Democracy and the open internet die in daylight(heatherburns.tech)
heatherburns.tech
Democracy and the open internet die in daylight
https://heatherburns.tech/2025/10/22/democracy-and-the-open-internet-die-in-daylight/
119 comments
It's back to this modern business problem: shareholders demand multiple revenue streams now. You can't just sell food, now you also have to surveil your customers and sell their data, show them ads, and get them into a subscription.
I don't think shareholders really demand anything, most of the time. So much of the market is just passive 401k buckets.
This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.
This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.
At least in the case of United, we did see shareholders write angry letters when they temporarily became slightly less aggressive denying customers coverage. If that's the level of care for matters of life and death, why wouldn't it generalize to surveillance?
To be fair, I think McDonald's makes more money on real estate (renting franchise locations) than they do selling food, and the income from data mining customers would probably be a pittance in comparison to both.
Not that I'd put it past them, but I assume the entire point of the Monopoly campaign is advertising, playing on the nostalgia for the original, and that the app is just there because that's what you do now, you just have an app.
Not that I'd put it past them, but I assume the entire point of the Monopoly campaign is advertising, playing on the nostalgia for the original, and that the app is just there because that's what you do now, you just have an app.
"show them ads"
Gas station at 6a, nothing like blaring ads across 20 pumps. What a time to be alive!
Gas station at 6a, nothing like blaring ads across 20 pumps. What a time to be alive!
Can you explain this one for the rest of the world? You guys have ads at petrol stations?
Yes. Most gas stations in the US are self-serve, with screens and buttons next to them. Some are even switching to touch screens. And now some of those screens display ads while you're fueling your car. Hell, some even have sound and it's set at a rather obnoxious volume.
Second button from the top on the right shuts most of those things up in my experience. If not hit every button, usually one of them will work.
Nice! I'll give it a go next time. Thanks for that.
edit: speedway has gone touchscreen, so I wonder if there are ghost buttons then?
edit: speedway has gone touchscreen, so I wonder if there are ghost buttons then?
Unfortunately, my local stations are deep enough into the Enshittification Cycle™ that the formerly-functional pump mute buttons have all been disabled. That seems to be the trend among several of the newer gas stations I've visited lately.
That's the line which, when crossed, I immediately boycott and use another gas station indefinitely, but I get the feeling that it's only a matter of time before they all follow suit.
But surely, “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds” that our late-stage capitalism has so benevolently bequeathed us.
That's the line which, when crossed, I immediately boycott and use another gas station indefinitely, but I get the feeling that it's only a matter of time before they all follow suit.
But surely, “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds” that our late-stage capitalism has so benevolently bequeathed us.
And sell them a credit card, but if you have any questions about that credit card, call the issuing bank because it’s not their problem.
Would it work if we created a crowdsourced vision for each category of product/service, so that any given business would be incentivized to meet these requirements to be able to advertise a product or store is Anti-Enshitified Compliant™?
No more "savey-save fcky-fck" cards/clubs as Bill Burr used to joke. No more apps required just to get a fair price. Get the easily transferable PFAS/PFOA contaminants off of my receipts and food wrappers. The sky is the limit for what we could demand.
Companies/shareholders could choose to comply or not.
No more "savey-save fcky-fck" cards/clubs as Bill Burr used to joke. No more apps required just to get a fair price. Get the easily transferable PFAS/PFOA contaminants off of my receipts and food wrappers. The sky is the limit for what we could demand.
Companies/shareholders could choose to comply or not.
> We used to just walk up to the counter and redeem the reward.
That still works. Instant prizes will have a tiny QR code on them and you can still take them to the counter and let the person behind scan it. At least here in the UK.
That still works. Instant prizes will have a tiny QR code on them and you can still take them to the counter and let the person behind scan it. At least here in the UK.
I might try; assuming there is anyone at the counter to actually scan a QR code. I did some very basic research (US) and while you can still get pieces for free, it seemed to me that you need the app in order to do anything with them. Which seemed potentially illegal, but I guess since the app is free they can still say "no purchase necessary." I mean, a phone to run the app on isn't free...
Well, it's been 10 years since they ran the game because last time they did it there was a massive fraud ring. This time you have to register to play the game, and you register your codes with the app. The app reports how many prizes have been claimed, and which ones, so it's good for players too because last time they got mad thinking they were playing for $1M when it was never going to happen. I agree there are instances where an app isn't warranted, but I think for this game it's app or no game at all. We don't live in 2015 anymore.
I remember the fraud, it was insider theft and distribution of game pieces. I'm sure the new system doesn't make them immune to fraud. It now just takes a different skill set. I don't buy the "We don't live in 2015 anymore." take, do you remember the airport before 9/11? Is it okay to say, "Ah, but we don't live in 2011 anymore." There is a very clear trend of companies gaslighting everyone into thinking something is better when it's clearly only better for the company proposing it. I agree that it's cool to be able to see the remaining prize pool; it'd be really cool if I could see that on the menu, on the kiosk, on a dedicated Monopoly display in the store, etc. McDonald's can use their devices for their promotions, not mine.
It doesn’t make them immune from fraud but it probably makes them not liable now that there’s a TOC you have to agree to before you play.
Washington post has been becoming increasingly irrelevant. They went from 500-800k paid subscribers to less than 100k after Bezos started interfering editorially. Some of the most respected journalists left the paper. So I wouldn’t take WaPo as an indicator of anything; its a Bozos Vanity Project and nothing else.
> So I wouldn’t take WaPo as an indicator of anything; its a Bozos Vanity Project and nothing else.
Meanwhile Laurene Powell (Steve Jobs' widow) owns The Atlantic, and their subscriptions are up and they are now profitable:
* https://wan-ifra.org/2025/05/how-the-atlantic-keeps-subscrib...
* https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/11/media/the-atlantic-magazine-p...
* https://www.pugpig.com/2025/03/14/the-content-and-revenue-le...
One can have a well-run 'vanity project' or a badly-run one.
Meanwhile Laurene Powell (Steve Jobs' widow) owns The Atlantic, and their subscriptions are up and they are now profitable:
* https://wan-ifra.org/2025/05/how-the-atlantic-keeps-subscrib...
* https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/11/media/the-atlantic-magazine-p...
* https://www.pugpig.com/2025/03/14/the-content-and-revenue-le...
One can have a well-run 'vanity project' or a badly-run one.
Always happy for a new news source, I just took a look at the Atlantic. It doesn't seem to have any news, just articles about news. Interesting concept.
> It doesn't seem to have any news, just articles about news. Interesting concept.
