I don't. Regulation is the key in my opinion. Not fully sure what policies need to be enacted, but at the very least prohibit automated bans except for very trivial cases that don't really need human review.
OP is arguing about us stop relying on over centralized corporations and to start using the tools (that already exist!) based on free software where such type of arbitrary rulings are impossible.
Your response is "mah regulation".
On Hacker News of all places, I'd expect that people were at least willing to take control of their lives and actions, and not to cry from oppressive authority to another, thinking that we can only choose the lesser of two evils.
Where has that spirit gone, really? Is it a generational thing?
You wrote this like the ideas are mutually exclusive. They're not. I want both regulation of massive internet services and for mastodon and others to become more common choices.
> based on free software where such type of arbitrary rulings are impossible.
Software license has nothing to do with what rulings are possible. If you're found to be doing something illegal, it's on you to figure out how to deal with that. It may involve not using that software.
But we don't live in a Cyberpunk dystopia. Government regulation is useful for many things. The answer to corps running wild does not have to be starting an isolated system from scratch.
I wouldn't consider the abolishment of child labor or enforcement of the 40 hr standard workweek as "completely useless"
If government is supposedly accountable to the people it should serve public ends. If it doesn't it should be replaced. I thought that was the entire "Amwrican experiment"? Huh, guess it's a generational thing
> I wouldn't consider the abolishment of child labor or enforcement of the 40 hr standard workweek as "completely useless"
Regulations haven't abolished any of that, they just pushed to China, where you still happily buy products from because they are so cheap.
> American experiment
First, the American experiment was to have a loosely coupled federation of states and to have spread power on the lower spheres of influence. That experiment has been abandoned for a while.
Second, the world should not not revolve around what American people and its government wants to do.
No I'm likely older than you and definitely older than the median on this site and have always basically believed regulation is a more effective solution than blaming users for their problems.
Saying that people are complacent and expecting the audience of a site called Hacker News to be mindful of their self-sovereignty is far from "blaming users for their problems".
The fact that an older individual shares one idea with the younger generation does not exclude the possibility of it being a generational divide.
Kudos, though, for also sharing the younger trait of treating every argument as something about their own identities.
Something I also share with the younger generation is the understanding that the cowardice of their elders is what got us all in this situation to start with. "Self-sovereignty" and individualism are failed ideologies: we will solve this for all of us or for none of us.
A large contingent of ""hackers"" throws up their hands and say "fine none of us then as long as I can insulate myself from the worse effects of it" and yes that is a shameful abdication of the responsibilities we have towards each other. Sorry if you find your own identity in there but you don't have to be so complacent about it yourself either.
You are putting "individualism" where none was mentioned.
> "fine none of us then as long as I can insulate myself from the worse effects of it".
No. More like "there is no way that any central entity will be able to solve the conflicts of everyone without turning into authoritarianism and tyranny, so let's stop pretending that we can do that and create a plethora of different communities where people are closer to those with decision-making power."
I can (and want) to help my neighbor and those close to me as equals, but I have no interest in being a mere subject serving as an instrument to whoever is in power above.
So... based on the fear of a particular outcome, you want a situation where individuals and small groups must solve the problem for themselves or accept the consequences?
The language may be uncharitable but I remain comfortable calling that cowardice and user-blaming, yes. I stand where I stand on this.
The only cowardice I see is in those thinking they can not fight by themselves and for others, and want to have a soothing voice telling them how to feel.
> The government is not supposed to be oppressive.
All "Big" Governments are oppressive, as all "Big" anything is. The only difference is in how they exert their power, and what type of people are at the top of each pyramid.
Even "totally democratic" powers of the west will quickly attempt to crush anything that takes that power away from them and show potential to liberate people.
I don't. Regulation is the key in my opinion. Not fully sure what policies need to be enacted, but at the very least prohibit automated bans except for very trivial cases that don't really need human review.