Menu Close

Tag: idealism

This website was archived on July 20, 2019. It is frozen in time on that date.
Exolymph creator Sonya Mann's active website is Sonya, Supposedly.

Pointillism of Failure

One of the most interested things that happened this week was an AWS outage. For those of you who aren’t familiar, Amazon Web Services is a sophisticated cloud host for websites and apps. It is very widely used, especially among startups. When it goes down, as it did on Tuesday, many tech workers can’t do their jobs. At least Twitter was still available, providing a convenient location for complaints. (Additional discussion took place on Hacker News.)

I wrote about the incident for work, first summing up reactions from Twitter and then making the case that AWS is not a monopoly and shouldn’t be regulated as such. In response to that argument, my friend Adam Elkus pointed out that decentralized infrastructure was a founding ideal of the internet. The beautiful new world of http://www was supposed to empower individuals at the expense of institutions, be they governmental or private.

It has done that — but as usual, the reality is more of a complex onion than the idealists seemed to expect. In my first Ribbonfarm essay, I wrote:

The internet enables more individual opportunity than ever before — how would my words manage to reach you otherwise? And the internet is more meritocratic than the landscape it took over, because anyone can distribute their own work to a potential audience of millions, but of course age-old power dynamics can’t be erased in one fell swoop. It also enables winner-take-all businesses, like Amazon’s dominance in ecommerce and Facebook’s reign over news media.

Centralization wins because it’s efficient, given the constraints and affordances of the internet. And yet this centralization can be penetrated — not dismantled, but surface segments can be peeled back. That’s what hackers do when they leak a database or whatever.

One of cyberpunk’s central insights, as an ethos, was that the internet gives individuals more power at the same time that amoral, corporatized institutions build up their strongholds. It’s funny that some of the same people — the cypherpunks, say — explicitly bridged cynical cyberpunk and sunny techno-utopianism.

In John Perry Barlow’s “Independence of Cyberspace” manifesto, presented to “Governments of the Industrial World” at Davos, he said:

The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish. […] We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

No one can arrest our thoughts, unless they’re hosted on AWS — a factory of the information economy if there ever was one — in which case someone fat-fingering a command kicks your thoughts into the inaccessible nowhere of a disconnected server farm. It’s impossible not to be at someone’s mercy.


Header artwork by Igor Kirdeika.

Look Ye on the Downsides

Today I’m test-driving an idea that will probably find its home in an upcoming Ribbonfarm essay. It’s loosely inspired by recent episodes of EconTalk. As always, feedback is welcome!


I’ve identified a fallacy within my own thinking, and I suspect it’s a widespread one. I tend to assume that if all my preferred policies were implemented, the world would be perfect. All problems would be solved. No child would ever go hungry and tax incentives would be perfect.

This is sort of an internal motte and bailey. When I think about it consciously, my rational side says, “Obviously switching to your preferred policies wouldn’t fix everything, even in the unlikely event that all of your choices were good ones. You can never escape tradeoffs!” Then my dreamy emotional mind lapses back into fantasizing about my hypothetical regime causing utopia.

In reality, almost every decision has a negative effect on somebody. The average policy debate isn’t one-sided, however much it may appear be. (In fact, both sides are motivated to portray their view as the only sensible or acceptable one. Both sides are stubbornly blind to the tradeoffs they’re accepting. Even if those tradeoffs are slight or defensible! We like to moralize them into oblivion, until anyone who admits that the tradeoffs exist is reflexively ostracized.)

Scott Alexander put it this way:

Political debates are pre-selected for “if it were a stupider idea no one would support it, if it were a better idea everyone would unanimously agree to do it.” We never debate legalizing murder, and we never debate banning glasses. The things we debate are pre-selected to be in a certain range of policy quality.

That range of policy quality seems pretty damn wide, but it’s like the Overton window — however nutty the ideas at the edges seem, you should hear the ones outside of them! Going back and forth about universal basic income is different from going back and forth about whether adult men should be allowed to work at all. The latter idea is obviously stupid. Although the occasional extremist makes proposals along those lines, they’re mostly ignored.

