I would totally pay a global tax to the UN to get access to a truly free internet run by them. And I would even pay tenfold to give that same freedom to nine people I don’t know and who might be totally against my values. 1/2

@dredmorbius and I’m on your side. So let’s move onward. Find better solutions. Expose the failures. Iterate. Look forward.

@jwildeboer So, a couple of approaches I try to use:

1. Establish common ground or agreement.

2. Identify concerns or disagreeent.

3. Seek to expand 1 and shrink 2.

Which follow.

@jwildeboer A first question might be:

What problem are you trying to solve?

E.g., what's wrong with present systems? What do you want to do?

@dredmorbius I’ve said that in this very thread three times. We. Need. Global. Governance. For. Global. Problems. And our current systems do not deliver, as you pointed out. So. What’s next?

@jwildeboer @dredmorbius The problem is there's no guarantee that a global solution will end up with the freedoms you desire; most of the world doesn't have that level of freedom, so the likely outcome of global agreement is global agreement to censor.

@penguin42 @jwildeboer @dredmorbius indeed. yes. philisophical hypothetical: what if there were a magical oracle that could tell you exactly what the best global solution to a problem is, infallibly, and the oracle said “dictatorship with tight speech controls”, would you accept it as the correct answer? how would you react?

Follow

@zensaiyuki Fundamentally, I have the same problem with your philosophical oracle as I do with Jan's original problem statement. The argument begs its premise (in the correct sense, not the more usual "raises the question" form).

Literally, Jan's system is "truly free" by definition. Literally, the oracle is always correct, by definition.

Even if we accept the premise, but reject the answer because it violates our values, we end with a paradox: it's not optimal.

@penguin42
@jwildeboer

@dredmorbius @penguin42 @jwildeboer i don’t object to your objection. i am only using the oracle as a shortcut to get to a new premise.

@zensaiyuki I'm willing to relax the conditions further and posit an until-now-fully-reliable oracle. One that's not guaranteed to be perfect, but which has always led us to the correct conclusion in the past.

Again: if the answer it arrives at violates a fundamental value set of mine, I will reject that answer.

From which I would conclude that values, not some demonostrable or probable correctness, has primacy.

Which leads to a second challenge:

Differing values.

@penguin42 @jwildeboer

@zensaiyuki How do you address the situation within some global problem scope (that is, there is only one possible option), where parties can come to no mutual best agreement due to mutually conflicting values.

There are a few possible options.

If you can alternate choices at different time periods, that is an option. It's not always possible though.

You can both elect for your 2nd (or lower) preference, until you arrive at a mutually acceptable one.

Majority vote.

@penguin42 @jwildeboer

@zensaiyuki Random sortition.

You could look to other domains for potential resolutions. Evolution fights things out, without negotiated settlement. Need not involve direct combat, as one option might simply out-compete another, over time.

But that's straying from your oracle. Short answer, is that the best-oracle-solution is a red herring, and that values are ultimate guides, superior to logic or algorithm, at least for volitional choice.

@penguin42 @jwildeboer

@dredmorbius @penguin42 @jwildeboer i’ll show my cards then and just say my position, and argument conclusion is that there does not exist a globally aggreeable system of government. the oracle conceit was an attempt to lead you to this conclusion socratically. yes, people have different values. who are you to imose yours on everyone else?

@zensaiyuki @dredmorbius @penguin42 @jwildeboer
Note that Facebook attempts to impose a single global set of values on all Internet interaction. Need I say more?

@mathew @zensaiyuki @dredmorbius @jwildeboer Yes you should! You should say what the alternative is if when you communicate by facebook you're talking to people in many different countries; how can they do anything other than use one standard?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
mastodon.cloud

Recently, the handling of online defamation has become a hot topic on many mass media as well as social media channels. News Article for Reference: https://www.jiji.com/sp/article?k=2020052500387 In response to these reports, it is expected that lawsuits and disclosure requests will become more publicly known; and government agencies will order stricter enforcement in addition to tightening regulations. However, under the current state of Japan, we will not be able to handle the increase of such administrative burdens and will have trouble dealing with it appropriately. Thus, we have decided to stop providing our service on mstdn.jp and mastodon.cloud starting June 30, 2020. We are very sorry for the inconvenience and appreciate your understanding on the matter.