Posted by
glen ropella on
Jan 04, 2011; 10:36pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wikileaks-Mirror-Taken-Down-Host-Buckles-Under-Demands-from-Upstream-Provider-Electronic-Frontier-Fon-tp5887442p5890406.html
Steve Smith wrote circa 11-01-04 08:57 AM:
> Glen Ropella wrote:
>> Douglas Roberts wrote circa 01/03/2011 08:00 PM:
>>> Fuck 'em. There are 1,426 other mirrors, plus uncounted "stealth"
>>> mirrors out there ready to go live if needed.
>> That misses the point, though. It's not about Wikileaks. It's about
>> the (some particular, not all) corporations and the systemic culture of
>> fear.
>
> And I think that singling out the specific individual corporations or
> people who get caught out acting in the manner which is otherwise
> generally approved and accepted misses the point as well.
Hm. It seems to me that the systemic problem you're pointing out is
caused by our unwillingness to identify and avoid reinforcing the bad
behavior. The reason such bad behavior is otherwise generally approved
and accepted is because not enough people even notice or think about it.
We see this sort of behavior all the time and we think, "Meh, so what?
Aren't corporations _supposed_ to be sociopathic? That's the way our
society works!"
I see this in microcosm all the time. I see my friends take jobs with
companies without negotiating any significant ownership. They typically
say that they need the job too badly to press the negotiation. Or they
claim that the stock's not worth anything, anyway. Similarly, most of
the tech people I know would rather have a boss than be a boss... or
even have to help organize a decision process other than autocratic.
Even here in the People's Republic of Portland, commitment to
collectives is mostly lip service. They _expect_ companies to trample
over individuals. That's just how it works! They expect their
employers to fire them at will. They expect to "get a job" instead of
"creating jobs".
The only way around that systemic issue that I know of is to identify
the good and bad behavior and reward and ignore/punish it, respectively.
To ignore it is to approve of and accept it. That ignoring is the
cause of the systemic dysfunction.
> It has always been the case that industry has arranged for the majority
> of the risk or consequences to fall somewhere besides inside their
> boundaries.
Well, I'm not a very good student of history; but my guess is that this
isn't necessarily true, emphasizing your phrase "always been the case".
Perhaps there have always been exploiters in the system. That I could
buy. And perhaps there are periods where the defectors are more common
than the cooperators. I suspect now might be one such time. But to say
that industry has always externalized costs assumes a great deal of
intelligence on the part of industry. Perhaps one might say that
industry always _tries_ to externalize costs, but often fails (as
evidenced by the huge percentage of companies that fail)?
And we have to be careful not to conflate "always" with "everywhere". I
suspect companies reared in some societies/cultures are more
exploitative than those reared in other societies/cultures. It's also
true that companies consist of multi-scale subgroups, many of which
operate on different principles (almost by definition). This allows
multinationals to have different standards in one country from another
but retaining the same (or an illusion of same) identity.
I think your brush is a bit too broad, is all.
Again, ultimately, the problem lies with the acceptance and approval of
the society in which the corporations sit. And how can we, or the
corporation, know what's acceptable or unacceptable unless we identify
good and bad behavior? So, it's rooted in identifying it.
> Do we buy gasoline or other petroleum products that ultimately came from
> BP and Exxon, or industrial chemicals/products from Union Carbide
> still?
Yes, of course we do. But as was suggested in some of the Wikileaks
philosophy, the point is not to root out and eliminate all evil, or even
secrecy. The point is simply to make it _difficult_, to regulate it.
You don't have to leak every secret. You only have to impress upon the
bad guys that you're there and unless they're very careful, we will
identify their bad behavior.
Such regulation actually makes the bad guys efficient because they pay
closer attention to where and when they engage in the bad behavior (e.g.
keeping secrets -- unlike with the Bush admin stamping every document
that slides across anyone's desk).
> Many boycotted them as best they could at the time of the
> accidents, but then either returned to patronizing them after a suitable
> period of mourning/indignation or pushed their products into wholesale
> markets where we never see the source but continue to reap the
> convenience/benefits/marginal-effeciencies of their risk-taking (at
> other's expense).
Boycotts are useless. What matters is the steady regulation ... the
continual pressure that bad behavior will be spotted. In many cases,
you don't even need any sort of punishment. (I'm sure Nick or someone
else can even cite evidence that punishment doesn't work nearly as well
as positive reinforcement.) All you need is _awareness_ ... identification.
> I'm not trying to defuse the righteous indignation against these things,
> or the desire to not reinforce bad behaviour, but rather trying to point
> out that the problems we face are deeper and more systemic than the
> specific behaviour of specific corporations/groups in specific
> circumstances.
Yes, it is deeper and more systemic. But I'm proposing that the cause
of the systemic problems are simply lack of attention. We don't pay
attention to where our gasoline comes from; hence those who provide it
can do whatever they want. If we paid attention, that wouldn't be the case.
And I'm a big believer in leading by example. If I expect others to pay
attention, I have to pay attention. Hence, the point is to identify
SiteGround, SoftLayer, AT&T, Amazon, Visa, etc. and identify the bad
behavior. Frivolously cutting off a customer, spying on your customers,
etc. is bad behavior. And it doesn't matter if the bad actors go out of
business or suffer economically. It also doesn't matter if the agenda
of the customer is sustained and achieved (e.g. the 1426 other cable
mirrors). What matters is that the bad actors are publicly called out
for their behavior.
> I strongly agree with Glen's last statement, the only challenge is to
> not stop with the most obvious or recent offenders, but to apply it even
> more deeply.
Yes. It takes a sustained and nontrivial effort. If we're not willing
to make that effort, then we deserve the result.
> I'm surely doing it right here, noticing that for every
> Amazon, PayPal, Visa, MasterCard or SiteGround/SoftLayer there are
> thousands more that have not had the opportunity (yet) to show their
> ugly stripes,
Precisely the point. If we identify the bad actors and the bad
behavior, then those other guys who have yet to be shamed in some way,
will think twice before exposing their bad behavior... they may even
avoid the bad behavior altogether. But if we do and say nothing, then
there's no reason for them to behave any differently. In fact, there's
plenty of "good business" reasons for them to behave like the other bad
actors.
> I wonder sometimes why, in the frictionlessness of our new economy and
> virtual marketplaces that we don't have more voluntary, collectivism?
> Why are there not CoOperative ISPs, Virtual Marketplaces,
> Credit/Purchase-Card systems, Gasoline/Oil/Mineral
> exploration/production systems, Insurance (Life, Auto, Health)
> Systems? Even Itsy and Craigslist are privately held, even if they are
> not conventional in their profit motives.
>
> If we vote more with our $$ than our votes, why can't we have at least
> as (hopefully much moreso) righteous options for how we spend those $$
> and obtain those services/products as we do for electing officials...
> wait! Why don't we have as good of choices for our elected officials as
> we do for our acquisition of goods and services? Wait... it all
> sucks! Why?
>
> Surely there is more we can do than shift around subtly in the shades of
> grey, moving our votes from one evil to a (currently perceived to be)
> lesser one. Or not?
>
> Is it as simple as economies of scale? Is it as simple as "Power is
> Corruption" joined with "Money is Power"?
Personally, I think it's all a matter of attention. The more abstracted
you are from your products, the worse it'll get. What you don't know
_will_ hurt you (or someone else). It has little to do with autocratic
versus collective rule and everything to do with how motivated each
consumer is to actually understand how their products come into being.
There are some efforts that require autocratic rule, quick decisions,
single points of responsibility. And there are some that require
collective rule. But to remain efficient, both types require sufficient
attention from their customers.
--
glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org