Digital rights are a way to stabilize the online environment. To turn it into a place that generates positive returns over time.
Right now, the online environment is unstable, prone to non-linearity in the public sphere, and extractive (to the extreme) in the economic sphere.
How do digital rights emerge? Three pathways:
1) Government mandate. 2) Internet standard. 3) Crypto backdoor.
What are digital rights?
1) Identity + rights (access, speech, adjudication). Anonymity still exists, but it doesn't get the rights associated with identity.
2) Data ownership. You own your data (from personal details to interactions with online services). This is a recognition of the fact that this data is becoming the most valuable resource in the world, and we are getting little benefit from it (think serfs).
3) Open platforms. This is mostly a small business issue. App stores (they take 30% of all transactions) and soft blocks on building communities on social networks (unless you pay them big $). In order to accelerate small business formation, these barriers must be minimized.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
DeSantis: “If you riot, you are going to jail, and you are going to have to spend time in jail. If you assault law enforcement in a violent assembly, you are definitely going to go to jail. You burn down somebody’s business. ...”
Harsher punishments if committed 'in furtherance of a riot.'
"For instance, a burglary committed by a rioter would be elevated from a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison."
New definitions for a riot:
"a public disturbance of at least three people with a “common intent.." A new crime of aggravated rioting... if the disturbance involves nine or more people and results in “great bodily harm,” property damage over $5,000 or blocks traffic..."
@donwinslow crosses the line between the public debate over a complex issue and agitprop aimed at inciting violence against Americans.
The fact that this video still has a platform after being seen by ~3m people shows that the social networks aren't trying to stop violence, they are trying to gain political favor.
The REAL danger facing a world interconnected by networking isn't disruption. As we have seen on numerous occasions, the danger posed by disruptive information and events is fleeting.
1/n
"Disruption, although potentially painful in the short term, doesn't last, nor is it truly damaging over the long term. In fact, the true danger posed by an internetworked world is just the opposite of disruption."
2/n
"This danger is an all-encompassing online orthodoxy. A sameness of thought and approach enforced by hundreds of millions of socially internetworked corporations. A global orthodoxy that ruthless narrows public thought down to a single, barren, ideological framework."
3/n