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

IPFS Support in Brave

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#431

Post by ajsnigrutin »

autocorr wrote: post #186
undefined1 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla seems to be moving in the other direction now. "We need more than deplatforming" https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these actions that should be taken: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom…

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline algorithm]

This is great, silencing disinformation... or maybe not.

On one march friday, facebook would silence the "conspiracy theorists" claiming you should wear a mask, because our 'experts' (and american too, and WHO and many others) said, that wearing a mask for covid is useless.

Then, on the next day, our government mandated masks and gloves in every indoor location (stores,...), and facebook would silence the people claiming masks are useless.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#432

Post by kortilla »

stkdump wrote: post #374
kortilla wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s still speech suppression and support of it, even if you think it’s justified.

Sure, in the same vein as building a dam is water suppression. It doesn't take away any right, it's about the limits of a right. You also suppress freedom of speech indirectly when you put someone in prison, so any crime punished by imprisonment seems to be considered reason enough to justify that as well. Saying that freedom of speech can't ever be limited is a very ideological point of view, so far away from realit…

> You also suppress freedom of speech indirectly when you put someone in prison

You’re confusing suppressing an individual’s ability to speak with the general notion of the free exchange of ideas. Arrest one person and free speech activists aren’t concerned, arrest everyone that says something, now they are concerned. The notion of trying to suppress topics is the problem, not the limitation of a particular individual.

> Saying that freedom of speech can't ever be limited is a very ideological point of view, so far away from reality that I wouldn't consider it worth debating at all.

You built a shitty strawman and then attacked it. Bravo. If you actually want to debate people who advocate free speech, the concern is when speech is suppressed because of the contents of the speech. Not because the person is dead, in prison, in a coma, or some other contrived crap.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#433

Post by kortilla »

ignoramous wrote: post #424
kortilla wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation It’s horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some of the worst political divides are over which set of facts to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the election, etc). “Amplify factual voices” just sounds…

> “Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit No, it doesn't. Facts, which are a subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood. For example, you'd not find schools teach conspiracy theories like "Earth is flat", or "Global Warming is a hoax" for a reason. Fringe theories that rely on absurd reasoning and have no basis in actual facts must be curtailed, and under no circumstan…

> No, it doesn't. Facts, which are subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood.

Yes, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum base a bunch of bullshit based on sets of facts they deem important.

There is no set of facts that indicates wealth should be taxed or corporate rates should be cut. Each side trots out “facts” supporting their view but the conclusions are completely different.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#434

Post by _-david-_ »

ignoramous wrote: post #424
kortilla wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation It’s horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some of the worst political divides are over which set of facts to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the election, etc). “Amplify factual voices” just sounds…

> “Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit No, it doesn't. Facts, which are a subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood. For example, you'd not find schools teach conspiracy theories like "Earth is flat", or "Global Warming is a hoax" for a reason. Fringe theories that rely on absurd reasoning and have no basis in actual facts must be curtailed, and under no circumstan…

So if one person says the ideal the tax rate is X% and another person says X+1% who is correct? One of them or neither? How do you decide certain things like that? Obviously at least one of them is spreading misinformation and is not a factual voice.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#436

Post by jhardy54 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #428
Draken93 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when a certain group of people decided to ignore all reasonable arguments, to ignore sience. This is not about shutting down all controversial discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with (massi…

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide? Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

> Do you let google and facebook decide?

Google and Facebook should host whichever legal content they'd like, and we should build alternative systems that give us control over how we spend our attention and share our influence.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#437

Post by jhardy54 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #429
jhardy54 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals. A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

> A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists. But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide? Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

(Flagged as duplicate comment.)

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#438

Post by kortilla »

uniqueid wrote: post #354
kortilla wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who produce anti-censorship tools usually philosophically believe that it’s not the job of a communications tool to enforce acceptable speech. It’s sort of like complaining that making it easier to vote brings the average voter education level down. The people making it easier are certainly aware but don’t think it’s right to make it more difficult to vote.

The first paragraph is a good assessment of the current state of affairs. That said, it's not a given that it be all or nothing. In fact, my complaint is specifically that we don't often ask such questions. There might be ways we haven't exploited yet to disincentivize certain behaviors. Whoever invented Bitcoin, for example, had to take problems with incentives into account that, at first glance, seem intractable. G…

> In fact, my complaint is specifically that we don't often ask such questions.

But tons of people do, all the time. There has been excessive pearl clutching about making it easier to spread ideas since the invention of the printing press.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#439

Post by ktpsns »

scns wrote: post #343
autocorr wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a killer feature for me too. Works great between all my devices across Linux, Android, and iOS. If I see an interesting article I just ship it off to my desktop to read later instead of keeping the tab open for days on my phone.

Have you tried KDE connect? You can share links and files with any connected device. Use it as a remote control for music players and presentations. Ring your phone from your computer to find it and more. https://kdeconnect.kde.org/ (edit: add second paragraph and link)

I love KDE connect. It makes smartphone interaction really seamless. However, it only works in the same wifi (most likely some wifi you control).

PS: Just noticed there is a VPN feature https://userbase.kde.org/KDEConnect#Running_KDE_Connect_over... -- KDEconnect is really amazing.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#440

Post by fidelramos »

jonathansampson wrote: post #263
Reedx wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone know why they didn't just use an existing cryptocurrency?

When we launched Rewards (then called 'Payments'), we did so using Bitcoin. During that time, our users would seek to buy about $5 or $10 of BTC at a time. Due to network fees and congestion, these users would pay as much as 90% to fees, and still not be sure when their coins would arrive. This clearly wasn't good for the health and well-being of Brave and Brave "Payments" (now "Rewards"). Our hand was forced, effect…

It would have been great if you had switched from BTC to BCH (Bitcoin Cash), as it maintains all the good things about Bitcoin while keeping fees low (<$0.01). That would have been easier than switching to ERC20 tokens, and it would have avoided the same issue happening again with high ETH fees.
Post reply on HN