Technology

59495 readers

3114 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

309

We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by drd@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With Google's recent monopoly status being a topic a discussion recently. This article from 2017 argues that we should nationalize these platforms in the age of platform capitalism. Ahead of its time, in fact the author predicted the downfall of Ello.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won't be able to do anything about it.

They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.

You are saying this

Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.

as part of discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won't stop them. Only force will.

French political tradition and all that.

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won't be able to do anything about it.

I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.

They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.

This is why I advocate for decentralizing power (and the dissolution of all hierarchies and hierarchic power structures). The last thing I want is a despot using the current mechanisms of power and centralize everything, and have such an absurd amount of power.

You are saying this [cut quote about my advocacy of decentralization] as part of a discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.

I agree. Every single movement that has gone against a component of the government required either violence, or backed, credible threats of it. The government will never reduce its power to the benefit of the people, even if that policy is popular.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.

There are issues with that position as well, as described best in chapter 38 of Tao Te Ching. Anarchy would be "doctrine of humanity" in that quote, while the current state of things would be "li" (which is bad), and the previous supposedly good state of things would be "justice".

[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not familiar with taoism, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I've read the chapter on this site.

I think you are talking about this paragraph:

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual. Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.

I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Li is Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(neo-Confucianism)), or in the quote I have, ritual? Are you saying I'm an advocate for Justice in the sense of this quote? I think you are either misunderstanding me (I know I am not understanding what you are saying since it is unclear), or ascribing a set of values to anarchism that doesn't line up with what I'm arguing in order to dismiss my argument.

To be fully clear, I'm going to elaborate on what I'm saying. I'm giving a simple cause and effect statement here, not some moral justification. When there is a liberatory movement that threatens the power structure that enforces hierarchy that oppresses people, those in power will use their position to make the movement, threatening tactics/techniques of, or other things done by the people of the movement illegal, necessitating breaking the law to continue. Working within the shifting bounds of law is insufficient.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It was a fuzzy thought about anything done by abstract ideal rules being a bad solution IRL.

Like sure, anarchism is fine, but if right now you are a group of honest people with some time-pressing threat, it may be better to do things the old-fashioned way and choose a leader for the time being.

About the original subject of this conversation - we were agreeing with each other.

No, you'd be an advocate for goodness, many people would be advocates for kindness, status quo 20 years ago would be justice, and ritual would be what we have now. Anyway, don't look too much into this, I just thought it fit. If I'm understanding it correctly, Tao Te Ching actually is supposed to be treated that carelessly, ha-ha.