21–30 of 221 posts
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.
>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…
It is 2016 election all over again, media chooses their favorite "evil" and promote it to death.
Decentralization stops radicalisation, because it allows free discussion.
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.
Isn't diffusion of power more-or-less the point of democracy?
As an extension of that, getting “power to the people” is usually the rallying cry of someone who wants to weaken the government enough to overpower it in some way.
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…
You also seem to think that decentralization would lead to less emphasis on local happenings. Why? If we moved away from a handful of services for the whole planet, wouldn't the logical next phase be a service or two per city? A decentralized web means knowing the guy who runs the server you're connecting to. A decentralizalized internet means configuring your router to peer with routers in the houses that you can see from your house. Relocalization seems like an obvious consequence of decentralizalization to me.
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.
>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…
Please, QAnon is overhyped and promoted by centralized media. On presidential debates corruption was not even mentioned (biggest scandal since watergate), but some crazy fringe group gets 15 minutes. It is 2016 election all over again, media chooses their favorite "evil" and promote it to death. Decentralization stops radicalisation, because it allows free discussion.
That said, I'd invite you to continue your line of reasoning: decentralization leads to free discussion. Free discussion leads to X. X leads to the reduction in radicalization. What is the X you see?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't diffusion of power more-or-less the point of democracy?
Absolutely not. Western liberal democracy relies on centralised power; it’s not clear that it could function without it. As an extension of that, getting “power to the people” is usually the rallying cry of someone who wants to weaken the government enough to overpower it in some way.
I believe that it's possible, and preferable for everyone to have the same amount of power. A democracy where every citizen has equal power would try to do what's best for as many people as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't diffusion of power more-or-less the point of democracy?
Absolutely not. Western liberal democracy relies on centralised power; it’s not clear that it could function without it. As an extension of that, getting “power to the people” is usually the rallying cry of someone who wants to weaken the government enough to overpower it in some way.
If diffusion of power isn't fundamentally worthwhile (and there's certainly a defensible position that it isn't) it seems the important question is whether Western liberal democracy is worth the trouble in the first place.
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.
You know, people who say things that cause us to stray from The One True Path(tm).
Clear now?