Comment by rattlesnakedave | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rattlesnakedave | Hacker News Reader

rattlesnakedave

Does anyone else feel like we’re going down the path of internet Balkanization? Not in any immediate sense, but it seems like a slow rolling type of narrative that we will retrospectively see at the end of the 21st century. I don’t have any _real_ evidence to support this feeling of mine, but occasionally there are blips like this that make me wonder.

I think governments that can will for a couple of reasons. One is to maintain their own narrative, to minimize the influence of foreign players who have little stake in a country. Another is to preserve their own culture and not be overrun by the culture and politics of the service. Another is that these entities can’t be held to account locally.

After witnessing how they used their heft and influence in the US you better believe the likes of India, Russia, China, Nigeria, Brazil, etc., will evaluate their relationships with these services.

I don’t think so, but my guess is as bad as anyone else’s.

People have too many family members, coworkers, friends, etc. across country borders. There’s a high cost to cutting your country off from the rest of the internet in any real way. The cost of intercepting / controlling / severing internet communication is high and gets higher as communication volumes get higher, the economy relies more heavy on international communication, and encryption becomes more commonplace.

I do think we’re going to see a lot more geofencing as time goes on.

This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they aren't.

From the perspective of an "irrational actor": Brexit was much more about not liking the political policies of the EU than about cutting the UK off from the rest of the world.

Not really, it was UK Conservative voters tirning out to vote against Labor. The actual Brexit thing is a red herring. Populism needs leaders, leaders need vague enemies, the EU was perfect.

I honestly don't understand Brexit. My usual assumption when strange things happen in politics is game-theory-compatible: there are strong incentive structures driving the behavior. A roughly equivalent statement: some (possibly large) group of people is going to get rich off it, and they're directly or indirectly driving the change.

But here? I can't point to obvious actors with enough pushing power that would benefit from this. Not on the UK side, at least. Brexit feels to me like a meme that got out of hand and drove behavior that's against everyone's self-interest.

IIRC (and I may not be; check for yourself) the EU were planning much stricter AML laws which were quite firmly opposed by the UK wealth management industry. That's a group with motive and the power to do something about it.

Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.

This is a great analysis. The shocking thing is how Trump stole the Democrats' pre-Bush era positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy and won.

Bill Clinton opposed NAFTA, Barbara Jordan wanted to slash legal immigration, and Democrats opposed the Iraq war after Bush's reelection.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration...

In the language of game theory (but not with enough evidence, so this is a Just-So-Story):

When he was a journalist, Johnson discovered that “write disparaging lies [0] about European politics” was a successful strategy.

It is plausible others noticed this, and likewise found easier to win power by euro-bashing than by being honest.

Given the cognitive biases which makes repetition of claims make those claims seem more true, from that point on you get your meme which got out of hand and drove the referendum and its result.

Defect-Defect.

[0] https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...

There is a well known dynamic with EU law being translated to national law : If it is perceived as good, the national lawmaker will take credit. If perceived as bad, the national lawmaker will point to these nasty EU bureaucrats. After years of this, the local population will perceive any EU law as bad.

A second fun one is unpopular politicians being dumped in EU seats. They vote pro something unpopular, let their local equivalent implement the national law, then blame them for it. Hence extremist politicians make EU law as nasty as possible, just to get some ammonution at home.

UK opted out of many EU policies. Now they simply decided to opt out entirely.

The incentives were the simple (and common) political expediency of using the EU and immigration as scapegoats; whether to excuse their own failings in power or attack the Blair government. Many politicians did that for years without seeing any benefit at all to actually leaving the EU, but as David Cameron found, if you spend long enough blaming the EU for stuff, sooner or later you're going to get cornered into "why don't you do something about it?". And public concern about 'mass immigration' is less about incentive structures to change it and more a constant that seems to exist irrespective of where, when and what the actual levels of immigration are, which results in massive boosts to the political profile of anyone who wishes to talk about it.

There are people with obvious financial incentives to get a trade deal with the US (not necessarily on terms beneficial to the UK), and people with obvious political incentives to destabilise Western European liberal democracy, but they were largely in the background. And some prominent Leave campaigners made a lot of money shorting the pound because they believed they would win, but that was just as much a gamble on the result as anyone else directly or indirectly betting on it.

It's almost as if the people who voted for it held some ideal up as more important than wealth.

Here's a Nuffield College survey on the subject: http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Rea...

I didn't vote for it but maybe taking people at their word for why they voted for it is a good idea?

Would you rather other people assigned their own ratios as to why you made your voting decisions, or actually listened to you?

Most people can understand the arguments for both sides of most debates, it just involves a little work to grok what they haven't themselves, concluded.

It’s about degrees. Brexit has a cost, internet balkanization has a cost, the more you isolate your country the more you pay. At some point the costs are too high, and can only be supported by the most authoritarian regimes.

I feel that way too. I'd say we're at a precipice of visible exponential growth of Balkanization. Why do I feel so? Possibly because this headline didn't surprise me. My reaction wasn't, "oh, that's horrible!" but "oh, another country doing that". National bans of social media platforms became normalized.

The world was 'balkanized' before the internet.

The internet naturally didn't end up having many borders.

These borders however are not just political, they reflect a lot of things.

It's very natural that the internet should be a little bit different in each nation, after all, everything else is.

We are not prepared for that, and we have no idea what it's going to mean, so it's going to be a rollercoaster.

Heres a few data points to argue that this should be the case.

India's most populous and likely poorest state, had 202 mn people in 2012; nearly 2/3rds of the current US population.

Here are some cities and numbers for scale (Google search)

Mumbai had ~20.4 mn people. Cairo has ~20.9 mn. Dhaka 21 mn Mexico city 21.7

New Zealand had 4.8 mn people in 2018. Canada - 37.59 Mayanmar - 53.71 The UK - 66 mn Vietnam 95.5 mn

-------

A few years ago, Mexico had a spate of gang violence. News about it was suppressed by the govt.

A woman driving along the road uploaded a video she had taken. It showed shell cases strewn on the roads, burnt out trucks, and the aftermath of that violence.

IT went viral on Facebook, going against the Government narrative and letting a slice of reality get observed.

Until morning came around to the UK. At which point someone opened facebook, and saw the gore. They were able to call people they knew at FB and say "why am I/my kids seeing this?".

And FB responded and took it down, for breaking site rules.

(taken from Custodians of the Internet) -----

FB wasn't necessarily wrong, but it was definitely partial. When the blood and gore rule was enforced during the Boston bombings, senior employees overruled it citing newsworthiness.

----

Your guess that the net will be balkanized is quite likely true.

FB spends great efforts to have local presence in each market. They recruit policy people, and negotiators. However, the platform does help broadcast content.

And if someone at FB can decide what is newsworthy or not, then why wouldn't local leaders crave that same power?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com