This is a great talk, and I loved the discussion and criticism of the roots of hacker culture, and also what the author describes as "logical positivism." You can look at something like Bitcoin as a textbook example. The thinking was that by making a simplified model of money, money can be replaced, and the government (authority) circumvented. In reality, money is not just numbers in a ledger, and when you take away one authority you institute others.
That said, mistrusting authorities such as governments is a valid and valuable position, as is standing up for the right to tinker with hardware on principle. Some of the bullet points that are bulldozed in this talk seem to have a philosophical kernel that is sound, if controversial or subversive. It's pretty interesting to me that computer tinkerers in the 70s, before personal computers, couldn't own a computer or take one apart. Is that the lack of "access" the ethic decries? Properly contextualized, is this point just about the inherent value of freedom to tinker? Or is "access should be total" a juvenile rationalization for breaking into computer systems, and "information should be free" an excuse to steal or expose secrets? (And is this ambiguity real or an artifact of Levy's formulation?)
I would separate "philosophy" from "culture." If in a particular subculture like hacker culture, "all that matters is how good you are," this is equalizing in a way -- for example, a man and woman with equal skills will have equal status -- but it can also lead to phenomena such as arrogant rockstars and frequent pissing contests. And what about the people who aren't so good, how are they supposed to feel? So this "ethic" can generate a traditionally male sort of culture that is off-putting or toxic to many people, male and female. The fact is that creating a diverse and inclusive community is its own value and doesn't follow from anything about hacking.
> You can look at something like Bitcoin as a textbook example. The thinking was that by making a simplified model of money, money can be replaced, and the government (authority) circumvented. In reality, money is not just numbers in a ledger, and when you take away one authority you institute others.
Do we believe that the author of bitcoin has any ability to control Bitcoin other than releasing it or any way to compel adoption of bitcoin beyond advocating for it the way any of us could advocate for it?
If they are lacking those abilities they have just provided an alternative which dilutes the authority of traditional money without adding any authority themselves.
I may not understand where you are coming from, if so I apologize.
The rules and structure of bitcoin enshrine the values and ideals of a certain culture, and enforce their traditions with ironclad rules. It has just as much "authority" as any government mandated currency, though it might not seem that way if you feel more favorably about the culture surrounding bitcoin vs the standing political structure.
Bitcoin the community and Bitcoin the software have rules and authority. "Just as much" is an empirical claim that I disagree with. I don't think Coinbase or Gavin Andreesen have the same kind of authority as the Venezuelan president. It's a set of narrower, diffuse authorities, rather than a central authority.
But even that is just one branch of Bitcoin. What makes Bitcoin truly anti-authoritarian is that even if some body of power controls the dominant branch, a group of people can simply fork it, and run their own currency completely without the blessing of Gavin or Coinbase or anyone.
That doesn't give them all the benefits of holding mainline Bitcoin, but it gives them some benefits. But anarchism never said everyone can have all the power, it says everyone should have the power to do what they want amongst themselves. It's freedom from interference, not guaranteed access.
Ethereum Classic is a fantastic example of this. As is the proliferation of altcoins, many of which are just Bitcoin forks, and in that sense are Bitcoin.
That said, mistrusting authorities such as governments is a valid and valuable position, as is standing up for the right to tinker with hardware on principle. Some of the bullet points that are bulldozed in this talk seem to have a philosophical kernel that is sound, if controversial or subversive. It's pretty interesting to me that computer tinkerers in the 70s, before personal computers, couldn't own a computer or take one apart. Is that the lack of "access" the ethic decries? Properly contextualized, is this point just about the inherent value of freedom to tinker? Or is "access should be total" a juvenile rationalization for breaking into computer systems, and "information should be free" an excuse to steal or expose secrets? (And is this ambiguity real or an artifact of Levy's formulation?)
I would separate "philosophy" from "culture." If in a particular subculture like hacker culture, "all that matters is how good you are," this is equalizing in a way -- for example, a man and woman with equal skills will have equal status -- but it can also lead to phenomena such as arrogant rockstars and frequent pissing contests. And what about the people who aren't so good, how are they supposed to feel? So this "ethic" can generate a traditionally male sort of culture that is off-putting or toxic to many people, male and female. The fact is that creating a diverse and inclusive community is its own value and doesn't follow from anything about hacking.