Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform • Hacker News Board

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#161

Post by blindgeek » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #114

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private entities can and do engage in censorship.

Sure, but the parent poster seems to imply that banning people who incite violence on social media is somehow a new thing or "going nuclear" with censorship. Trump got clapped not because of censorship, but because social media platforms decided to no longer exempt him from their TOS because of his position. Any normal person posting similar content would have been banned ages ago. Besides, he is the POTUS who can go…

Trump was also great advertising for Twitter, just like he was great for the news media. I'd argue that Big Media, Inc. is deeply complicit in the rise of Donald Trump. He was the goose that laid the golden egg. Additionally, the media mergers of the 80s and 90s gave us right-wing talk radio on the AM band, sewing the spores of hate from which the vile toadstool of Trumpism bloomed.

Big Tech, Inc., with its algorithms that promote radical right-wing content, also seems suspect.

To me the solution to all of these problems is to break up conglomerates and monopolies. Let's have more decentralization and more "small is beautiful" tech, like the chat system presented here. Let a million flowers blossom, smothering the aforementioned toadstool. (Wandering off to look at installing Cabal).

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#162

Post by bluesign » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

jv22222 wrote: post #125

For clarification: The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want. This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.

Yeah but if they have this freedom (being dickish etc) then they should also be responsible for what they are publishing on their platforms.

They want to have their cake and eat it.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#163

Post by revnode » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

tonymet wrote: post #151

jv22222 wrote: post #125

For clarification: The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want. This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.

I’d like to address this, since it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship. It’s disingenuous , because “First amendment” is so essential to American culture, that it means both the literal First Amendment to the constitution AND more importantly, the American principle of free expression. Ether you are aware that people are appealing to free expression as a principle, or you are unaware that fre…

This. The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. What they are doing is deeply selfish and cynical. They should be criticized for their behavior and shamed for it. We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. And yes, the companies have a right to do it, but there are plenty of things you can do, but should nevertheless be shamed for doing.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#164

Post by drdec » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #79

jhardy54 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MAGA folks looking for platforms for their "free speech". This is not a target demographic you should strive for.

I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech. But I do believe in empowering people and uniting communities. If you want to run your own social network out of your own servers, you should be able to. The fact that the software to power user friendly communication platforms is scarce is…

>I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for solving society’s main communication problems, I think people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for their speech.

I think there ought to be an on-line analogue to two consenting adults talking in a private room in one of their homes. Unless I misunderstand you, it doesn't sound like that on-line capability is compatible with your statement.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#165

Post by aquadrop » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #133

dmerks wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, AWS is not an ISP-- it's a business, a bit like the one not selling cakes to homosexual individuals.

It's more akin to "no shirt no service". Parler can continue using Amazon if they moderate their platform, you can put on a shirt to get a cake. You cannot change your sexuality or skin color.

You can change your religion. Should amazon be able to tell to scram fx to some scientology church website hosting?

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#166

Post by oh_sigh » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

jv22222 wrote: post #125

For clarification: The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want. This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.

Does anyone need this clarification? I feel like this is like trying to stop a discussion on self driving cars and bringing up the trolley problem. Everyone knows it. No one (serious) is saying that private companies have a legal responsibility to host everyone's speech lest they be guilty of violating the first amendment.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#167

Post by chippy » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:30 PM UTC

jv22222 wrote: post #125

For clarification: The 1st amendment ensures that the government may not stop you from saying what you want. This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc - but that is not related to the 1st.

Are you replying to a comment? This appears to me, right now, as the top one in the thread and is unconnected to any others and seems to me to be orphaned.

If it's in direct response to the submission, I cannot find anything in the submission that might give rise to a clarification

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#168

Post by antris » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

WClayFerguson wrote: post #156

antris wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the parent poster seems to imply that banning people who incite violence on social media is somehow a new thing or "going nuclear" with censorship. Trump got clapped not because of censorship, but because social media platforms decided to no longer exempt him from their TOS because of his position. Any normal person posting similar content would have been banned ages ago. Besides, he is the POTUS who can go…

Trump never called for any violence. However there are lots of left wing people on Twitter calling for violence and the left-wing operated BigTech think that's just fine, while they will ban any right wing person at the drop of a hat for completely made-up reasons like saying something wrong about gender pronouns. Look the Joe Rogan podcast with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey, and try to educate yourself.

>Trump never called for any violence

Alright, so finally after a few seemingly innocuous arguments you took your mask off. A person who believes storming the Capitol was not organized by Trump at this point would be able to find a justification to anything he says or does.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#169

Post by WClayFerguson » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

antris wrote: post #152

WClayFerguson wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The social media purge began long before Parler even existed. Yes people are getting banned from Twitter for life for having the wrong political opinions. It you deny that everyone knows you're either dishonest or uninformed. People on the left are allowed to call for violence and say all kinds of racist things hate filled things, but if someone on the right even says something like "There are only two sexes" that's…

"BigTech has gone nuclear with censorship" immediately after a coup attempt is a wildly different statement than "there is a long-running political double standard that exists in tech companies when it comes to enforcing their TOS". Should I take take it that you have conceded your previous statement? I would like to complete the discussion on the previous point before moving on to another topic of discussion.

Trump organized a demonstration. That's the American way of voicing political dissent.

If a politician organizes a peaceful rally and violent people show up and do violent things, and you blame the politician for the violence, then I'm curious about something.... Do you hold the Democrats responsible for all the violence of 2020 when we had cities burning down, and the MSM saying things like "Who ever said protests had to be peaceful"

The Democrats calling the capitol mob a "coup de tat attempt" is absolutely hilarious and just shows their complete lunacy in their attempt to vilify the other side, even when they're clearly just being absurd. It was a mob who were let into a building. Hell they didn't even damage any of the priceless paintings. If anyone's to blame is was the security who let the doors get breached when their job was to guard the building with machine guns.

Re: Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat platform

#170

Post by steve76 » Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

revnode wrote: post #163

tonymet wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to address this, since it’s a common retort meant to shutdown discussion on censorship. It’s disingenuous , because “First amendment” is so essential to American culture, that it means both the literal First Amendment to the constitution AND more importantly, the American principle of free expression. Ether you are aware that people are appealing to free expression as a principle, or you are unaware that fre…

This. The companies are behaving in an un-American manner. What they are doing is deeply selfish and cynical. They should be criticized for their behavior and shamed for it. We should not excommunicate members of our society even if the things they say are reprehensible. And yes, the companies have a right to do it, but there are plenty of things you can do, but should nevertheless be shamed for doing.

Who would win in a deplatforming food fight? Google or Apple?

Google's union now, right? And Apple fires people in elevators and vowed on their deathbed “I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this.

So. Not saying you two should fight. If a fight did break out, who would win?

And now that I think about it, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, all have their strengths and flaws. Amazon is hell for suppliers. Why should Apple get paid so much for something they can buy out of China? And does the AWS UI "just work"? Does it really?

Facebook keeps files on people like some secret police intelligence unit. And Twitter's long term vision just won't work unless you have no mouth and must scream. Tweet for a subway door to open. How stupid do you have to be.