On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 5:37 PM Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... I think anyone familiar with the tactics of totalitarian governments > can appreciate the need for anonymity in journalism... > Section 230 was a catastrophic "mistake" leading directly to the present state of affairs in which network effects have neutralized the potential of the Internet by recentralizing control in the hands of a few corporations that centralize vast monopoly rents. I haven't done a deep dive into the history of Section 230 but I strongly suspect intelligence agency involvement. Private sector monopolies can be coerced into totalitarian control by the simple expedient of *not* enforcing anti-trust laws on condition of their compliance -- thereby bypassing Constitutional protections because the totalitarian control is all "private sector". This is beyond the formal definition of "fascism" which, at least, is honest about state control of corporations. I addressed anonymity in journalism and how to avoid this catastrophe in my 1982 essay "Videotex Networking and the American Pioneer", while the futures architect of the first major mass market home networking service provided by AT&T and the, then, largest newspaper chain, Knight-Ridder. https://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2021/10/below-is-something-i-wrote-in-1982.html The answer seems to be an early emphasis on secure identification of the > source of communications so that there can be no question as to the > individual responsible. This would preempt an attempt to hold the carrier > liable. Anonymous communications, like Delphi conferencing, could even be > supported as long as some individual would be willing to attach his/her > name to the communication before distributing it. This would be similar, > legally, to a "letters to the editor" column where a writer remains > anonymous. Another measure could be to require that only individuals of > legal age be allowed to author publishable communications. Yet another > measure could be to require anyone who wishes to write and publish > information on the network to put in writing, in an agreement separate from > the standard customer agreement, that they are liable for any and all > communications originating under their name on the network. This would > preempt the "stolen password" excuse for holding the carrier liable. That said, control at the State level (say, under the 10th Amendment reservation of powers to the several States) is the correct solution so long as: * People are always free to leave (implying no prisons) * States may exclude or exile anyone for any reason whatsoever * States gain and lose territorial value based on a census of their respective populations It is well beyond the time that such "radical" ideas may be discounted as "non-starters". ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8685950780e86bd5-M85eee8e787f24bde7dd272aa Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