Atlantic is/was a monthly magazine so they're not trying to do 'scoops' as much as a traditional daily or weekly magazine. Of course in the current age they do have to post regularly somewhat for traffic: but they've generally been about taking a step and perhaps looking a the bigger picture.
For example, on the politics side they have David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush (#43):
* https://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-frum/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
And Tom Nichols, who taught international affairs and national-security at the U.S. Naval War College:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/author/tom-nichols/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic)
Atlantic is/was a monthly magazine so they're not trying to do 'scoops' as much as a traditional daily or weekly magazine. Of course in the current age they do have to post regularly somewhat for traffic: but they've generally been about taking a step and perhaps looking a the bigger picture.
For example, on the politics side they have David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush (#43):
* https://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-frum/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum
And Tom Nichols, who taught international affairs and national-security at the U.S. Naval War College:
* https://www.theatlantic.com/author/tom-nichols/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Nichols_(academic)
Does Powell make editorial decisions at The Atlantic ?
The problem I think is implied to be the choice to meddle with editorial not per se the choice for wealthy individuals to own such a publication.
I'd be interested with people who buy sports teams and interfere in running the team - does that go similarly poorly? Does it turn out that billionaires aren't great at choosing the team composition and strategy for NFL games ? Surprised Pikachu Face 'cos sure seems like Bezos doesn't understand how to write a great newspaper...
The problem I think is implied to be the choice to meddle with editorial not per se the choice for wealthy individuals to own such a publication.
I'd be interested with people who buy sports teams and interfere in running the team - does that go similarly poorly? Does it turn out that billionaires aren't great at choosing the team composition and strategy for NFL games ? Surprised Pikachu Face 'cos sure seems like Bezos doesn't understand how to write a great newspaper...
> Bezos doesn't understand how to write a great newspaper...
He's not trying to write a great newspaper, he's trying to write a newspaper that curries favor or at least doesn't raise the ire of the current administration.
He's not trying to write a great newspaper, he's trying to write a newspaper that curries favor or at least doesn't raise the ire of the current administration.
> He's not trying to write a great newspaper, he's trying to write a newspaper that curries favor or at least doesn't raise the ire of the current administration.
And I think is a problem with news organizations that are part of larger conglomerates: it may be possible to use leverage on other parts of the business to affect how the news operations are done.
If (say) Bill Gates owned WaPo, he doesn't necessarily care much about how Microsoft is doing anymore. Whereas Bezos probably does still care about Amazon, as well as his space stuff.
And I think is a problem with news organizations that are part of larger conglomerates: it may be possible to use leverage on other parts of the business to affect how the news operations are done.
If (say) Bill Gates owned WaPo, he doesn't necessarily care much about how Microsoft is doing anymore. Whereas Bezos probably does still care about Amazon, as well as his space stuff.
What do you mean? A source says wapo has 130K print and 2.5M online subs.[1] Compare NYT with 660K print and 9.7M online[2] which I imagine have fallen off proportionally in line with wapo.[3]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post
[2]https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/the-new-york-times-made-mo...
[3]https://fourweekmba.com/the-new-york-times-print-subscribers...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post
[2]https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/02/the-new-york-times-made-mo...
[3]https://fourweekmba.com/the-new-york-times-print-subscribers...
Also, that Post figure is from 2023, so subscriptions were that low even before the editorial interference.
The wapo still has over a million paid subscribers.
“The publication has now shed 250,000 subscribers, or 10% of the 2.5 million customers it had before the decision was made public on Friday, according to the NPR reporter David Folkenflik”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...
“The publication has now shed 250,000 subscribers, or 10% of the 2.5 million customers it had before the decision was made public on Friday, according to the NPR reporter David Folkenflik”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...
This is the kind of reassurance that misses the message.
News cannot survive, because it has no real revenue stream.
the NYT figured out video games as a solution.
News cannot survive, because it has no real revenue stream.
the NYT figured out video games as a solution.
Not sure I’d call them _video_ games per se but anecdotally (me) it does work.
That said NYT crossword has existed for much longer, puzzle games are a longstanding feature of many newspapers.
That said NYT crossword has existed for much longer, puzzle games are a longstanding feature of many newspapers.
Argh… yes … I was being lazy, and definitely didnt want to spend the calories figuring out or coining the right classification for what the NYT is doing.
Yes, the crossword has existed for longer, but it was never the core source of funding.
It’s interesting, and I doubt it can scale - every newspaper has its own puzzle section?
Yes, the crossword has existed for longer, but it was never the core source of funding.
It’s interesting, and I doubt it can scale - every newspaper has its own puzzle section?
Right I guess in the old model they were often syndicated. But as a kid I remember seeing things like the jumble, word search, cryptic something or other etc. in my local small-ish city newspaper
...I actually paid for their games app yesterday. I do really like them though.
The Washington Post died when they decided their job was to be activists instead of neutral observers. Jeff Bezos is just another nail in the coffin.
Your post is worthy of a rap song by Ad Homeminem.
”Bozos Vanity” by Ad Homeminem:
Yeah, they preach about truth, but the ink ran dry,
Bought the headlines, thought clout could buy the sky.
Bezos in the lobby, pullin’ strings, that’s the show,
Turned the Post into a post nobody wants to know.
Five hundred K deep, now it’s tumbleweed clicks,
Writers jump ship while the suits play tricks.
Never trust the press when it’s built on a throne,
Every page now reads like a PR zone.
Ad Homeminem, I don’t bow, I expose,
I talk numbers, they talk prose.
Media’s a mirror, cracked and vain,
You can’t buy truth with billionaire pain.
I can actually feel this. Very slick rhymes.
Is posting the prompt today's equivalent of liner notes?
I don't think I agree with equating the scribblings of the Washington Post with "democracy" as a whole. I feel like those are two different things.
WP has the tagline "Democracy Dies in Darkness" and I think the blog post title is a spoof of that.
Maybe we've been reading it wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zon...
I believe that tagline is a threat.
They don't have that tagline anymore.
Ummm they absolutely still do https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Still visible on desktop but not anymore on mobile, it seems. Grey on white (provided your browser requests light mode) is also less easy to spot than their earlier white on black. So I for example was sure it had disappeared until you prompted me to recheck.
This is just the bundling of one product with another. Personally I get the Financial Times as a benefit of another service I pay for. It’s worth it to me, but I don’t really interpret a newspaper as being the arbiter of democracy in the first place.
But if we interpreted the headline as if the article was actually about the idea: I do think there is an interesting idea (which I first read in Byung-Chul Han‘a The Transparency Society) which is that trust and transparency are functionally opposites. We tend to treat transparency as an automatically good thing in democratic systems, but I think you can make the argument that the call for transparency only comes after trust has already been lost.
