Live data from Hacker News

Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

thenewatlantis.com

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extrapolating your experience in one online space to cover everyone's experience in every online space, as if everything, everywhere is your use case is either hubris or naivete of the highest order. Either way, I applaud your ability to climb to such heights! There are so many other use cases and spaces that would benefit enormously from decentralization that I couldn't even begin to list even a small portion of the…

> That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization. I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying t…

>I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different.

You're right. I didn't get that from what you said at all. Which is likely my fault. I'll go back later and re-read the comment to which I replied to confirm that.

>My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.

The person you originally replied to didn't say the problems were simple. They said that the solution was simple. And I agree.

The solution is quite simple. So much so that in a previous comment[0] I noted how surprised I am that it isn't much more broadly discussed.

However, Implementing such a solution at scale, given the current barriers is, as you imply, not a simple matter. On that point we definitely agree.

I'd add that those barriers don't just incentivize centralization of social media and community discourse, it also incentivizes centralization of most everything in the digital universe.

that includes hosting of internet-facing apps, services and other content, which (IMHO) reduces competition, creates arbitrage opportunities to suck value out of existing business sectors without adding real value, and destroys locally-based businesses and business communities.

My core point is that, as a society it behooves us to knock down those barriers. Chief of which are the monopolistic ISPs, their asymmetric bandwidth and abusive TOS for "consumer" connections.

When most or all of us can simply and reliably (the technical tools are already available, as you correctly point out) host our own content, whether they be videos of the grand-kids, in-house restaurant/retail store ordering systems, and all manner of other apps/services, etc., etc., etc., we can shun these centralized services and avoid the many harms (engagement algorithms, "targeted" advertising, giving corporations the power to decide what speech is acceptable, rent-seeking "apps", etc.) caused by the centralization due to those perverse incentives.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551

Edit: Cleaned up my prose slightly.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#102
For decades it was "common knowledge" that the War of the Worlds broadcast caused mass hysteria, when in fact if you look back on the newspaper articles at the time and compare them to criminal and hospital records you find no such thing. It would be more accurate to say that the newspaper industry was upset with the radio industry.

An article from a professor publishing via W.W. Norton about the internet is cut from the same cloth as newspaper vs radio, imo.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.

LOL, okay... best you can do is personal attacks? When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? This is a prime example of why we can't have nice things.

>When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities?

When they became defacto owners of the largest modern day town square where the majority of political speech is conducted?

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#104
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.

What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation. Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.

>What kind of argument is that?

An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights?

>They spread lies which cost lives.

Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#105
post #46

> While the government can’t police private conversations, it can regulate the content of broadcasts to protect the public interest. I've never agreed with this idea and I don't think I'm alone in that. Possibly "public interest" is the wrong word. > It’s worth remembering that Congress’s decision to license radio operators after the Titanic disaster was about more than just allocating scarce spectrum. It was about b…

> I've never agreed with this idea and I don't think I'm alone in that. Possibly "public interest" is the wrong word. Do you agree or disagree with the notion that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource, actual broadcast (using the spectrum) needs to be regulated?

Sure, regulating spectrum availability is one thing, but the action that the FCC was taking in that piece was related to what words are allowed on regulated channels.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#106
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation. Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.

>What kind of argument is that? An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights? >They spread lies which cost lives. Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.

> An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights?

This is not what I meant and you know it.

> Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.

This is utter bullshit and derailment. People who spread misinformation about covid are wrong. There are scientific facts which prove them wrong. The fact that they repeat something against those facts doesn't make them heroes because there was Copernicus who was also "against something". Copernicus had the facts side behind him. Those guys you try to advertise here are the church which was against him because they had THE FEELING that he was wrong and no scientific facts which would support them.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#107
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and gay people were pissed about it, too. Your point? It was an unjust way to treat homosexuals, it's an unjust way to treat supposed "bigots". Especially when it turns into vulgar Gesinnungsschnüffelei combined with double standards, and reading inner motivations and beliefs into snippets, because "it could be".

Only gay people have suffered millenia of outright persecution, and face a death penalty in several countries to this day. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison here.

Something wrong doesn't become one iota better, or acceptable, because bigger evils exist. By that logic, persecuting homosexuals is perfectly fine, because bigger evils than that exist, too.

And no gay person suffered millenia of persecution, not even non-persecuted individuals live that long. You might as well say carbon-based lifeforms suffered millenia of persecution at their own hands and call it a day.

Post reply on HN