Local rules instead of global censorship
redecentralize.org
Local rules instead of global censorship
1–10 of 221 posts
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#2Decentralization and deinstitutionalization is dangerous to Democracy. Uncheck conspiracy theories, QAnon bullshit, Parler boys, 4chan anonymity are all dangerous to public, intellectual discourse.
Convince me. Your body has cancer, swift removal of it before it “decentralizes” is the only option.
I would be in favor of actual decentralization: Being able to broadcast 50km radius on the internet and improving communities, thriving local newspapers and localization of concerns. If you want to broadcast to state level, you must have education, journalism rigor, and standup to scrutiny, have to explain inconsistencies or your role is revoked.
“Decentralization”, the widely used term is a congregation of ill which cannot survive the scrutiny of public IMO.
Before you go touting for decentralization, ask yourself when was the last time you checked city news and county affairs? What happens at the National level has little effect on you locally. What Ted Cruz and AOC exchanged on Twitter has no bearing to your county. Internet gave everybody a centralized platform in the first place. Some good aspects (Wikipedia) and some horrifying consequences.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#3I also don’t agree with this and might even argue the opposite. Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. That always comes back to who are the moderators and what are their stances on censorship.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#4Decentralization and deinstitutionalization is dangerous to Democracy. Uncheck conspiracy theories, QAnon bullshit, Parler boys, 4chan anonymity are all dangerous to public, intellectual discourse. Convince me. Your body has cancer, swift removal of it before it “decentralizes” is the only option. I would be in favor of actual decentralization: Being able to broadcast 50km radius on the internet and improving communi…
I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation.
What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#5Decentralization and deinstitutionalization is dangerous to Democracy. Uncheck conspiracy theories, QAnon bullshit, Parler boys, 4chan anonymity are all dangerous to public, intellectual discourse. Convince me. Your body has cancer, swift removal of it before it “decentralizes” is the only option. I would be in favor of actual decentralization: Being able to broadcast 50km radius on the internet and improving communi…
I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation. What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?
Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation. What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?
Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
[deleted]
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the article made a reasonably convincing case that decentralized networks provide better tools for good actors to control the spread of disinformation. What does it mean to "remove the cancer before it decentralizes" in this context?
Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
Sure, but that wouldn't have prevented the "cancer" from moving to decentralized networks. If anything it'd probably accelerate the process.
I think the important point is that most operators of nodes on a federated network are not in a position to benefit from this kind of garbage content, and have every reason (and the tools they need) to keep it away from their portion of the network.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#8I also don’t agree with this and might even argue the opposite. Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors. That always comes back to who are the moderators and what are their stances on censorship.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “inflammatory actors” a bit? Thanks.
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#9>Now, alt-right trolls and white supremacists are all but limited to a corner of the Fediverse almost nobody else talks to. While it does not prevent a dedicated group from talking hatefully among themselves on their own instance (like Gab), it does isolate them, makes radicalising new users harder, and protects others from potential abuse.
I don't follow this logic at all. This is effectively how QAnon spread, as a niche group on fringe websites, before it grew to millions of users. A federated network gives better moderation tools to communities who actually want to moderate, but it leaves the radicalised communities free to grow, even freer than on a centralised network.
Another example I heard of were so called "free birth" groups with tens of thousands of women shunning medical help for births, even bullying women who wanted to seek professional help. As a result, quite a few children and women died during labour[1]
Private/semi private anti-vax groups are of course another huge issue right now. They often have hundreds of thousands of members. On a designated fediverse instance there is no possibility to shut this down.
I see no evidence or reason at all how the decentralised internet stops radicalisation or misinformation. It honestly to me seems like it would make it worse.
[1]https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-wanted-a-freebirth-at-home...
Re: Local rules instead of global censorship
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter, FB, Google all benefited from QAnon and bunch of violence that thrives on it. Election misinformation should have been removed. We have proper channels for this - ie courts.
Sure, but that wouldn't have prevented the "cancer" from moving to decentralized networks. If anything it'd probably accelerate the process. I think the important point is that most operators of nodes on a federated network are not in a position to benefit from this kind of garbage content, and have every reason (and the tools they need) to keep it away from their portion of the network.
The Internet used to be decentralized and only after communication centralized via social media companies did the likes of QAnon become particularly problematic. There was always a fringe, but we had the norms and tools to keep it marginalized. Something has changed and arguments that we can fix the problem by doubling down on changing our norms/ideals (e.g., free speech, equality, tolerance, etc) don’t seem likely at all to pan out. We made a bad turn, but rather than continue to jeopardize our social fabric for pride or dunk costs, we should figure out how we can get back on course. Of course, that requires good faith, honesty, integrity, courage, etc., which are in short supply these days.