So it’s not really a solution to a more democratic system that results in more trust between constituents and representatives, but rather just a way to deal with the loss of trust in an ostensibly practical way.
But if we interpreted the headline as if the article was actually about the idea: I do think there is an interesting idea (which I first read in Byung-Chul Han‘a The Transparency Society) which is that trust and transparency are functionally opposites. We tend to treat transparency as an automatically good thing in democratic systems, but I think you can make the argument that the call for transparency only comes after trust has already been lost.
So it’s not really a solution to a more democratic system that results in more trust between constituents and representatives, but rather just a way to deal with the loss of trust in an ostensibly practical way.
> Personally I get the Financial Times as a benefit of another service I pay for.
What service is that?
What service is that?
Thanks for mentioning Byung-Chul Han and The Transparency Society. I previously worked for an organization that promoted government transparency. Here, I'd like to share my take in the hopes of it being useful and/or getting feedback. Here's the first paragraph from [1]:
> Transparency is the order of the day. It is a term, a slogan, that dominates public discourse about corruption and freedom of information. Considered crucial to democracy, it touches our political and economic lives as well as our private lives. ...
The core argument for why transparency is crucial for democracy is can be framed as a question. How can people be sufficiently informed to govern themselves without information? This leads to follow-up questions like: (1) How much will it "cost" to get X more units of transparency? (2) How much will this help? (3) Who will "pay" for it (in terms of political capital and issue prioritization)?
> ... Anyone can obtain information about anything. Everything—and everyone—has become transparent: unveiled or exposed by the apparatuses that exert a kind of collective control over the post-capitalist world.
I take Han's meaning, but there are major limits to this. Practically, various byzantine corporate ownership structures can make it very resource-intensive -- sometimes nearly impossible given a time deadline -- to make sense of who controls what.
Information has the potential to move way faster than our ability to vet it.
> A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. [2]
Back to Han, second paragraph from [1]:
> Yet, transparency has a dark side that, ironically, has everything to do with a lack of mystery, shadow, and nuance. Behind the apparent accessibility of knowledge lies the disappearance of privacy, homogenization, and the collapse of trust.
Speaking in terms of statistical association, sure. Transparency may co-occur with the negatives listed above. But -- YIKES -- the quote above muddles the issue! We should not confuse causality: transparency does not cause a lack of trust once you include the other relevant factors. [3] Transparency promotes trust in the long run, even as it highlights scandals and corruption in the short-run.
Don't shoot the messenger. Don't blame transparency. The deeper problems tend to involve human nature (e.g. greed, power-seeking, tribalism), misaligned incentives, ineffective institutions, and eroded norms. [4]
Too much of anything can be a problem, but in aggregate, I doubt we have too much transparency in government and corporate affairs.
Of course transparency is not free; we want to spend our political capital strategically on the better kinds of transparency. Nuance matters. For example, effective negotiation requires that leaders can speak candidly and off the record when working out deals. However, once a proposal is hammered out, there should be a sufficiently-long public comment period so the public and interested parties have time to make sense of whatever has been proposed and get involved.
[1]: https://www.sup.org/books/theory-and-philosophy/transparency...
[2]: Who originally said this? Twain? Churchill? Not according to the analysis at https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ which suggests the core idea can be traced to Jonathan Swift in 1710.
[3]: I'm a huge proponent of promoting clear and direct statements of causality, rather than burying one's assumptions. See Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why" as well as his more technical work on causality.
[4]: One can divide this up in different ways, but I think this four-way split is reasonably useful.
> Transparency is the order of the day. It is a term, a slogan, that dominates public discourse about corruption and freedom of information. Considered crucial to democracy, it touches our political and economic lives as well as our private lives. ...
The core argument for why transparency is crucial for democracy is can be framed as a question. How can people be sufficiently informed to govern themselves without information? This leads to follow-up questions like: (1) How much will it "cost" to get X more units of transparency? (2) How much will this help? (3) Who will "pay" for it (in terms of political capital and issue prioritization)?
> ... Anyone can obtain information about anything. Everything—and everyone—has become transparent: unveiled or exposed by the apparatuses that exert a kind of collective control over the post-capitalist world.
I take Han's meaning, but there are major limits to this. Practically, various byzantine corporate ownership structures can make it very resource-intensive -- sometimes nearly impossible given a time deadline -- to make sense of who controls what.
Information has the potential to move way faster than our ability to vet it.
> A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. [2]
Back to Han, second paragraph from [1]:
> Yet, transparency has a dark side that, ironically, has everything to do with a lack of mystery, shadow, and nuance. Behind the apparent accessibility of knowledge lies the disappearance of privacy, homogenization, and the collapse of trust.
Speaking in terms of statistical association, sure. Transparency may co-occur with the negatives listed above. But -- YIKES -- the quote above muddles the issue! We should not confuse causality: transparency does not cause a lack of trust once you include the other relevant factors. [3] Transparency promotes trust in the long run, even as it highlights scandals and corruption in the short-run.
Don't shoot the messenger. Don't blame transparency. The deeper problems tend to involve human nature (e.g. greed, power-seeking, tribalism), misaligned incentives, ineffective institutions, and eroded norms. [4]
Too much of anything can be a problem, but in aggregate, I doubt we have too much transparency in government and corporate affairs.
Of course transparency is not free; we want to spend our political capital strategically on the better kinds of transparency. Nuance matters. For example, effective negotiation requires that leaders can speak candidly and off the record when working out deals. However, once a proposal is hammered out, there should be a sufficiently-long public comment period so the public and interested parties have time to make sense of whatever has been proposed and get involved.
[1]: https://www.sup.org/books/theory-and-philosophy/transparency...
[2]: Who originally said this? Twain? Churchill? Not according to the analysis at https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ which suggests the core idea can be traced to Jonathan Swift in 1710.
[3]: I'm a huge proponent of promoting clear and direct statements of causality, rather than burying one's assumptions. See Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why" as well as his more technical work on causality.
[4]: One can divide this up in different ways, but I think this four-way split is reasonably useful.
The first two paragraphs of the book aren’t a thesis statement. He explores the idea of transparency and trust in various contexts, so I don’t really think you can provide much of a counter argument without reading the whole thing. Or at least the particular section / chapter that he discusses different manifestations of transparency.
The two paragraphs I quoted come from the description of the book, directly from the publisher: Stanford University Press.
Below, I'll quote some sections from the book directly. But first, I will be transparent in saying I think the book is _deeply_ flawed. I expect a lot more from a philosopher. I'll explain my reasons below.
