imply that trivially hackable default passwords are just an excuse for you to destroy a culture you hate.

The approach I outlined earlier, which you called reasonable, was to regulate mass produced end-user consumer goods, and let people who build stuff on their, or otherwise are reasonably expected to know what they're getting into, have a large degree of freedom. There wasn't a word there about changing anyone's culture, in fact the whole approach is designed to let everyone keep their culture the way they like it.

Nybbler would declare that this is, in fact, changing the culture of people who mass produce end-use consumer goods. That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it. If you think that we can regulate them so that they don't churn out billions of trivially-hackable devices, without changing their culture, I'm fine with that. But they keep telling me that we can't do that! That we have to change their culture! That that's the only option!

I don't think it is, but I think the things you are saying here strongly imply that trivially hackable default passwords are just an excuse for you to destroy a culture you hate.

Not at all. I love the 'tinkerer' culture. I love the innovation culture. I love the building new stuff culture. I love coding and coming up with interesting new shit, though my day job is more on the new math side and I'm having less time for coding lately. The culture that I dislike is the "we can keep pumping out trivially-hackable shit because it might be slightly boring to take the basic steps everyone knows and nobody's going to do anything about it" culture.

But they keep telling me that we can't do that! That we have to change their culture! That that's the only option!

He's mistrustful of people who request minor reasonable regulations, for fear that they will stay neither. Given the history of law, culture, and social movements in his country, I think that's a largely justified fear. There's ways of having a productive conversation with people who have such fears, but you seem determined to strongly signal you are exactly the kind of person they shouldn't trust. For example:

That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

Ok, in that case I'm out. If it's your way or the highway, and forcing change on a culture doesn't even phase you, I don't know how you can pretend to only want some reasonable regulations.

The culture that I dislike is the "we can keep pumping out trivially-hackable shit because it might be slightly boring to take the basic steps everyone knows and nobody's going to do anything about it" culture.

Tell me again why you were upset about being mischaracterized by Nybbler.

That this is the only way, that we have to change their culture. If that is required, I am willing to do it.

Ok, in that case I'm out. If it's your way or the highway

It is not "my way or the highway". Again, if you can come up with any other way to make it so that we don't have billions of trivially-hackable shit with default passwords, sign me up. But I keep getting told this is my only option! It's not even "my way"! It's the only option! That this is a fact about the universe! Nothing to do with me at all!

EDIT: Give me "your way"! Make it an option! If you can do so in a way that won't result in Nybber telling us that "your way" would break their culture, great! But he keeps telling me that you can't.

It is not "my way or the highway". Again, if you can come up with any other way to make it so that we don't have billions of trivially-hackable shit with default passwords, sign me up.

You are still effectively saying "get rid of things that annoy me, or I'll drive a steamroller over your culture", even if you don't particularly care how those things or gotten rid of, in my opinion that's still accurately described as "my way or the highway"?

But I keep getting told this is my only option! It's not even "my way"! It's the only option! That this is a fact about the universe! Nothing to do with me at all!

You're getting tit for tat, and are acting upset about it, I really don't get it.

EDIT: Give me "your way"! Make it an option! If you can do so in a way that won't result in Nybber telling us that "your way" would break their culture, great! But he keeps telling me that you can't.

I did, and he didn't seem to say anything in response to me, so mission accomplished?

More comments

Once you've changed your culture from "building cool stuff" to "checking regulatory boxes and making sure all the regulation-following is documented", you've already done a vast amount of damage. Even if the regulations themselves aren't too onerous.

Can you propose a way that we could change the culture to "do the trivial basic shit so we don't have billions of abhorrently bad products permeating all of our networks"? I'm wide open to ideas you have for how to do this without making anyone check any boxes, but it seems a little unlikely that they won't have to somehow come up with a culture that at least considers having a box for "is this thing not trivially insecure against a handful of the most basic mistakes that everyone has known about for years?"

No, you're asking for an impossibility. You can't have one culture which is both open to new ideas and dedicated to checking boxes.

Ok, I think we've made progress. It is literally impossible for the culture to bother taking the most basic steps to make the billions of devices on our networks not trivially hackable without causing some folks like you to shut down and stop being open to new ideas. These are the stakes as you have presented them. The only question that seems to be available to the general public is what they value.

Different folks can have different values and different answers. I personally fall on the side that I think you're actually just delivering a bullshit threat that is based on a lie. That it's akin to a child swearing that they're going to hold their breath until they die unless you let them have more cookies. No better than saying, "Nice IoT development space you have there; would be a shame if something happened to it." No better than a monopolist swearing that if you let others enter the market, shoddy products will kill everyone. That it's a false dichotomy, propped up just so you can avoid even the smallest iota of boredom, purely in your own self-interest.

But whatever. My opinion on that isn't important. You've laid down the stakes. Society made its choice years ago when California gave the first checkbox. The deed is already done. The only thing left is for us to watch what happens. Does innovation actually die? Do people actually just stop thinking about new ideas, because they might have to not put a default password on their new idea? I guess we'll find out.

Ok, I think we've made progress. It is literally impossible for the culture to bother taking the most basic steps to make the billions of devices on our networks not trivially hackable without causing some folks like you to shut down and stop being open to new ideas.

No, it's literally impossible to make a regulatory culture without shutting down new ideas. Perhaps there's some other way to get the result, but you can't have a culture with both properties. Once you put the commissars in place, initiative declines sharply, and that's unavoidable.

I guess we'll find out.

We've already found out in other areas. We just refuse to learn the lesson.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats