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

31–40 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#31

Post by Pfhreak »

mkolodny wrote: post #28
hyko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While most democratic governments currently involve some form of centralization, a pure democracy is one where every person has equal power. 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.

In that system, how do you care for folks who experience rare but serious difficulties. The tyranny of the majority gets real complex when dealing with massive populations.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#32

Post by Barrin92 »

throw3848 wrote: post #22
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…

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.

QAnon has made it into the halls of congress, literally in the form of the now infamous 'Q Shaman' but also in the form of elected representatives[1], it's made it to Harvard educated now socially isolated loners who are part of groups that encompass hundreds of thousands[2], and it has even made it to my homecountry[3], where it is co-mingling with anti-vaxers and covid-deniers. It is not a joke at all. That's how far crazy ideas go if they can spread unopposed.

[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-twitter/twit...

[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/technology/qanon-meme-que...

[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/world/europe/qanon-is-thr...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#35

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

> Nevertheless, I think in general de/centralization is orthogonal to censoring inflammatory actors.

It's really not. The most perfidious thing centralized platforms do is promote controversial content to increase engagement. This is a double fail of centralization because, first, that's their business model, and second, everything they screw up happens at scale.

Decentralizing things would create, let's call it, algorithm diversity. Not everybody is finding things the same way as everybody else, so esoteric garbage mistakenly promoted by somebody's bad code doesn't have as much reach.

And the business model could be different. Or at least there could be more than one.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#36

Post by coldtea »

refurb wrote: post #30
mmmeff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “inflammatory actors” a bit? Thanks.

Maybe I can help out. Basically anyone who “foments discord” or “sows disharmony”. You know, people who say things that cause us to stray from The One True Path(tm). Clear now?

So, basically anybody opposed to the TINA.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#37

Post by kgwxd »

refurb wrote: post #30
mmmeff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “inflammatory actors” a bit? Thanks.

Maybe I can help out. Basically anyone who “foments discord” or “sows disharmony”. You know, people who say things that cause us to stray from The One True Path(tm). Clear now?

No, it's just racism, sexism, and threats of violence. It's really not that hard. No one is getting shut down for proposing alternative social/economic strategies, unless those strategies are racist, sexist and/or violent.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#38

Post by coldtea »

hellisothers wrote: post #25
swader999 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orwellian comment of the day.

https://www.vox.com/culture/22233197/orwellian-definition-ge...

>How the right made the word “Orwellian” an empty cliché.

Oh, the irony. And from VOX of all places. And basically amounting to "It's not Orwellian thought-crime persecution if we do it to those who indeed have criminal thoughts".

Orwell himself had something opposite to say in 1944 no less:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else".

Post reply on HN