The quotes below are from "The Society of Control" chapter. They are contiguous sentences taken from one paragraph, but below I have split them apart for commentary.
> Trust is only possible in a state between knowing and not-knowing.
Ok, but I don't think this framing is very useful or clarifying. One framing I find very useful for trust goes like this: Party X _expects_ Party Y to take some _action A_. It is a triple: (X, Y, A).
> Trust means establishing a positive relationship with the Other, even in ignorance.
This doesn't cut to the core of it. I don't think it is useful to frame trust only as a positive two-way relationship; one needs the third element: trust to do something.
> [Trust] makes actions possible despite one’s lack of knowledge.
No. Trust is not needed to make actions possible. Actions are possible in a state of incomplete knowledge. (This is painful to read; this is supposed to be thoughtful philosophy -- it is supposed to clear things up, not muddle things.)
> If I know everything in advance, there is no need for trust.
This sentence does not distinguish present knowledge from future knowledge.
For example, if I know about a potential business partner's other financial interests (present knowledge), this is very helpful for predicting the future (what the person might do). It makes it easier to trust, in my sense of the word (above) -- it makes it sensible for me to expect that the person will act in ways that I'm ok with, in the scope of a potential business relationship. Why? Because I better understand their holdings, which is a part of their interests.
> Transparency is a state in which all not-knowing is eliminated.
I don't care for this binary framing. Practically speaking, transparency is a matter of degree.
> Where transparency prevails, no room for trust exists.
Restated: if a party has complete knowledge of the world, present and future, there is no need for trust. Stated that way, I agree, but is close enough to a tautology to be uninteresting.
Personally, by this point I'm "off the train". Han's style of writing (and presumably thinking) is useless to me.
> Instead of affirming that “transparency creates trust,” one should instead say, “transparency dismantles trust.”
I will grant the author uses their terminology in a consistent way. I just find it maddening because it doesn't connect with reality. [1] But by this point, the cognitive dissonance between what everyday people mean by trust is so great that this sentence comes across as absurd.
> The demand for transparency grows loud precisely when trust no longer prevails.
There is a grain of truth here. But the word precisely is wrong to the extent it means "if and only if". Sure, one purpose for transparency is to "right the ship" so to speak. But once the ship is sailing in the right direction, smart people recognize that transparency was a contributing factor, so they rightfully think "let's maintain our levels of transparency so we can keep reaping the rewards."
> In a society based on trust, no intrusive demand for transparency would surface. The society of transparency is a society of mistrust and suspicion; it relies on control because of vanishing confidence.
This touches on how the author defines control from the last chapter "The Society of Control". Suffice it to say for now that I find the thinking behind it rather lacking.
> Strident calls for transparency point to the simple fact that the moral foundation of society has grown faulty, that moral values such as honesty and uprightness are losing their meaning more and more.
At this point, I want to be blunt, as I've lost most of my patience with the author. A philosopher that writes "the simple fact" is engaging with rhetoric instead of careful thinking. Shameful. Mention of morality and culture tend to be far from simple; they are complex in that they involve the interactions of millions of people.
> As the new social imperative, transparency is taking the place of a moral instance that would break new ground.”
This sentence posits that transparency somehow crowds-out morality. This is unconstrained by reality. We can see in the real world that transparency works symbiotically with morality.
By this point in my commentary, I'm pretty much uninterested in this book by Byung-Chul Han. He's an interesting person, but in this case, I'm not getting much value. I seek clear writing, truth-seeking behavior, and insight.
I recognize my cantankerousness. I decided to leave in my personal reactions not because I expect them to be persuasive but rather because they are transparent: you can read my logic and you can see how strongly it affects my emotions. As Daniel Kahneman explained, these are connected and not necessarily for the worse.
Finally, there are philosophers that I highly value. The warmth and joy I get from them more than makes up for the frustration I get from philosophers like Han. I accept this as a kind of tradeoff.
[1]: I have to admit, this is a common pain point I find when reading certain philosophers -- they reappropriate language in highly specific ways that lead to preposterous sounding claims. To some degree, I get it -- I want philosophers to define their terms. But in my view, this is little comfort. When a writer redefines words in a way that strikes people as outlandish, the writer must recognize that human cognition is a real factor. When words get mangled to the point of incredulity, it is high time the author think to themself "maybe I should find a clearer word or phrase here -- or maybe I should make one up."
Below, I'll quote some sections from the book directly. But first, I will be transparent in saying I think the book is _deeply_ flawed. I expect a lot more from a philosopher. I'll explain my reasons below.
The quotes below are from "The Society of Control" chapter. They are contiguous sentences taken from one paragraph, but below I have split them apart for commentary.
> Trust is only possible in a state between knowing and not-knowing.
Ok, but I don't think this framing is very useful or clarifying. One framing I find very useful for trust goes like this: Party X _expects_ Party Y to take some _action A_. It is a triple: (X, Y, A).
> Trust means establishing a positive relationship with the Other, even in ignorance.
This doesn't cut to the core of it. I don't think it is useful to frame trust only as a positive two-way relationship; one needs the third element: trust to do something.
> [Trust] makes actions possible despite one’s lack of knowledge.
No. Trust is not needed to make actions possible. Actions are possible in a state of incomplete knowledge. (This is painful to read; this is supposed to be thoughtful philosophy -- it is supposed to clear things up, not muddle things.)
> If I know everything in advance, there is no need for trust.
This sentence does not distinguish present knowledge from future knowledge.
For example, if I know about a potential business partner's other financial interests (present knowledge), this is very helpful for predicting the future (what the person might do). It makes it easier to trust, in my sense of the word (above) -- it makes it sensible for me to expect that the person will act in ways that I'm ok with, in the scope of a potential business relationship. Why? Because I better understand their holdings, which is a part of their interests.
> Transparency is a state in which all not-knowing is eliminated.
I don't care for this binary framing. Practically speaking, transparency is a matter of degree.
> Where transparency prevails, no room for trust exists.
Restated: if a party has complete knowledge of the world, present and future, there is no need for trust. Stated that way, I agree, but is close enough to a tautology to be uninteresting.
Personally, by this point I'm "off the train". Han's style of writing (and presumably thinking) is useless to me.
> Instead of affirming that “transparency creates trust,” one should instead say, “transparency dismantles trust.”
I will grant the author uses their terminology in a consistent way. I just find it maddening because it doesn't connect with reality. [1] But by this point, the cognitive dissonance between what everyday people mean by trust is so great that this sentence comes across as absurd.
> The demand for transparency grows loud precisely when trust no longer prevails.
There is a grain of truth here. But the word precisely is wrong to the extent it means "if and only if". Sure, one purpose for transparency is to "right the ship" so to speak. But once the ship is sailing in the right direction, smart people recognize that transparency was a contributing factor, so they rightfully think "let's maintain our levels of transparency so we can keep reaping the rewards."
> In a society based on trust, no intrusive demand for transparency would surface. The society of transparency is a society of mistrust and suspicion; it relies on control because of vanishing confidence.
This touches on how the author defines control from the last chapter "The Society of Control". Suffice it to say for now that I find the thinking behind it rather lacking.
> Strident calls for transparency point to the simple fact that the moral foundation of society has grown faulty, that moral values such as honesty and uprightness are losing their meaning more and more.
At this point, I want to be blunt, as I've lost most of my patience with the author. A philosopher that writes "the simple fact" is engaging with rhetoric instead of careful thinking. Shameful. Mention of morality and culture tend to be far from simple; they are complex in that they involve the interactions of millions of people.
> As the new social imperative, transparency is taking the place of a moral instance that would break new ground.”
This sentence posits that transparency somehow crowds-out morality. This is unconstrained by reality. We can see in the real world that transparency works symbiotically with morality.
By this point in my commentary, I'm pretty much uninterested in this book by Byung-Chul Han. He's an interesting person, but in this case, I'm not getting much value. I seek clear writing, truth-seeking behavior, and insight.
I recognize my cantankerousness. I decided to leave in my personal reactions not because I expect them to be persuasive but rather because they are transparent: you can read my logic and you can see how strongly it affects my emotions. As Daniel Kahneman explained, these are connected and not necessarily for the worse.
Finally, there are philosophers that I highly value. The warmth and joy I get from them more than makes up for the frustration I get from philosophers like Han. I accept this as a kind of tradeoff.
[1]: I have to admit, this is a common pain point I find when reading certain philosophers -- they reappropriate language in highly specific ways that lead to preposterous sounding claims. To some degree, I get it -- I want philosophers to define their terms. But in my view, this is little comfort. When a writer redefines words in a way that strikes people as outlandish, the writer must recognize that human cognition is a real factor. When words get mangled to the point of incredulity, it is high time the author think to themself "maybe I should find a clearer word or phrase here -- or maybe I should make one up."
Trust/faith in "democracy" is a fools religion. 100% transparency is the only way out of the pit of feces we find ourselves in election after election.
I have a hard time believing that you can build a truly democratic culture without a level of shared trust and values. In the sense of it being “rule of the people” rather than rule of the elite, monarchy, etc.
In a properly functioning democracy, I think you’d want leaders to want to be a part of the political process. The more hostile and demanding that becomes, the less likely you’ll get those people in positions of power.
In a properly functioning democracy, I think you’d want leaders to want to be a part of the political process. The more hostile and demanding that becomes, the less likely you’ll get those people in positions of power.
How do you enforce a democracy is functioning properly?
We’re going to see a bigger rise up of independent media, and that means that Substack, Patreon, and other platforms that exist to spread a message to paid subscribers are vulnerable to the same buy and squash tactics as traditional media.
We certainly need a more P2P, version of this type of platform and a way to fund and scale it such that it can’t be messed with by billionaire hacks.
The odds of this being wildly successful are pretty slim, I’d say…
We certainly need a more P2P, version of this type of platform and a way to fund and scale it such that it can’t be messed with by billionaire hacks.
The odds of this being wildly successful are pretty slim, I’d say…
This supposed "independent media" in hostage to about 4 or 5 centrally controlled platforms that dictate discoverability, delivery. Payment controlled by even less. How would that turn out any different?
That’s exactly the point. Right now, “independent media” (across all political spectrums, mind you) is trying to rise up, but they’re doing so on platforms that _could_ easily turn them off. There’s a ton of multi-million subscriber Left leaning, independent media channels on YouTube that could easily become irrelevant by a simple “change to the algorithm” that squashes them.
Patreon, Substack, etc are no different. We’ve seen people be silenced on X. We’ve also seen payment processors disallow payments to organizations and whatnot.
This is all a problem.
Patreon, Substack, etc are no different. We’ve seen people be silenced on X. We’ve also seen payment processors disallow payments to organizations and whatnot.
This is all a problem.
There's some kind of missing link here between p2p and "I write for a living" that I don't think is going to be bridged any time soon. Funding and p2p / independent might not be compatible organisms in today's social and economic environment. We've had the tools for this for decades and it's never been achieved at scale and sustainably. I don't think it ever will.
> in today's social and economic environment.
True. I don’t think it was ever successful, because it requires a strong ideological point of view from the people who are supposed to support this idea. With so much distraction in the digital world today, this seems close to impossible.
True. I don’t think it was ever successful, because it requires a strong ideological point of view from the people who are supposed to support this idea. With so much distraction in the digital world today, this seems close to impossible.
Independent media is not vulnerable to buy and squash because another will just rise in it's place every time you squash one. Supply follows demand, and there are no barriers to entry. It is vulnerable to the much more insidious force of audience capture, though.
The problem is that we don’t have distributed systems of discovery. Patreon, Substack, etc, are all centralized. You have to migrate your audience, and you’ll lose some every time.
So yes, another will rise up. But even better would be a distributed network that actually _works_, immune to the threat of centralization.
So yes, another will rise up. But even better would be a distributed network that actually _works_, immune to the threat of centralization.
> We certainly need a more P2P, version of this type of platform and a way to fund and scale it such that it can’t be messed with by billionaire hacks.
We already have that. Selfhosting is possible, and today even simpler than ever. And there is a multitude of systems and platforms which one can use to collect money as long as it's not doing something too critical, like porn or terrorism. Influencers have those field already covered well, and will continue building them to avoid the hefty shares on their usual platforms.
We already have that. Selfhosting is possible, and today even simpler than ever. And there is a multitude of systems and platforms which one can use to collect money as long as it's not doing something too critical, like porn or terrorism. Influencers have those field already covered well, and will continue building them to avoid the hefty shares on their usual platforms.
Patreon, Substack, etc have benefits in discovery. Self hosting requires that you figure out how to get discovered. That’s the main problem here.
That's a different problem, and won't be solved by any P2P-platform. There are more than enough ways for discovering selfhosted content, people just don't use it.
> people just don't use it.
… which means it’s a problem.
… which means it’s a problem.
No, not really. You want to change the world, but bring up a technical solution, when it's a social situation. If you want to strengthen indymedia, then work on the social level, not technology. Reinventing the same thing again, will not change anything.
You’re not wrong to bring up the social level, but you also have to combat the technological level as well. The systems that already exist don’t work not just because of social reasons. Mastodon/ActivityPub was gaining decent traction, despite its usability problems … and then the more usable, better funded BlueSky stepped in.
There are lots of options for running your own Mastodon/ ActivityPub implementation, etc—it’s not easy, though. This is purely a technical problem.
Of course, I am not really talking about Chirp clones here, but this is a pretty good analogue for comparison.
There are lots of options for running your own Mastodon/ ActivityPub implementation, etc—it’s not easy, though. This is purely a technical problem.
Of course, I am not really talking about Chirp clones here, but this is a pretty good analogue for comparison.
Wouldn't any system that enables funding be susceptible to influence by the rich? Why would any sort of P2P/decentralized/etc system be impervious to that?
It’s less about being susceptible to influence by the rich. Nothing can truly stop that. It’s more about ensuring that platforms can’t silence dissent.
You can dissent in an echo chamber but it doesn’t do any good.
You can dissent in an echo chamber but it doesn’t do any good.
Because there is no "the rich." There are millions of them and they have many competing interests.
There is "the rich", and that they have competing interests isn't really relevant to the issue of their ability to purchase influence in media. It doesn't matter if their interest is "good" or "bad"
(And also, they have some shared interests, like "staying rich", although I see you call that a "shared goal"; a distinction without a difference, it seems to me.)
(And also, they have some shared interests, like "staying rich", although I see you call that a "shared goal"; a distinction without a difference, it seems to me.)
True, but they also have a combined interest in growing their wealth that comes at the cost of leaving less pie for the rest of us.
I can’t think of many (Massie maybe?) rich (no black and white definition) that are using their wealth to better their fellow citizens to their own detriment. Most of them see it as another tax to prevent keep their heads attached.
I can’t think of many (Massie maybe?) rich (no black and white definition) that are using their wealth to better their fellow citizens to their own detriment. Most of them see it as another tax to prevent keep their heads attached.
A combined goal (growing wealth) is much different than a combined interest because the ways they go about it are very different and in many times conflicting. Taking pie from other rich people is many times a much superior strategy to taking it from the poor. e.g. OpenAI just launched a competitor to Chrome. And talking about "growing wealth" is much too general here because that applies to everyone, not just rich or poor.
They have a shared interest in using their wealth to enrich themselves (or their true home nations) instead of their countrymen.
Taking pie from other rich people is only lucrative because the wealth gap is so massive and consistently increasing. My point is rich people should be utilizing their wealth to enrich their fellow Americans (or whatever country they live in), but all the existing ones do not have this as a primary goal. They throw some pittances - just enough to keep people from revolting.
The majority of us are growing wealth so we don’t die on the streets. The rich have already cleared this goal post, and instead of making it their primary goal to give back they continue to take. Those in power could use their power to prevent this but don’t. That is their shared interest. It’s why every politician in America becomes more wealthy after entering office. It’s why corruption is rampant. It’s why we have no borders and let corporations abuse workers. The system is setup (this is the shared interest) to empower a few at the top.
Taking pie from other rich people is only lucrative because the wealth gap is so massive and consistently increasing. My point is rich people should be utilizing their wealth to enrich their fellow Americans (or whatever country they live in), but all the existing ones do not have this as a primary goal. They throw some pittances - just enough to keep people from revolting.
The majority of us are growing wealth so we don’t die on the streets. The rich have already cleared this goal post, and instead of making it their primary goal to give back they continue to take. Those in power could use their power to prevent this but don’t. That is their shared interest. It’s why every politician in America becomes more wealthy after entering office. It’s why corruption is rampant. It’s why we have no borders and let corporations abuse workers. The system is setup (this is the shared interest) to empower a few at the top.
> class war isn't the driving force of society
wrong
wrong
In the sense that war between opposing factions of the upper class is what you mean by "class war" then you would be right.
> Journalism (or what’s left of it now) is in the state it’s in because of the adtech funding model. I don’t know what the solution is.
A P2P [1] social media swarm where identities are signed pseudoanonymous hashes optionally tied to identity proofs. Reputation can be gained in the peer and interest graphs.
Advertisers and attention seekers can still exist in such a system without being obtrusive - they can flag their messages by signing them with proof that they burned funds contributing to a charity (or deposited funds to my personal inbox). Eg., "this message from xyz recruiter deposited $1 in your account - read?", or "this MrBeast video provably donated $1M to the EFF - watch?"
Journalists can make money on the graph by soliciting donors or publishing content to certain nodes early for a fee.
[1] not federated, apart from proxy publishing or relay nodes
A P2P [1] social media swarm where identities are signed pseudoanonymous hashes optionally tied to identity proofs. Reputation can be gained in the peer and interest graphs.
Advertisers and attention seekers can still exist in such a system without being obtrusive - they can flag their messages by signing them with proof that they burned funds contributing to a charity (or deposited funds to my personal inbox). Eg., "this message from xyz recruiter deposited $1 in your account - read?", or "this MrBeast video provably donated $1M to the EFF - watch?"
Journalists can make money on the graph by soliciting donors or publishing content to certain nodes early for a fee.
[1] not federated, apart from proxy publishing or relay nodes
There are plenty of outlets creating and reporting original news that are not dependent on adtech. They just aren't traditionally "mainstream" and so a lot of people don't like them
Whuffies from Doctorow's In and Out in the Magic Kingdom? Bitcoin could had derived into this 15 years ago, but it turned into another shackle in our chains. If it can be attributed some value, then it probably will end in a similar way.
I don't care for crypto at all, but if you burn money to talk to me or send me information, I might pick up. I would prefer to be paid for attention rather than have a third party be paid.
Nostr is starting to look something like P2P social, but it's still got a long way to go and isn't mainstream friendly enough. This needs kid-friendly coating. It should just work out of the box and have Meta-caliber product leadership.
Nostr is starting to look something like P2P social, but it's still got a long way to go and isn't mainstream friendly enough. This needs kid-friendly coating. It should just work out of the box and have Meta-caliber product leadership.
Perplexity browser marketing is everywhere. Glenn Greenwald promotes Comet while talking about Snowden, privacy and security.
And they tell us that revenue growth is organic. When Google was new, you didn't need a single ad.
And they tell us that revenue growth is organic. When Google was new, you didn't need a single ad.
When Google Chrome was new it was advertised a ton of places. All sorts of applications and plugins would by default install Chrome at the same time unless you opted out.
Not that that makes this any less bad, but it seems the more fair comparison.
