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

51–60 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#51

Post by cwyers »

I think this is a very compelling point, and much better than most of the "fediverse is for freedom" talking points I have seen on HN:

> I have participated in many a public forum on Internet governance, and whenever anyone pointed out that social platforms like Facebook need to do more as far as content moderation is concerned, Facebook would complain that it’s difficult in their huge network, since regulation and cultures are so different across the world.

> They’re not wrong! But while their goal was to stifle further regulation, they were in fact making a very good argument for decentralisation.

> After all the very reason they are in this “difficult position” is their business decision to insist on providing centrally-controlled global social media platforms, trying to push the round peg of a myriad of cultures into a square hole of a single moderation policy.

I think if there was a more robust social media market instead of a Facebook/Twitter duopoly, we would have seen at least _some_ platforms move to restrict things sooner, and maybe even a majority of platforms. That would have kept us from hitting a moment so fraught that the President ended up banned from all social media overnight.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#52

Post by phoe-krk »

simplecto wrote: post #46
breck wrote: post #15

> "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!

I had the same process -- I mis-clicked and saw that it has been appeared on HN a number of times since ~2013. I am glad to see the community continually re-discover this site now and again.

> I mis-clicked and saw that it has been appeared on HN a number of times since ~2013.

Maybe the website itself. This article is fresh from 2021.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#53

Post by Mizza »

Judging by the comments on these and similar threads, it seems that the biggest danger to democracy is voters who have different ideas about how the country should be run.

The fundamental danger, of course, is money. Everything else is noise.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#54

Post by simonh »

mrtksn wrote: post #47

Centralised or de-centralised, why would make any difference? The lies are lies, if you don't have a centralised platform they will spread p2p as long as people can communicate. What we need is a mechanism for breaking circuits of lies and propaganda. In real world social networks we have methods like labelling liars(You have one identity and you risk it every time you say something), right to defend yourself(You can…

>What we need is a mechanism for breaking circuits of lies and propaganda.

I think this is dangerous thinking, lies are bad but censorship is worse because someone has to decide what is a lie and what isn't, and that quickly becomes politicised. That never works out well. Since you mention Turkey, look at the current government's suppression of journalism. Freedom of expression must be protected as a legal right to maintain democracy.

On the other hand, freedom of expression includes the freedom not to facilitate other people's speech if you choose. I fully support the Parler people's right to propagate whatever bullshit they like as long as it isn't planning or inciting crimes. Equally I completely support Twitter, Facebook, AWS, etc's right to choose what they do and do not allow on their platforms. That's freedom too.

This is all part of the process of civil discourse. However uncivil it might seem right now, it's something we all need to work out as free citizens.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#55

Post by username90 »

Mizza wrote: post #53

Judging by the comments on these and similar threads, it seems that the biggest danger to democracy is voters who have different ideas about how the country should be run. The fundamental danger, of course, is money. Everything else is noise.

Money being able to influence elections is called corruption. Money isn't a problem in itself, corruption is. Just giving up and saying that money will always have this kind of influence and that all politicians will always be bought and there is nothing you can do is how you ensure corruption festers and grow.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#56

Post by Semaphor »

breck wrote: post #15

> "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!

Similar here. I expected this to be yet another "decentralized networks are the best join now"-article which pops up on HN all the time, but this one had actually well-thought-out points.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#57

Post by username90 »

Pfhreak wrote: post #31
mkolodny wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Empathy works as long as you don't create a us vs them situation.

> The tyranny of the majority

Has that ever happened or is that just an argument to let politicians keep their power?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#58

Post by cies »

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship.

I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democracy is power for votes (at least it should be). Currently lobbies have more power in the decision process than voters (any political sciences professor will agree). So democracy is a hollow word, or worse: a facade, a lie.

Lobbies basically work in favour of the super rich. If we see the gap widening we see that they get what they pay for, and the for-sure-not-super-rich masses dont get what they vote for.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#59

Post by simonh »

Mizza wrote: post #53

Judging by the comments on these and similar threads, it seems that the biggest danger to democracy is voters who have different ideas about how the country should be run. The fundamental danger, of course, is money. Everything else is noise.

I'ma Brit, but as far as I can see democracy in the USA is working fine and exactly as it is supposed to. The voters experimented with something unusual for a few years, then switched back to something more familiar, they'll get more chances to choose over the coming years.

In fact it's precisely because democracy worked so well that the MAGA core lost their shit and tried to over-rule it. They failed, democracy won, a few extremists are dead or will end up in prison and it's time to move on. I just feel bad for the cop who lost his life, and his family.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#60

Post by vkou »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
devmunchies wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fol…

Unsuccessful extremists do their recruitment in backyards and echo chambers. If those are the only places they can get new converts, they are not going to be wildly successful.

Successful extremists do it in the light of day, out in the open. When you broadcast an idea that one in a hundred people will latch on to, and you broadcast it to five people at a time, you're not going to get much traction. When you broadcast it to five million people, you're going to get fifty thousand converts.

Notice how we are not having to seriously deal with a domestic ISIS insurgency (Because it has been very effectively driven into the fringe, where it has very limited reach), but we are currently having to seriously deal with... A lot of other ugly stuff, that has been very successfully spreading through mainstream networks.

Post reply on HN