Login
You're viewing the fosstodon.org public feed.
  • atro
    Nov 10, 2026, 8:23 PM

    RE: fosstodon.org/@tarsius/1175922

    Read a bunch of the philosophy of the American Revolution (250 anniversary this year) so it's fresh on my mind. To theory craft from that perspective I'd say:

    Opacity/Transparency, in the sense of "right to face your accuser," any computational process you are impacted by you should have right to introspect.

    Anything additional to this might get too far into specifics. With just transparency you could derive your own computing without being specifically compelled in any particular direction.

    💬 1🔄 3⭐ 1

Replies

  • atro
    Nov 10, 2026, 8:40 PM

    This also is sort of timeless. The heuristics of the tax man in 1840 is a kind of computational process.

    In the 1950s IBM was running census for government. Knowing how they were doing that - probably should have been public.

    In the 90s transparency around the data the federal government was collecting for the welfare debates would have likely meant keeping AFAC.

    2030, well, it'll be nice to see what Plantir is tracking.

    We dont have to strain our imagination to see how this might work 2050.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • atro
    Nov 10, 2026, 8:45 PM

    It also can be adaptable to times.

    Publication of the tax heuristics to newspaper of record everytime there is update can count.

    Later on regulation around the kinds of disclosure can protect private interest by only referencing an approved intermediate representation. As long as they represent some sort of equality of function. (Think C <-> Assembly)

    Edit: Or you know that could also protect consumers from private interests making up weird arbitrary standards.. etc..

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0