Bringing people back to the open web • Hacker News Board

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#71

Post by Rylinks » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #23

malvosenior wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensible adults have long been a proponent of free speech. It’s the call to censorship for comfort that is new and seemingly coming from younger generations who don’t have experience with why that may be a bad idea. The ACLU has long defended all speech: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-we-must-defend-fre...

Sensible adults have long been aware that censorship is something the government does, and that private individuals (and by extension, corporations) are perfectly fine restricting what speech they're willing to accept in their environment. The rule commonly known as "my house, my rules". The problem many people have with the open web is that many people don't step up and spell out house rules, which others interpret…

This is wrong, even in the United States. There are rare circumstances where a company's property is open to the public to such an extent that they become subject to first amendment restrictions (e.g. Marsh v. Alabama). Some states, such as California, have even greater restrictions on private parties in their state constitution. CA's constitutional speech protections prevent shopping malls from expelling petitioners from their premises, even if the mall disagrees with the speech.

Extending this body of law to, say, Facebook would have problems, of course. But I don't think it's so clear that all sensible adults know that censorship is only something the government does, and are happy letting any corporate behavior, no matter how extreme, pass without scrutiny.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#72

Post by zodPod » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #70

amdavidson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider ads on cable TV to be spam? Likely not. Like them or don't, but the ads on FB are not spam because they are not unsolicited and are targeted.

Of course I do. It is one of the reasons I do not have a TV. If there was a plain choice between without ads and with (probably at different prices), I could accept them as a transaction I have accepted. But such choices are often not available, they are bundled in with a bunch of other choices.

Agreed on all counts! It's pretty weird that we pay really good money for TV and then still have to sit through commercials, isn't it?

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#73

Post by ianbicking » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

Open Source has done a lot for developers, but it's not very present on the actual surface of the web – the surface that people interact with, and that defines the Open Web.

If developers are going to build up the open web, then it feels like this is something of an issue. To live up to one's potential as a developer, you can't just make your own choices in support of the open web, you have to facilitate other people. But I sure as hell don't want to run a service hosting people's content. It's a pain in the ass! And to top it off I have to pay for the privilege.

Building up a whole company in support of a service is an option, but then I'm not a developer, certainly not an open source developer, I've instead become an "entrepreneur". I don't want to be an entrepreneur! Hell, that's even more of a pain in the ass than giving stuff away.

I think we (open source developers) really need a platform to build on. An actual hosted platform. One where, as a developer, I can do interesting things that empower people, things that participate in the web as a whole, things other people can build on. I'd be willing to compromise SO MUCH if it means I can give people cool things without any of the incurred debt.

As a strawman, maybe it could start as just a bit of static hosting, with easy discovery and management from in-browser code. Neocities has an API, for example (https://neocities.org/api), but you have to already use Neocities, so I couldn't publish an app that would be easily used by non-Neocities users.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#74

Post by groby_b » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

Rylinks wrote: post #71

groby_b wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensible adults have long been aware that censorship is something the government does, and that private individuals (and by extension, corporations) are perfectly fine restricting what speech they're willing to accept in their environment. The rule commonly known as "my house, my rules". The problem many people have with the open web is that many people don't step up and spell out house rules, which others interpret…

This is wrong, even in the United States. There are rare circumstances where a company's property is open to the public to such an extent that they become subject to first amendment restrictions (e.g. Marsh v. Alabama). Some states, such as California, have even greater restrictions on private parties in their state constitution. CA's constitutional speech protections prevent shopping malls from expelling petitioners…

I stand corrected. And am happy to learn about Marsh v. Alabama, thank you!

The larger point I was trying to make still stands. I think.

Specifically, that speech in a private context is not subject to the same amount of regulations as speech in a public context (with the incorrect interference that only the govt can restrict speech in a public context). Marsh v. Alabama specifically argues that the sidewalk in a company town is equivalent to a public space. (And I think that does hold interesting questions for large web sites).

But free speech rules still apply to a lesser extent on both commercial and private properties. The idea that "censorship for comfort" in general is bad is misguided.

(In the context of above lawsuit, I'd love to hear a lawyer expand on if content restrictions qualify as restricting speech in a semi-public content, or if they qualify as making the space less public - i.e. are they barriers to access, or to speech?)

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#75

Post by 0x445442 » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #70

amdavidson wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider ads on cable TV to be spam? Likely not. Like them or don't, but the ads on FB are not spam because they are not unsolicited and are targeted.

Of course I do. It is one of the reasons I do not have a TV. If there was a plain choice between without ads and with (probably at different prices), I could accept them as a transaction I have accepted. But such choices are often not available, they are bundled in with a bunch of other choices.

