[Lancaster] Twitter

[Richard Robinson]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:39:36PM +0000, mp wrote:
> Richard Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 02:13:30PM +0000, mp wrote:
> >> Richard Robinson wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:30:16PM +0000, mp wrote:
> >>>> Mike Dent wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> While you can't really stop using their services, you can demand that they
> >>>> keep them free.
> >>>>
> >>>>> yes it would be nice if the internet were run on free open source
> >>>>> software routers which were powered by wind/hydro/solar power but I
> >>>>> don't think it will happen for many years to come.
> >>>> Not unless you stand up for the idea. Who do you think will drop it in
> >>>> your lap? God? Corporations?
> >>> This looks like the Free Speech != Free Beer thing ?
> >> In which way?
> > 
> > In that the services run on a system are a different issue from the way in
> > which that system is powered.
> > 
> > The above appears to conflate free ("as in speech") software and free (as in
> > "not paid for") energy.
> 
> I see, but you can also say that renewable energy is an issue of
> environmental freedom, as in free speech. I am not sure that the
> difference necessarily translates into that beer/speech distinction.
> 
> Anyway, the power issue is not the original problem, but it is certainly
> relevant for future policy making, given the extreme energy use we're
> talking about. How the Internet is powered is also a public matter and a
> question of environmental justice and freedom. After all it is the
> fastest growing industry in terms of carbon emissions - since 2007 it is
> heavier on the environment to sustain cyberspace than the aviation
> industry.
> 
> With regard to the Internet and enclosure: The way that it is seen - the
> traffic prioritisation threat, that is - in the debate currently is by
> analogy to road infrastructure and what is commonly called common
> carriage, which corresponds to privately built, maintained and owned
> roads, but which have been regulated/conditioned, through government
> regulation, according to the common carriage principle. Hence, those
> roads are de facto public infrastructures, although privately managed.
> No one can deny you access to "any" road if you have an MOTed vehicle
> and a license.
> 
> What is happening with regard to the Internet, to remain in the analogy,
> means that for instance if you want to get on the T6 by Birmingham (a
> toll/pay per trip road), and you turn up in your little, personal,
> non-corporate car, you are then told to park at the side of the road for
> half an hour, because there is a Disney convoy coming past that requires
> all the road for a while.
> 
> No one would accept such a condition, I suspect, in the context of
> roads. When it comes to the Internet, however, it seems, some people
> just say "it's certainly not our right" to demand common carriage. We
> should just enjoy the road while we can.
> 
> Perhaps better than thinking free speech is thinking freedom of movement
> and communication.

I see what you mean, and agree. I do think it's an important distinction to
make, between freedom in the digital and analogue domains, but yours is a
better way of putting it.

I like your usage of 'enclosures'. I've been thinking for a while now that
that's the issue, to build a public commons that can be protected against
future enclosure acts.

-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem