[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /AK-47/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war. - New board: /draw/

File: 1637699119017-0.png (67.58 KB, 746x899, Tokens.png)

File: 1637699119017-1.png (49.52 KB, 740x628, DAOs.png)

File: 1637699119017-2.png (21 KB, 724x499, Daos2.png)


Today on twitter I stumbled across a thread about web3. There was a political compass meme that put Web3 in the LibLeft quadrant and MMT in AuthLeft quadrant. Some users quibbled that Web3 is actually LibRight. I am immediately skeptical of any of these classifications because the implication is that MMT is somehow an explicitly "statist" or "authoritarian" doctrine. I am also skeptical that Web3, given its proximinity with shitcoin technology and teh blockchain and NFTs, that it could ever be considered "leftist." I decided, however, to attempt to research this issue further to see if I could find anything of value in Web3 that might be conducive to bringing about revolution. I went to the following site for reading:
FreeCodeCamp is generally a website that one goes to for various sorts of programming tutorials. Content that is political is not common on this site, but I think this article in question might be the most mystified tech literature that I have read in awhile.

Most of the FreeCodeCamp article on web3 talks about cryptocurrency wallets, the blockchain, and how great they think it is that there are no "gatekeepers." Standard blockchain propaganda that lacks any mention of the fact that the blockchain is environmentally catastrophic given the obscene amount of electrical energy necessary to keep it running.

>see pic related

How are tokens and tokenization any different from shares?
This is extremely reminiscent, to my eyes, of the issue that befalls so-called NFTs. It is seemingly another reinvention of a thing that already exists, in the case of NFTs a reinvention of a deed of ownership, in the case of tokenization a reinvention of shares. How can anyone ascribe revolutionary value to this?

>re: DAOs (pic related #2)

What is a DAO if not a worker cooperative with additional steps? Am I understanding this correctly? While worker cooperatives are definitely an improvement in comparison to the predominant corporate structure endemic to Capitalism, there already exists a critique of worker cooperatives. Fundamentally the problem with worker coops is that worker cooperatives merely ameliorate conditions under Capitalism, but ultimately do not hasten revolutionary processes, and are still subject to the requirement of all private firms under Capitalism to "compete" that they may survive. There is ample praise to be made for Mondragon, for example, but such an organization still has to behave in a specific way in order to survive in markets dominated by private Capitalists, and at times has to compromise its own values.

Just to be sure that I am not misrepresenting DAOs, I went to https://coopahtroopa.mirror.xyz/_EDyn4cs9tDoOxNGZLfKL7JjLo5rGkkEfRa_a-6VEWw which provides additional explanation.
>DAOs seek to:
>Provide members with a voice through governance.
>Flatten hierarchy and create fluid workstreams.
>Allocate resources to achieve a core mission.
>A Telegram group with 10 members and 1 ETH is a DAO.

Does the DAO actually solve a problem of organizing? Or is it simply a modern reinvention of a form that already exists? If so, why are people acting like it is "new" and "innovative"? How do we respond to these notions?


This seems like a repetition of the battle between ancien régime and the bourgeoisie: on the on hand you have these tech giant "monarchies", on the other hand a radical decentralization and submission to the market, with its *formal* freedoms.

Capitalism has reached an impasse: it has started to stifle technological progress. These fads are attempts to break out of that impasse, but from the position of kick-starting capitalism again. It's not a coincidence that they find strong supporters among accelerationists.


Looks over-engineered and laborious

The closest thing to a "revolution" assisted by digital technologies has been the explosion of open source software and piracy.


Free software was the revolution. Open source movement is a counter-revolution that turned programmers into unpayed workers under the pretense of freedom and entrepreneurship. The only good thing is that you can still take an open source project (i.e. permissively licenced) and use it in or fork it as a free software project under (A)GPL.

As for piracy, I'm for it, but it doesn't go beyond "lumpen praxis". By definition it is tied to capitalism.



Oh I know. I am so sick of RMS and his useless free software foundation that I use open source software out of malice now.

I call it revolutionary but I'm really disenchanted with it as something deontological. It not there isn't useful free software. I just don't want to revolve my digital life around it. I always feel like I'm going in circles with it compared to a cracked copy of windows 7 and the powerful tools the capitalists have built over the years. There are alot of areas where open source tools don't come even close like accurate CD ripping or reliable DVD burning. I know I know patches, backdoors but I really don't give a fuck. Privacy just feels like a sick joke at this stage with so many ways to out yourself even when trying. Now I just feel like I'm climbing the glowie priority list for half heartily using signal and full disk encryption. I'm likely wrong but right now it seems the greatest benefit of open source code is creating a massive silo of somewhat bitrot resistant technology that may be useful when civilization inevitably collapses.

The computer should only be a tool at the end of the day. Whatever organizations emerge and what problems they have should define the software not the other way around.

Simple ad-hoc efforts like libgen, the pirate bay and git repos can easily be replicated and extended without whatever the fuck a DAO is. I can't think of anything for DAOs outside some nightmare sharing economy apps that will end up quite impractical.


libre software is the better direction to go in because it's easier to fix and modify, even if you crack proprietary software you still don't get any source code. Propriety software is always at risk of being abandoned, and then you're stuck in a dead end.

You should not try to normalize the severe crime of privacy violations (it's sort of a red flag that you might be a glowie if you do).
Digital rights and information rights are sort of in the early states of social development. Most People have so far lived in a world where information played a different role. The ability to have control over your information is, in time ,going to become the same thing as the right to exist.



Unique IPs: 4

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]