Not that that makes this any less bad, but it seems the more fair comparison.
I had totally forgotten about a Chrome download being sneaked into applications. It used a number of dark patterns like having the "install chrome" tickbox being light grey on top of white or it being hidden in "customise install" options.
Was commonplace for a while. Oracle even installed the Ask browser toolbar when you installed their database, with the same easy-to-miss opt-out checkbox. Pretty crazy.
Yes it was really annoying. I was using one of the Chromium forks and Chrome used to sneak onto the machine unless you vigilante. It felt like the bad old days of shareware and bonzi-buddy had returned.
I like using perplexity itself. However them forcing their browser everywhere is annoying.
Also Gleen Greenwald will shill absolute any old nonsense. I used to watch his occasionally and he was doing ad read for these awful ads about vegetable drinks, like Alex Jones is infamous for. It was nauseating.
Also Gleen Greenwald will shill absolute any old nonsense. I used to watch his occasionally and he was doing ad read for these awful ads about vegetable drinks, like Alex Jones is infamous for. It was nauseating.
Yeah, it's really disappointing. Circa 2006 his blog and analysis were insightful and something I followed closely, but his overall attitude and connection to reality radically changed somewhere between 2012 and 2016.
I think honestly it is the incentives of streaming and how the media works.
That's not true though, Google did plenty of advertising
Looking forward to this venture going up in flames honestly.
There is only so much malfeasance I can swallow, and Perplexity tick a few too many boxes.
There is only so much malfeasance I can swallow, and Perplexity tick a few too many boxes.
You’d think with all OpenAIs money, talent, and 10x devs due to AI they could make a new browser and capture that same feeling chrome did back in the day when it first came out.
That they did not is very telling about how the future is going to play out. This is a cash grab before the bubble pops.
That they did not is very telling about how the future is going to play out. This is a cash grab before the bubble pops.
I don't think it's really possible to do that now just by throwing eng at it. Chrome being a monopoly hasn't actually stopped Google from improving it massively since it came out 17 years ago, so the bar is much higher. Browsers are a mature market now and I doubt that releasing something dramatically better than Chrome is possible just by engineering a better version of the same concept like Chrome was when it released. It would require a fundamentally novel breakthrough in UX design that renders Chrome obsolete, and that's much more likely to come out of a small startup than somewhere like OpenAI.
Google has pushed enough anti consumer (pro big tech) policies and features that simply putting out a pro consumer product would be a defining feature.
What does a pro-consumer Chrome actually look like? There are, AFAIK, 4 business models for browsers:
1. You pay for it in cash
2. It's "free" but you pay for it with your data which is harvested and used to target ads at you
3. The weird Brave crypto model which basically does what 2 does, but you get some token for it
4. The Firefox sell your search traffic to Google model
Number 1 gets completely blown out by 2 when they compete in the market to the point it doesn't exist anymore, so that's not really viable. 3 seems scammy and nobody really wants it anyway. 4 is what I use, but let's face it, it's just 2 light with better ad blocking. It's also probably on its last legs since the courts have ruled that Google can't buy default search (which ironically will probably enhance its monopoly position).
1. You pay for it in cash
2. It's "free" but you pay for it with your data which is harvested and used to target ads at you
3. The weird Brave crypto model which basically does what 2 does, but you get some token for it
4. The Firefox sell your search traffic to Google model
Number 1 gets completely blown out by 2 when they compete in the market to the point it doesn't exist anymore, so that's not really viable. 3 seems scammy and nobody really wants it anyway. 4 is what I use, but let's face it, it's just 2 light with better ad blocking. It's also probably on its last legs since the courts have ruled that Google can't buy default search (which ironically will probably enhance its monopoly position).
> It's also probably on its last legs since the courts have ruled that Google can't buy default search (which ironically will probably enhance its monopoly position).
"Under the court's ruling, Google will still be permitted to pay for search placement --- those multi-billion-dollar arrangements with Apple and Mozilla can continue."
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/09/google-wont-have-to-...
"Under the court's ruling, Google will still be permitted to pay for search placement --- those multi-billion-dollar arrangements with Apple and Mozilla can continue."
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/09/google-wont-have-to-...
I am proposing a new model, yes. I’d like to see a pro American billionaire doing what’s good for the people instead of what’s maximally profitable. They could leverage profit in other areas to finance an unprofitable (but morally correct) business.
Long term a regime change is needed because you will lose to immoral competitors, but it’s the only fight worth fighting.
I also realize Sam Altman is a sociopath who would never do this.
Long term a regime change is needed because you will lose to immoral competitors, but it’s the only fight worth fighting.
I also realize Sam Altman is a sociopath who would never do this.
My take: AI Investors are forcing us all into their pyramid scheme to make AI seem relevant.
your retirement fund is probably already loaded up with investment in PE that owns these AI plays most of which will be worthless, so it's already too late; you ARE own of the AI investors.
The good news for our collective investments in stupid technology is we’ve apparently decided never to let the market drop significantly in absolute terms ever again, even to let the air out of an obvious bubble.
The bad news is we’re accomplishing that via high levels of inflation, so pretty soon $5m will be the new $1m.
The bad news is we’re accomplishing that via high levels of inflation, so pretty soon $5m will be the new $1m.
I have no retirement fund for exactly this reason. I gave up on stocks and capitalism in 1999. I live off of social security now, socialism at its' finest.
I don't think this is a great article, as I think it focuses too much on the Washington Post, but there are some issues that will have to be addressed in American democracy.
National democracy is built on top of local democracy, in the sense of local self-rule -- if local democracy is dying then national democracy will tend to die, but if local democracy is thriving, national democracy is largely guaranteed.
About local democracy:
1. Local city government is now less accountable because of the death of local newspapers. The public must have some idea what politicians are doing, but without local newspapers there is no one to report what is happening at the local level.
2. This is related to people (since the 1960s) losing interest in local government. When I was a child my parents both served in the local government, I remember being 7 years old and getting taken to meetings where the room was packed. But when I was 42 I drove my mom to a town meeting and I was shocked to see that the room was empty, literally, there was not a single citizen who had come out for the meeting that evening. The only people in the room were the politicians (all of whom were volunteers, as it was an unpaid position -- they were civically minded citizens).
3. Local democracy worked best when families stayed in one town for generations, and so had a long-term commitment to the health of the town. But the modern life-style, even for the middle class who are the most likely to serve in government, involves buying a starter home in one town, then a bigger home for a family (in another town), then a retirement home, possibly in another state. Most families now assume they will only be in a given town for 10 or 20 years, so their focus tends to be on minimal taxes, rather than long-term investments in the town.