Mostly.

What’s dangerous, in the sense that change is always dangerous, is when extremists get to push on the Overton window and shift it. When extremists introduce ideas that are just a hair outside the mainstream, and therefore not suicide for public figures to adopt. Cthulhu may swim left in the long run, but in the short run there’s a lot of turmoil and we get buffeted back and forth.

But hey, that’s how progress happens! For example, decades of abolitionist activism helped make the Emancipation Proclamation politically possible. Along with a war.

Head Transplants & Idealism

Photo by Newtown grafitti [sic].

Photo by Newtown grafitti [sic].

I can’t stop thinking about “The Audacious Plan to Save This Man’s Life by Transplanting His Head”. It’s a fascinating article. Both the patient and his doctors seem delusionally optimistic. Long story short, we don’t have the technological capability to do this even semi-safely.

On the other hand, progress happens when people push the envelope, not when people plod along, dissatisfied with the status quo but willing to let it change incrementally over the course of many decades. That’s why the world needs activists and idealists — they make a lot of noise and force shifts in public sentiment, at which point the pragmatists start reworking their plans.

The irony is that I’m the second type of person, one of the plodders. I’m a cynic and an incrementalist, especially when it comes to politics. For example, I’ve written before about my frustrations with anarchists and libertarians, even though I share many of their goals and principles. I just don’t have much faith in visions of utopia — even though utopians are the ones who push all of us toward slightly less awful realities.

I think the disconnect is that I expect people to be selfish, and I’m skeptical that we can figure out a general resource-allocation method that’s better than markets. (Certain things like healthcare are b0rked by markets, but in some ways even healthcare is over-regulated.) I’m not sure I believe in a world without hunger, or rape, or corruption, or any number of bad things.

But hey, maybe, if the overzealous doctors get approval from the Chinese government, soon enough I’ll believe in a world where quadriplegics and people with degenerative diseases can get head transplants. Perhaps not successful head transplants — that will come later.

Indifference To Libre Software

Battle of Copyright! Illustration by Christopher Dombres.

Illustration by Christopher Dombres.

I want to quote some passages from an astute but idealistic essay that security developer Matthew Garrett wrote in 2014 about libre software. (If you’re not familiar with that term, go read this long explanation on GNU’s website. Then dive into Richard Stallman’s bonkers absolutist computer habits.) Garrett’s blog post is called “My free software will respect users or it will be bullshit”. He proposes that…

“the freedoms guaranteed by free software are largely academic unless you fall into one of two categories — someone who is sufficiently skilled in the arts of software development to examine and modify software to meet their own needs, or someone who is sufficiently privileged [read: has enough money or social capital] to be able to encourage developers to modify the software to meet their needs.”

He goes on to say:

“Concentrating on philosophical freedoms without considering whether these freedoms provide meaningful benefits to most users risks these freedoms being perceived as abstract ideals, divorced from the real world — nice to have, but fundamentally not important.”

My reaction to this was basically, “Well, yeah. That’s not a risk; that’s a reality. Zero normal people care about libre sofware.” Unless you want to study, change, or redistribute the source code, why even think about the license? The closest you’re going to get to a regular ol’ person who cares about libre software is someone like me, a tech commentator with an inferiority complex because she doesn’t know how to code. And I’m lukewarm on it. Sure, I’m glad that libre software exists, but I don’t think the movement’s priorities are moral imperatives.

By nature, libre software is a niche concern. The majority is never going to care. People vote with their eyeballs and their wallets, and by those measures they’ve overwhelmingly elected proprietary products like Facebook and Apple’s sprawling empire. That’s fine! An influential minority of hackers and their ilk will continue to love and make libre software. We’ll be okay.

© 2019 Exolymph. All rights reserved.

Theme by Anders Norén.