51% democracy vs ~100% democracy
In a 51% democracy you just barely pass the bar, and then assume all will do as you say. They won't.
The ideal is actually a ~100% democracy. An opt-in society, where everyone has chosen to be there. And can leave.
In a 51% democracy you just barely pass the bar, and then assume all will do as you say. They won't.
The ideal is actually a ~100% democracy. An opt-in society, where everyone has chosen to be there. And can leave.
Set aside the question of whether ~100% democracy is practical for a second. (The ~ indicates that 100% is an asymptotic goal, even if not fully achieved.)
Once you agree it is desirable — and morally superior if feasible — then you start thinking about whether we can build it.
Once you agree it is desirable — and morally superior if feasible — then you start thinking about whether we can build it.
The fundamental concept is that democracy is about the *consent of the governed*.
If you have only 51% support, you have the absolute minimum necessary level of consent.
It's a democratic Fosbury Flop. You just barely clear the bar.
archive.is/aP2hv#selectio…
If you have only 51% support, you have the absolute minimum necessary level of consent.
It's a democratic Fosbury Flop. You just barely clear the bar.
archive.is/aP2hv#selectio…
This gets worse if that 51% is an unstable majority that constantly flips back and forth.
There's a temptation for the party in power to impose, say, an emergency...to use the state to ideologically crush the 49% in order to build a supermajority.
Eg:
medium.com/s/state-of-the…
There's a temptation for the party in power to impose, say, an emergency...to use the state to ideologically crush the 49% in order to build a supermajority.
Eg:
medium.com/s/state-of-the…
The social war
In 1861, the sides were physically and ideologically separated. So blue's victory condition was simple: invade gray.
By 2016, the blue and red were overlapping in physical space, but disjoint in digital space. So victory meant invading the other side's mind.
In 1861, the sides were physically and ideologically separated. So blue's victory condition was simple: invade gray.
By 2016, the blue and red were overlapping in physical space, but disjoint in digital space. So victory meant invading the other side's mind.
Once you reconceptualize what's going on as a social war, you see that debates about free speech and the like only capture part of it.
Unbanking, cancelling, deplatforming, and the like are tactics in a social civil war, waged on digital platforms.
Silencing *as* violence.
Unbanking, cancelling, deplatforming, and the like are tactics in a social civil war, waged on digital platforms.
Silencing *as* violence.
If you can invade the other faction's territory, you invade their territory. When you cannot do that — when your faction lives alongside theirs in a hopelessly fractal mix in the physical world — then you invade their mind.
Hence, the ongoing social war.
Hence, the ongoing social war.
How do you know you've invaded someone's mind?
When you can force them to say a word.
Or not say a word.
Or put a given phrase on their site.
Territory shifts with each such declaration. Hence all the tribal affiliations in bios. It's a digital game of capture-the-flag.
When you can force them to say a word.
Or not say a word.
Or put a given phrase on their site.
Territory shifts with each such declaration. Hence all the tribal affiliations in bios. It's a digital game of capture-the-flag.
Where is the social war waged? On the internet. We see this from the way factions line up across national borders. For example:
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1494036808388075521
The real borders in the social war are those of language, not state.
The CCP has wrapped up the Chinese theater, by establishing total root control.
But the battle for the English internet continues, which is why the establishment wants CCP-like control.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The CCP has wrapped up the Chinese theater, by establishing total root control.
But the battle for the English internet continues, which is why the establishment wants CCP-like control.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
That's the establishment's "war of restoration".
A social war, waged on the English internet, where victory means control of mind, and where control of mind is signaled by forcing you to voice regime shibboleths.
"Disinformation" thus signals disloyalty.
archive.is/IFcne#selectio…
A social war, waged on the English internet, where victory means control of mind, and where control of mind is signaled by forcing you to voice regime shibboleths.
"Disinformation" thus signals disloyalty.
archive.is/IFcne#selectio…
In many ways this was predictable.
Social media is American glasnost, and cryptocurrency is American perestroika.
Like the USSR, the USA's order cannot withstand truly free speech and free markets.
history.com/topics/cold-wa…
Social media is American glasnost, and cryptocurrency is American perestroika.
Like the USSR, the USA's order cannot withstand truly free speech and free markets.
history.com/topics/cold-wa…
Unlike the USSR or PRC, the US didn't realize just how controlled its speech and markets really were, till social media & cryptocurrency.
The USSR consciously reformed, and collapsed.
The PRC consciously did not reform, and did not collapse.
The USA unconsciously reformed, and…
The USSR consciously reformed, and collapsed.
The PRC consciously did not reform, and did not collapse.
The USA unconsciously reformed, and…
It's worth stepping back to realize just how controlled speech & markets were in the US till recently.
A nominal right to freedom of speech didn't matter if you didn't own a newspaper. Nominal access to free markets didn't matter as much if it was too costly to start a company.
A nominal right to freedom of speech didn't matter if you didn't own a newspaper. Nominal access to free markets didn't matter as much if it was too costly to start a company.
The ongoing Counter-Decentralization likely succeeds in the East & fails in the West.
It will succeed in China because they censored and cracked down early.
It fails in the West because the establishment won't be fully able to impose harsh controls on a nominally free society.
It will succeed in China because they censored and cracked down early.
It fails in the West because the establishment won't be fully able to impose harsh controls on a nominally free society.
That is, China set up its Great Firewall and social media censorship when those technologies were at "seed stage". The Western establishment only reacted when they were at billion-person stage. So they paid up to crack down, and did so incompletely and incompetently. Fortunately!
Another way to think about it: technology allowed people to actually engage in the rights they were nominally granted in a free society.
Actual freedom of speech, actual free markets, global freedom of reach.
The result? A reduction in establishment power. Hence, the crackdown.
Actual freedom of speech, actual free markets, global freedom of reach.
The result? A reduction in establishment power. Hence, the crackdown.
The pre-internet order gave people the nominal right to start a company or speak their minds. It was just incredibly expensive to do so.
Once that became very *inexpensive*, all the newly independent founders & billions of people online threatened the US establishment's control.
Once that became very *inexpensive*, all the newly independent founders & billions of people online threatened the US establishment's control.
What we're seeing now is a chaotic attempt by the Western establishment to put the internet genie back in the bottle. The fact that social media & fintech are centralized is what gives them that power today. When they're decentralized that power goes away.
https://twitter.com/punk6529/status/1494444624630403083
The next few years may be gnarly, but resorting to this level of coercion shows the establishment is very insecure. They've lost the moral high ground & are facing unprecedented elite dissent online.
And that's before factoring in hard power & hard money.
And that's before factoring in hard power & hard money.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450612374646374404
One note: it's useful that the Canadian state had to come out & order financial institutions to do this. It reveals a degree of centralization behind what were ostensibly decentralized activities in the US. That makes it legible & easier to defend against.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1136795361920528384
So: the establishment wants CCP-like control over the internet to win the social war, but can't get that. The dissidents lack any coherent ideology, but can serve as spoilers.
I think the whole thing cracks up, decentralizes. And we need a vision for what's on the other side.
I think the whole thing cracks up, decentralizes. And we need a vision for what's on the other side.
To paraphrase & invert Anatole France:
"The majestic equality of the law allowed the rich and the poor alike the right to own a newspaper, start a company, or speak freely."
Now that tech has delivered on those nominal rights, they want to take it away.
"The majestic equality of the law allowed the rich and the poor alike the right to own a newspaper, start a company, or speak freely."
Now that tech has delivered on those nominal rights, they want to take it away.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1495911110570295296
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
