Open-source software was created by people who wanted to address their own needs, and we're lucky that we share the same needs. Commercial software companies and media companies were and are unhappy about that, because they lost control and profits.
Regulated, constrained versions of Internet are being built by governments and some large corporations, to meet their needs. While EU's constraints may look benign (even though they are not), the versions built in PRC, Russia, India, Türkyie are in various degrees openly anti-citizen. As long as citizens' needs (like privacy and unrestricted access) do not align with the ideas of the governments and corporations, we, citizens, are usually the losing side.
The fix is obvious: regulations should be liberty-preserving, and for that, governments that are better aligned with our, citizens', interests should be voted in.
Open source must be a part of Europe's digital sovereignty (a crucial piece of a post-american internet). The continent otherwise doesn't have the resources to pull it off. Projects like https://eurostack.eu/ are a baby step in that direction.
Unfortunately that's just one piece of the puzzle. They also need a level of physical infrastructure that will take ages (or a miraculous breakthrough) to build. That too is a hard problem.
The people that govern Big Tech have said as much as that they don't believe in democracy, they show they don't believe in fair markets, and they are put to work to implement the threats of a crazy but powerful clique, attacking free and social democracies with an endless stream of sponsored garbage. If the EU had any leaders instead of weasels, they would have closed the sewers that brings lies, hate, conspiracy theories and division. If the EU does not act, it will go down, taken apart by the oligarchs.
Tolerance Paradox is not a "Tolerance Threshold" - it's a Paradox. You cannot be maximally liberal "up to Tolerance Paradox" - as soon as you are maximally liberal to any threshold, you are no longer liberal - hence the paradox.
It seems you define liberal in a rigid way. What I tried to convey is that for any Tolerance to exist, it has room to tolerate anything except Anti-Tolerance, as part of its essence. Paradox isn't a contradiction ("you are no longer liberal"), it is something that might seem like a contradiction. But maybe we agree about that and my wording was confusing.
Let's leave "liberal" definition aside. I agree it's not well defined - I only used, because you said "maximally liberal".
A dilemma is a hard choice.
A paradox is a principle that undermines itself when applied consistently. It doesn't "seem" like it - it is. In this case, if you stop intolerant ideas, you are no longer tolerant. That's quite simple, and Popper named it correctly as such. Now, if I put my 2c on it, the danger of this arbitrary "Tolerant except for the Anti-tolerant" idea is that, the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
Exactly, Popper recognized that the paradox was not a rule or even a suggestion, but was rather a problem without a clear solution. That’s why he named it as such.
Besides, Popper isn’t a god nor is he the only one with an opinion on this problem. Rawls for instance thought that only in exceptional circumstances should intolerance be suppressed. Popper’s paradox also isn’t anything special, literally every theory of human rights can be attacked by finding specific cases in which exceptions must be made for self protection. These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
> These exceptions do not invalidate those rights nor the necessity for them.
Important, glad you mention that. The Paradox of Tolerance gives people a tool to free themselves from rigid beliefs that ultimately push people to give up rights. People are way more united if they can see each other unmediated. They share principles! Guided by these a healthy debate and democratic process is possible. Revisiting decisions as well when society progresses.
(Ok, I think the confusion is due to how English has used this french word for centuries, but since early 20th century gave it a new meaning. English Wikipedia redefines it from "seemingly absurd yet really true" to a shallow form, erasing doxa, thus only keeping a contradiction as defined in formal Logic.)
My point is that Anti-Intolerance is the essence of Tolerance, not something outside of it.
> , the tools you use to stop the Anti-Tolerant will one day turn around be used against the Tolerant as well, because these definitions are fluid.
I understand. Discussion about that should be part of a healthy society, between conformant players that respect the public democratic order. Knowing the paradox is the anti-dote against the players seeking to destroy this shared system, those that do not respect democratic boundaries, they like to play the game of taking a principle, coming up with something absurd, declaring that the principle should be understood as rigid, all to declare that the principle does not exist. Because for the few to take advantage, the many have to give up their common values.
That is the big rift. And that is why I want to give this tool to the online HN reader, because the learned Rigid Beliefs only serve to destroy common principles needed for a just society. (Especially in the US context, where boolean thinking is imho very prevalent, which I see as the fruits of political marketing.) People reading about the Paradox might get some proper mind frame for the first time to escape the nihilist narratives.
> When the example are "People from X are vermin" - yes this is anti-tolerant. But when "We should first create jobs for people born here"; is this anti-tolerant? It's a slippery slope where all ideas except the ruling one can be muted.
When you discriminate against people not born here, I would ask: why?
a) Are people born here disadvantaged and do you bring balance, or
b) Do you think citizens not born here are less worthy than
those who are?
In the case of (a), I can see how you could propose that. There might be a discussion about equal outcome or equal chance. You have a democracy and public healthy debate, you share a common society. I propose you have a debate and vote for it.
In the case of (b), this would not be a discussion in my country as the constitution stipulates that everyone being in this country will be treated equally in the same circumstances, reasoning from "equal value". There is also the declaration of Human Rights. So I would say it puts a real burden on the proponent to defend why seeking inequality at the detriment of a group is justified.
This Tolerance Paradox is something I’ve been discussing lately with family and friends, but was having a hard time articulating. Thanks for the link.
I see tons of parallels with today’s world, on both sides of the spectrum (left/right, woke/unwoke etc).
Like, I do agree that most speech should be free and that dark humour and unpopular ideas and whatnot should be allowed even if you or a portion of the population don’t like it.
However I also think you can’t just say whatever you want and hide behind that free speech protection, because that opens the door to really nasty stuff that the human species has lived through.
But where’s the line?
That comedian arrested in the UK for a tweet[0], for instance. Do I agree? No. Do I think it was an intolerant thing to say from my POV? Yes. Do I think it is in fact inciting violence and deserves arrest? No.
On the other hand, you have people preaching white supremacy and talking about inferior races. We know where that led us.
So where’s the line? Same thing applies for these “regulated” surveillances. CSAM sounds like a good reason, but the same tools can be used to limit or monitor other speeches and behaviors. (Not to get into the debate of effectiveness, since bypassing is doable if you really want to).
I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think there is a clear line to be drawn.
The last line of that news article is quite important here. He was also arrested for a harassment charge which if memory serves was more serious than his tweets alone.
What does "cursory search" mean to you? Whatever it is, you should considering adding Google or some other basic search engine. Regardless, Wikipedia backs up the truth of the comment you are replying to.
Regulated, constrained versions of Internet are being built by governments and some large corporations, to meet their needs. While EU's constraints may look benign (even though they are not), the versions built in PRC, Russia, India, Türkyie are in various degrees openly anti-citizen. As long as citizens' needs (like privacy and unrestricted access) do not align with the ideas of the governments and corporations, we, citizens, are usually the losing side.
The fix is obvious: regulations should be liberty-preserving, and for that, governments that are better aligned with our, citizens', interests should be voted in.
And here we encounter a hard problem.