And with the demise of independent investigative journalism in the outside world we've seen that relationship devolve into feudalism.
A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#12Past related threads: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723205 - July 2020 (14 comments) LambdaMOO takes a new direction (1992) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22680965 - March 2020 (29 comments) A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14634437 - June 2017 (1 comment) The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat (1990) - https://news.ycombi…
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#13Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the next paragraph from that: "But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down." They didn't want to block anyone, so they deleted it. That's why we can't have nice things.
It's unfortunate they chose to engage in mass self-deplatforming rather than simply engage in vigorous debate or attempt to open a dialog and empathize with the views of those they considered guilty of thoughtcrime. Did no one tell them that free speech means nothing if it doesn't apply to the speech we find most objectionable? That sunlight, not censorship, is the best disinfectant? First they came for the shitposte…
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the next paragraph from that: "But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down." They didn't want to block anyone, so they deleted it. That's why we can't have nice things.
It's unfortunate they chose to engage in mass self-deplatforming rather than simply engage in vigorous debate or attempt to open a dialog and empathize with the views of those they considered guilty of thoughtcrime. Did no one tell them that free speech means nothing if it doesn't apply to the speech we find most objectionable? That sunlight, not censorship, is the best disinfectant? First they came for the shitposte…
There's no time to engage all of them in "vigorous debate" or to "open dialogs". Especially people who aren't interested in listening. At some point, you realize that you have more important things to do and you just stop engaging.
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#16What an interesting read. In a way it serves as a warning of all the things that can and will go wrong, and you can see the equivalents to it in action today, some at an amplified level. Not just on the popular social media like FB and IG, but HN and reddit too. The other interesting aspect is how they've gleaned so much insight from their relative (to now) limited number of groups and communities. I wonder what they…
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#17Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#18Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate they chose to engage in mass self-deplatforming rather than simply engage in vigorous debate or attempt to open a dialog and empathize with the views of those they considered guilty of thoughtcrime. Did no one tell them that free speech means nothing if it doesn't apply to the speech we find most objectionable? That sunlight, not censorship, is the best disinfectant? First they came for the shitposte…
idiot nya-nya-nya-nya
Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)
#20And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students [who were only interested in what we now generally call 'shitposting' and 'trolling']. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's…
And the next paragraph from that: "But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down." They didn't want to block anyone, so they deleted it. That's why we can't have nice things.