> The cyberlibertarians wanted you to believe that radical individualism plus deregulated capitalism plus inevitable technology would produce communitarian utopia. This is, on its face, insane. It is the economic equivalent of claiming that if everyone punches each other really hard, eventually we'll all be hugging.

The alternative, of course, is that a nanny state + highly regulated tech + inevitable technology leads to exactly the outcomes we have now. I’d prefer something else personally.

▲

killretards 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> highly regulated tech

If tech were "highly regulated", the largest tech companies wouldn't be constantly promoting scams to me.

	▲	nothinkjustai 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It’s possible for something to be both highly regulated and bad. Regulation is not a silver bullet.
	▲	nephihaha 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe the regulations are there to protect large corporations and the government but not the rest of us? I hate the way politics is presented as a binary choice between getting controlled by big business or big government (or a combination of the two).

▲

mikem170 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about radical individualism + regulated tech - inevitable technology?

I don't see anything wrong with individuals who by consensus choose to regulate "inevitable" technology. Technology is not a person, and we don't need to make ourselves subservient to it.

I'm thinking of things like liability as a publisher for algorithmic feeds, anti-trust enforcement against companies competing unfairly, mandates for inter-operability to avoid user lock-in, limitations on surveillance capitalism, protections for personal data, maybe also regulating things like advertising, campaigning, fake news, etc.

▲

nothinkjustai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

“Individuals by consensus” feels oxymoronic to me. If that’s a description of the outcome, it’s possible today! Individuals can chose not to use a technology and if enough do so to form a consensus, they may be able to impose constraints on the technology akin to regulation.

However anything else would require coercive power structures which go against the idea of radical individualism.

	▲	mikem170 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Big tech is a coercive power. They are cooperating with the government to control the population. Doesn't that worry you? Don't you think there should be limits, beside profitability? I think of it as flaws in our system that need to be patched. The masses are manipulated by their algorithms. Those who would protest are surveilled by them. The rich seem to be running everything to their advantage. The rugged individualist is running out of space.