What ownership model are you referring to that is tech-specific and why is it in quotes?
Most people feel like they have no say in anything that is going on because a handful of insanely large tech companies are just deciding the future for everyone, and it's in their own best interest- not the best interest of the poeple.
What is Big Tech doing that you think everyone else should have a say in?
Big Tech didn't reshape the Internet...its customers did, by flocking to their products by the billions.
Big Tech isn't reshaping the workforce...employers are, by once again flocking to their products.
(Sorry, I compulsively read the comment history of the right/libertarians. The way their beliefs are glued together fascinate me in a way, it's fun to try to figure out where they are living to the municipal level .. the more one values privacy, the less one should have it, privacy is my "anti-right" of the month, I disagree violently with Acemoglu on free speech as well with somewhat parallel justifications )
Weird place to come in and dissuade discussions between differing view points. This is at the root of our difficulty in finding compromise and ending the hyperbolic extremes on the left and right.
> I disagree violently with Acemoglu on free speech
In what sense? What is your perspective on his perspective and why it is wrong?
My gaps with Acemoglu et al re: "Building Pro-Worker Ai" is that there is handwaving at how we incentivize augmentation over full automation, and how new jobs and tasks are created.
Given that plenty of people voting Republican are also against datacenters, the first libertarians to try to reach for might be the self-funded low TAM business owners or local solopreneurs who actually value their privacy/independence (datacenters being an arm of the surveillance-industry complex)
Acemoglu, later. I need to distill my own thoughts on this, but it's roughly that speech channels should be regulated as a public good like datacenters
> speech channels should be regulated as a public good like datacenters
Who decides what channels and what speech? My understanding is that Acemoglu believes algorithmic driving of speech (up or down) should be regulated, but not speech generally.
I'm playing around with an idea for "tickle up government" whereby local jurisdictions are free to do more experimentation and ideas that work out in practice get lifted up - as opposed to the top-down, domination based ideas coming from the far left and hard right.
>Who decides what channels and what speech?
I didn't phrase that properly. OP of this thread put that thought in my head. Example. Speech is "better" regulated here in HN than on X, Mastodon, Reddit what have you. The who are the mods of course. We have a more effective meritocracy here than USG, meaning tomhow is not too shabby either. But it is topdown
So. Trickle up version of meritocratic mod-selection? Seems like thats what some parts of Reddit do, know any specifics/subs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp5qsEuUOWo
I'm now reading the book version, Tyranny of Merit