Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Local rules instead of global censorship

redecentralize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#11

Post by jay_kyburz »

systemvoltage wrote: post #2

Decentralization 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…

It's a very unpopular sentiment here on HN, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying.

I have a slight different idea that is also very unpopular. I don't think you should be able to "broadcast" anonymously. When you say things that are illegal, like death threats and hate speech, you should be held responsible.

I think privacy is important, and I think you should be able to consume content anonymously, but I don't think you should be able to "post" anonymously.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#12

Post by jay_kyburz »

mmmeff wrote: post #8
michaelgiba wrote: post #3

I 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.

Seems to me he means Trump and Qanon.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#13

Post by jay_kyburz »

non-cotton wrote: post #4
systemvoltage wrote: post #2

Decentralization 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?

I'm not sure it's a great idea to just let "the angry mob" decide either.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#14

Post by eitland »

systemvoltage wrote: post #2

Decentralization 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 have told people they must remember whatever they put in place will be available to the next government/president/administration.

Allow politicians to censor? Well it will be available for for both Joe Biden as well as the next Republican president.

This is why one needs to be careful.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#15

Post by breck »

> "Centralization is a Danger to Democracy"

Ugh, I figured here we go again, some dumb startup taking advantage of the current political climate to pitch some new social network.

But then I looked, and turns out this is really, really cool. I love it when my expectations are greatly exceeded.

Definitely going to spend some time kicking around this thing more. Cool stuff!

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#16

Post by devmunchies »

Barrin92 wrote: post #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…

Think about extremists as any other organization wanting to advertise. Is it easier on a centralized platform or across thousands of federated instances, each with their own moderator?

You can also think of it like a terrorist wanting to bomb people, would you have more success in a dense area or if everyone is spread out?

With more small sites, instead of a few large sites it spreads out communities and insulates them. With centralized networks, it create a "mother vein" where it's easier to plug into a large stream of users with little effort. No doubt capitalist extremists want centralized services too because they can convert everyone to their ideology, consumerism.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#17

Post by Barrin92 »

devmunchies wrote: post #16
Barrin92 wrote: post #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…

Think about extremists as any other organization wanting to advertise. Is it easier on a centralized platform or across thousands of federated instances, each with their own moderator? You can also think of it like a terrorist wanting to bomb people, would you have more success in a dense area or if everyone is spread out? With more small sites, instead of a few large sites it spreads out communities and insulates th…

Recruiting in backyard mosques and on fringe internet sites where isolated vulnerable people hang out is exactly how terrorists recruit. Extremists don't advertise like normal people, extremists advertise in echo chambers. If a terrorist tries to create converts in Walmart it takes 10 minutes until the police shows up.

When extremists plan attacks they go to the central spots, when extremists recruit and build up followers they go to the places that aren't under surveillance. The latter is relevant for social media.

A decentralised internet would be a dream for extremist recruitment. It's equivalent to having an ungovernable community of millions sitting in your country.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#18

Post by swader999 »

michaelgiba wrote: post #3

I 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.

Orwellian comment of the day.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#19

Post by hyko »

Centralisation is completely compatible with Democracy. There is no plausible mechanism by which federation would prevent the kinds of issues we’ve seen when giving everyone in the world the ability to publish whatever they like at no cost.

There are many reasons to want a diffusion of power, but defending democracy is not one of them.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#20

Post by freebuju »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #11
systemvoltage wrote: post #2

Decentralization 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…

It's a very unpopular sentiment here on HN, but I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I have a slight different idea that is also very unpopular. I don't think you should be able to "broadcast" anonymously. When you say things that are illegal, like death threats and hate speech, you should be held responsible. I think privacy is important, and I think you should be able to consume content anonymously, but I…

Thousands of people everyday post "anonymously" via pseudo accounts/names, more so on the heavily surveiled big social sites. Does this mean that the contents of their posts are unwanted? No. The algorithms are designed to give prominence to the most relevant posts, whether you as an individual agree with them or not. It is up to how many likes/shares these posts get.

I think we should stop running away from the fact that we are human. And we all have some quirky deep-rooted tendencies & desires that may not be socially viewed as moral.

Most of the times, these pseudo accounts provide amplification to that whispering inner voice harboring inside. Am certain we've all had experience with a peculiar post and go - "If it weren't for my boss following me back on my feeds I would have shared controversial view X, but hey am glad someone else said it."

Then proceed to share the screenshot of said view in a more private setting such as group channels/chats etc.

Post reply on HN