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

The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

thecgo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#51

Post by kibwen »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #47
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not. Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work. It would destroy current social media. And that.. is not something I am amb…

This is not really correct. I can create a private group that excludes people who wear purple, because purple wearing is not a protected class under law. I can do the same for people who program in APL, or who have ever ridden a tricycle, or listen to "Freebird". However, I cannot create a private group that excludes on the basis of any protected status (e.g. sex, religion, ethnicity, age).

Worth noting that this is how you address the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, by enshrining a limited number of rights that even a simple majority cannot revoke, with the goal of protecting the fundamental rights of the minority.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#52

Post by kibwen »

pessimizer wrote: post #41
giantrobot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever. How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? If someone has signed on to some fantastically unrealistic position and made it a part of their per…

> the only way out is deprogramming. The non-propaganda word for this is "convincing."

As the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#53

Post by TheCowboy »

peteradio wrote: post #14
kodah wrote: post #3

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…

> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!

NBA player Kyrie Irving has been in the news recently for other comments as well:

https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-com...

Not exactly a nerd.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#54

Post by kbenson »

peteradio wrote: post #14
kodah wrote: post #3

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…

> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!

Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#55

Post by 627467 »

Urbit going mainstream?

Back to the the point of the article: AFAIK urbit (groups at least) still rely on central server in the sense that each group is hosted by a single server. Won't this server have the legal responsabilities of whichever jurisdiction they are hosted in?

Ie. If I host a group on an urbit server hosted on AWS and certain ilegal content is hosted on my server won't I have the responsability to take it down?

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#56

Post by peteradio »

kbenson wrote: post #54
peteradio wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's how we got flat Earth Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls? Don't feed the trolls people!

Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?

If you can't tell the difference between a troll or a genuine idiot, err on troll. Frankly it's much more flattering for the likely troll.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#57

Post by elpool2 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #33
phailhaus wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat? > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no o…

Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element. We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Oth…

Do you have evidence of this? I'm not aware of any major deplatforming of flat earthers. There are still flat earth subreddits. Most people seem to think they're stupid and worthy of ridicule but ultimately not that harmful.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#58

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Yep, Section 230 is built to protect big tech platforms. Unsurprisingly, everyone who writes articles claiming otherwise has a financial influence from a large tech firm.

A lot of the extremism, radical political shifts, and domestic terrorism can be placed squarely on 230 and it's defenders. Big tech platforms aren't worth this much damage.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#59

Post by generalizations »

phailhaus wrote: post #16
kodah wrote: post #3

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions. I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all. There's a lot of content on the internet today that I…

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so they formed their own commu…

> If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

There is a giant middle ground between mocking an idea and accepting that it's reasonable, which you are ignoring.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#60

Post by phailhaus »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #45
phailhaus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere. No they don't, full stop. You don't own Twitter, you don't own YouTube, you don't own any of these platforms. Flat Earthers can say whatever the hell they want, but they don't have the "right" to force YouTube to carry their speech. It is a simple fact that these bans are effective at preventing toxic b…

Hey now.. are you saying they got kicked out from ? Because that would put us halfway there. I would still disagree with you on a host of other issues, but at least you would admit your initial statement was not accurate ( paraphrased as 'they left to form their own communities'). Also, who made you the authority of who gets to be toxic and who is not? I find you toxic. Do I get to ban you? I don't like your fringe t…

> Do I really need to spell out why it is a really, really bad idea to go down the rabbit hole you suggest?

You should! Where does the rabbit hole of "platforms get to choose what they ban" lead us? Are you suggesting that a YouTube channel is a human right now?

> You don't believe me? Look at Biden's laptop saga

Here's the problem: your thesis assumes that these groups are acting in good faith. They are not. The GOP has repeatedly stated that they will impeach the president over anything, regardless of if it's true or not. Remember Benghazi? Remember how Trump pressured Ukraine to open up any investigation into Biden? He didn't care if it was real, he needed the headlines and the political edge.

There is no universe in which they go "oh nevermind, we were wrong about the laptop." It is in their interest to ignore facts. And here you are, suggesting that the solution is simply to make it more public as if it has any credence. Should we also widely disseminate QAnon literature and talking points, simply because they exist?

Post reply on HN