100% agree. I hate paying for TV which still has ads. It's why almost all content I consume through the flat screen in the living room now is either Netflix, Amazon or Youtube. About the only thing I watch OTA or via Sling now is sports. And I was born before Nixon was President.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#76

Post by peoplewindow » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #40

crdoconnor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Besides, censoring Nazis and other undesirable types (e.g. ISIS propaganda) is ineffective at shutting them up and endears potential recruits to them. It would likely be more effec…

Absolute free speech is not a sustainable position, because it conflicts with other basic rights, freedoms and laws. Would you not accept that directly inciting violence against specific groups or individuals must be banned?

It's better to ban nothing when it comes to speech. Any restrictions at all rapidly escalate into enormous restrictions, hypocrisy and logical contradictions.

Actually by now, I automatically assume anyone who uses the phrase "hate speech" doesn't actually care about violent speech at all, just shutting down people they don't agree with.

Consider that students in America keep arguing that any opinion they don't like is "violence" that makes them feel "unsafe", and of course anyone to the right of Marx is "promoting intolerance and hatred". That's a pretty bad abuse of the word violent, but if you say the only kind of speech that is banned is speech that incites violence then pretty quickly everyone is claiming any ideological enemy is "inciting violence" with whatever justification they can find.

So there had better be really good reasons for such bans. But are there? I am struggling to think of cases where someone stood up and announced "kill those people" and it actually happened, outside of extremist Islamic preachers e.g. the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. That's rare, but also, the moment you say that sort of preaching isn't allowed anymore you run into the question of people's right to practice religion, as there is quite a lot of incitement to violence in basically every ancient holy book.

And then there's the hate speech that doesn't get prosecuted because it's by politically important groups: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_tre...

In the end, when I see the apparently small amount of physical world violence definitively and directly caused by speech, vs the huge numbers of people trying to classify things they disagree with as hate speech, I am forced to conclude that the cost/benefit ratio is not worth it and the first amendment has got it right.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#77

Post by GW150914 » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #16

superkuh wrote: post #3

>If the closed web is a place where hate speech, harassment and bullying thrives, the open web can be, needs to be an experience where it does not. I am strongly against this appeal to censorship. Luckily in the real open web, where you host your own content the incentives and mechanisms for censorship are few and difficult to achieve. No, my dream of the open web is diverse. Full of things people hate and full of th…

> I am strongly against this appeal to censorship. Why do you interpret "experiencing a web without harassment and bullying" as implying "censoring speech"? People may publish all the hatred and bullshit they want on the open web, but I don't need to be forced to watch it. Both things are not exclusive. IM applications with limited groups (Telegram, Whatsapp) show us a way this can be done. If these tools were open,…

It seems that you use HN a lot, and this is a heavily (well) moderated forum. That seems like an implicit endorsement of just the kind of “censorship” you and others are railing against. If HN became oppressively censored, another option would tske its place.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#78

Post by InclinedPlane » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

superkuh wrote: post #3

>If the closed web is a place where hate speech, harassment and bullying thrives, the open web can be, needs to be an experience where it does not. I am strongly against this appeal to censorship. Luckily in the real open web, where you host your own content the incentives and mechanisms for censorship are few and difficult to achieve. No, my dream of the open web is diverse. Full of things people hate and full of th…

You're confusing censorship with no platforming, they are not the same thing.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#79

Post by TuringTest » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #54

TuringTest wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Linux only worked because there's many companies contributing to it. Who says this won't happen as well to an open collaboration platform? Who says companies wouldn't benefit from it, or that they need to monetize it directly? Companies contributed to Linux because they got benefits by participating in the operating system. Open source works like that; adding to a common resource is beneficial for oneself and t…

Of course it could happen. But we've had open source alternatives for many of these things for many years, and no company has gone to support any of them. There's no company backing mastodon, and very little support for similar tools. Of course it could happen. But it's not happening.

Right, but my point is that the reason for not happening is not a lack of monetization strategies, but one of critical mass.

If a free software collaboration platform gains traction in the enterprise, it could be pushed as a safe alternative in the next data scandal, and maybe enough people could switch to it to become a viable public resource like Linux and Apache have been since the turn of the century. It's a plausible scenario, even if it's not guaranteed to happen soon.

Re: Bringing people back to the open web

#80

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 7:01 PM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #29

groby_b wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd start by not calling your own friends "conformist" and "lazy". And instead, try to understand where they come from. We won't solve problems by shouting at each other.

I lost contact with many people because none of them respected me constantly asking to keep in touch outside of facebook - email, for example. I don't have lighter words, even if I consider them friends. Moving on from grammar and culture (in my read, I wasn't offensive, merely stated a fact), what actual solutions, proposals, ideas, can you contribute?

This idea that "merely stating a fact" means you can't be offensive is part of the problem. Your original statement was pretty insulting and offensive, no matter how true you believe it was. If you want to change things, culture is a huge part of achieving that, and being able to express these concerns without being insulting to other people like that is a huge part of it.