I somewhat like the phrase “digital sovereignty” in this piece worth considering from @parismarx.
-
I somewhat like the phrase “digital sovereignty” in this piece worth considering from @parismarx.
I’m ambivalent about the ways in which both the piece and the phrase muddle •human self-determination• in the digital domain with the •sovereignty of states•. To the article’s point, those things are in principle linked: democracies are in principle a counterbalance to the power of monied interests. In principle.
In practice…
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by [email protected]
…modern states are a mixed blessing, and when they are repressive, digital state sovereignty acts in •opposition to• digital self-determination. Some form of “cyberlibertarianism” is welcome in countering repressive regimes. But (to the piece’s point) the very digital ungovernability that serves that goal has also enabled monopoly formation and corporate unaccountability.
Not sure a better vision is in crisp focus yet. I do agree that we tech folk need to do some rethinking of values.
2/2
-
@inthehands Thanks for the thoughts, and I largely agree with that. I’m not trying to suggest states are perfect by any means, but the only way I see of taking on the power of tech monopolies and trying to build an internet that’s more oriented around public benefit than profit is through engaging with governments in a constructive way and acknowledging that not all cultures have the same values as the US cyberlibertarians.
-
@parismarx
Yes. State power is necessary to counter monopolies, probably the most effective way (if states actually choose to use that power).I’m looking for a values framing here that can harmonize “don’t let the gov install backdoors in Signal“ and “don’t let corporations exist beyond regulatory oversight just because they’re tech companies.” Those two things really shouldn’t be in inherent conflict; it’s crisp, unifying framing I’m looking for.