4. For local government, possible solutions include abolishing local democracy and making the positions appointed (most roles are already appointed, of course) from the state level, or making the towns much larger (a large percentage of a given state) or limiting voting to those who pass some test, or who demonstrate citizenship by volunteering some time, or by having frequent elections to a staggered city council (as frequent voting tends to reward the few citizens who are highly active).
Anyone who thinks these moves are anti-democratic should remember that local government elections tend to only get 15% to 20% participation rates, so most of the public has already voluntarily disenfranchised itself.
Any democracy will automatically be the democracy of those who show up. There is no democracy for the truly apathetic. But local and regional self-rule can remain strong so long as citizens who are active in civic affairs can continue to exercise rule at the local level, without being blocked those who are non-active.
There remains a controversy whether "democracy" means "the right to vote" or "a population engaged in self-government." That is, does "democracy" refer to "self expression via voting" or does it refer to actual government arising from the local population? Those who feel that "democracy" means "self expression" tend to think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens, they see themselves as buying government services (with taxes) rather than the producers of government. But local self-rule does not survive for long in areas where people see themselves mostly as consumers of government services. Local self-rule survives thanks to the civically minded citizens who are willing to volunteer their time to creating governance.
National democracy is built on top of local democracy, in the sense of local self-rule -- if local democracy is dying then national democracy will tend to die, but if local democracy is thriving, national democracy is largely guaranteed.
About local democracy:
1. Local city government is now less accountable because of the death of local newspapers. The public must have some idea what politicians are doing, but without local newspapers there is no one to report what is happening at the local level.
2. This is related to people (since the 1960s) losing interest in local government. When I was a child my parents both served in the local government, I remember being 7 years old and getting taken to meetings where the room was packed. But when I was 42 I drove my mom to a town meeting and I was shocked to see that the room was empty, literally, there was not a single citizen who had come out for the meeting that evening. The only people in the room were the politicians (all of whom were volunteers, as it was an unpaid position -- they were civically minded citizens).
3. Local democracy worked best when families stayed in one town for generations, and so had a long-term commitment to the health of the town. But the modern life-style, even for the middle class who are the most likely to serve in government, involves buying a starter home in one town, then a bigger home for a family (in another town), then a retirement home, possibly in another state. Most families now assume they will only be in a given town for 10 or 20 years, so their focus tends to be on minimal taxes, rather than long-term investments in the town.
4. For local government, possible solutions include abolishing local democracy and making the positions appointed (most roles are already appointed, of course) from the state level, or making the towns much larger (a large percentage of a given state) or limiting voting to those who pass some test, or who demonstrate citizenship by volunteering some time, or by having frequent elections to a staggered city council (as frequent voting tends to reward the few citizens who are highly active).
Anyone who thinks these moves are anti-democratic should remember that local government elections tend to only get 15% to 20% participation rates, so most of the public has already voluntarily disenfranchised itself.
Any democracy will automatically be the democracy of those who show up. There is no democracy for the truly apathetic. But local and regional self-rule can remain strong so long as citizens who are active in civic affairs can continue to exercise rule at the local level, without being blocked those who are non-active.
There remains a controversy whether "democracy" means "the right to vote" or "a population engaged in self-government." That is, does "democracy" refer to "self expression via voting" or does it refer to actual government arising from the local population? Those who feel that "democracy" means "self expression" tend to think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens, they see themselves as buying government services (with taxes) rather than the producers of government. But local self-rule does not survive for long in areas where people see themselves mostly as consumers of government services. Local self-rule survives thanks to the civically minded citizens who are willing to volunteer their time to creating governance.
> Leaving aside the idea of access to any form of content being conditional on the use of a proprietary browser, which is a particularly horrid 1990s throwback
This concept is far more popular now than it might ever have been in the 1990s. Look at Discord.
This concept is far more popular now than it might ever have been in the 1990s. Look at Discord.
Can’t blame communities for putting up their drawbridges and filling in moats either on an increasingly hostile internet. Unfortunately many don’t realize that discord is its own prison of sorts.
What is meant by this ?
AI scraping, online harassment, etc. makes people like me want to build more of a “fort” than an open community because I feel a responsibility to protect the community we’ve already built.
Discord makes it somewhat easy to keep folks/entities out that you don’t want around, hence so many hobbies and such moving into the space off traditional forums and social media. But it also silos off knowledge which means other folks can’t find it. It’s a real catch 22
Discord makes it somewhat easy to keep folks/entities out that you don’t want around, hence so many hobbies and such moving into the space off traditional forums and social media. But it also silos off knowledge which means other folks can’t find it. It’s a real catch 22
Okay, I think I understand, but Discord users typically use other apps too. So I wonder about the extent of this
It’s just something I have observed both with professional and hobby communities I participate in. I can’t say it with any sort of real numbers behind it. Just ~vibes~ or whatever we want to call it haha
Discord still works fine in your normal browser. I'm not aware of any content that requires the use of its Electron app—obviously it has more platform integration features, like slightly better screen sharing (and audio sharing on mac), but nothing groundbreaking.
> Discord still works fine in your normal browser. I'm not aware of any content that requires
A browser that can only go to https://discord.com is a proprietary browser.
A browser that can only go to https://discord.com is a proprietary browser.
Correct, but OP was talking about access being conditional on using a proprietary browser. Users can use normal, non-proprietary browsers to access discord.com. Nothing in Discord requires users to use their proprietary browser, like this Perplexity subscription does.
So? Everything in Discord requires users to use discord.com.
?????
Considering BolexNOLA left a comment demonstrating perfect understanding of this situation before you left yours, I'm not sure what you think is supposed to be confusing.
Discord makes a proprietary browser available. You can run it from your desktop or from your web browser. All content in Discord can only be viewed by going through Discord's proprietary browser. Your regular web browser can't access it at all.
Discord makes a proprietary browser available. You can run it from your desktop or from your web browser. All content in Discord can only be viewed by going through Discord's proprietary browser. Your regular web browser can't access it at all.
I can't open the article.
> We're sorry, but access from your location is not allowed. If you are a user with administrative privilege please enter your email below to receive instructions on how to unblock yourself.
How ironic.
> We're sorry, but access from your location is not allowed. If you are a user with administrative privilege please enter your email below to receive instructions on how to unblock yourself.
How ironic.
Seems as if they die in *open daylight.
*paywalled
*paywalled
The solution is the same as it has always been, stop spending time and money on things that are frustrating. If enough people do it in aggregate, then things will change; but I'll be damned if people aren't slow to catch on.