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

A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#31

Post by amelius »

natmaka wrote: post #13

"Less is different -- small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can't. And so we blew past that interesting scale of small groups". Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.

> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes

I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#33

Post by BiteCode_dev »

mbg721 wrote: post #18

The biggest thing that seems different to me now is that in Thing To Design For #1, non-portable reputation is basically dead. You now live in a gossip-loving small town whose population is the whole world; if you cheat at the wrong thing, whether it's your wife or poker or whatever, you're at the mercy of the doxxers.

I can see plenty of people getting away with bad behavior. You can even become president these days. So it's not just about morality.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#34

Post by PaulHoule »

amelius wrote: post #31
natmaka wrote: post #13

"Less is different -- small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can't. And so we blew past that interesting scale of small groups". Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.

> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?

Chat services usually rot and go the way of MySpace. Remember cuseeme, aol instant messenger, icq, irc, Skype, Skype for business, Lynq, paltalk, Facebook messenger, tivejo, …

Facebook was originally where cool kids hang out now grandma is on it. Facebook is always buying a competitor or imitating one or aiming a service at really young kids to stay ahead of the rot.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#35

Post by esyir »

bawolff wrote: post #27
krapp wrote: post #8

Earlier 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…

Debate is what you do to someone you disagree with over a matter that has a right and wrong answer. If i want to talk about quantum physics, and someone else wants to talk about cute cat pictures - there is no right or wrong answers; you can't debate it. The two people want different things. Neither is more right, but its best for everyone if they find a group of people who want to do the same activity instead of pis…

I think where I'd like to draw the line would be on platforms and domain restrictions, and possibly decorum as well.

Essentially, the smaller and more specialised the community, the more leeway they have for moderation /censorship.

Conversely, the larger platforms, especially those that host enormous proportions of the population, should have less control over their users, lest they gain too much control over the speech of their users.

Some might argue that this violates the rights of the corporation, but I weight the rights of millions of users far higher than the rights of a few corporations. This goes double for the publishers masquerading as platforms.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#36

Post by teddyh »

kumarvvr wrote: post #21

"Nothing causes a group to galvanize like an external enemy" Yup. This is how vote banks work. Seed the idea of an external enemy to a group of loosely cohesive group and suddenly they become like a huge entity difficult to be reasoned with.

The outgroup defines the ingroup.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#37

Post by 411111111111111 »

amelius wrote: post #31
natmaka wrote: post #13

"Less is different -- small groups of people can engage in kinds of interaction that large groups can't. And so we blew past that interesting scale of small groups". Leopold Kohr thesis (such as "Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes") are pertinent.

> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?

These are corporations, not groups of people.

The rule can be observed if you look at groups in that corporation.

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#38

Post by ryder9 »

411111111111111 wrote: post #37
amelius wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size,everything collapses or explodes I suppose that (quasi) monopolists like Google, Amazon, and Apple are still to small for that thesis?

These are corporations, not groups of people. The rule can be observed if you look at groups in that corporation.

corporations aren't run and managed by groups of people?

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#39

Post by throwaway_2047 »

Maybe tangential.

Now in the society we have 2 + 2 might not equal four, a man cannot be "assumed" "he", reverse discrimination, etc.

edit: I total understand why I'm getting down-voted. I think what I'm trying to say is, the US is designed to be free and inclusive. At least that's how I understand it. And there are always opposite voices. But, as I perceive it, the politically correct thing seems to be over-correcting the "wrong".

Re: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy (2003)

#40

Post by openfuture »

Tragedy of the commons is the killer of decentralization since day 1.

Try polluting the shared space around your building (with clutter for example) and see how long it takes for you to be censored. Self-censoring is how we maintain our liberty to pollute but it can go too far though; some deep-pocket people can largely avoid feedback because no one dares to go against them.

There is always some tension between censorship and pollution, our goal is to minimize both so we can give ourselves space to breathe and live. This is why we create law. Law should be created when the cost of censorship is lower than the cost of pollution. Consider nude beach vs downtown big city, pollution and censorship inverts, law is similar and we need more local law and more aggressive refactoring.

Enforcing law is a communal effort and also local. We need better tools to accomplish this. But they are rapidly emerging fwict so hopefully these things become actionable soon.

Post reply on HN