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

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#91

Post by galaxyLogic »

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

I think we must argue against bad and/or crazy ideas. If we don't soon people will attack the Capitol....

A good way to argue against crazy assumptions like flat Earth I think is to realize that while there are only a few consistent thus possibly true physical explanations of the world, there are an infinite number of crazy and untrue and inconsistent explanations.

So when someone proposes a crazy idea, we can ask why not these other 10 ideas which are just as crazy as flat Earth? Why not square Earth? Why not Dodecahedron Earth? Why not Triangular Earth? Why not Flat Sun?

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#92

Post by austin-cheney »

My attempt to solve for a fully decentralized web application: https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/stargazers

When I say decentralization I really mean that, not federated. It works very differently than surfing the web for content because this application, in addition to being fully decentralized, is privacy focused and never anonymous. The web is extremely opposite on all 3 points.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#93

Post by kgwxd »

vineyardmike wrote: post #87
phailhaus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. This works both ways. Queer and other minority groups identity weren’t always accepted as reasonable ideas so they made their own spaces until they were allowed back in.

It doesn’t work both ways, the same people being ostracized now are the ones that didn’t/don’t except queer and other minority groups. The ones that want people in prison or dead for having attributes beyond their control. Not wanting people like that around has always been considered a reasonable idea by reasonable people.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#95

Post by amadeuspagel »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #5

> The courts had traditionally found that liability is determined by whether or not an entity was acting as a publisher actively vetting, producing, and editing content (liable), or a distributor merely selling the products offered by publishers (less-liable). > The immediate impact of Section 230 was to halt the developing body of common law being forged through internet speech–related litigation. Big mistake in my…

Before Section 230, common law was going to make everyone who runs a moderated forum liable for content posted by users[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#96

Post by amadeuspagel »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #89
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But without it, you can't even safely run your own local server, if you allow others to post there. It protects HN just as much as it protects Twitter and Facebook.

This isn't meaningfully true, it's just a rhetoric used by big tech companies to protect their willfully harmful behavior. Section 230 provides blanket immunity, but it's important to consider what actually happens without it: People doing their actual best to operate a site aren't going to be arbitrarily lined up and shot, judges and juries will side with them and establish clear precedent. But bad actors like Googl…

> People doing their actual best to operate a site aren't going to be arbitrarily lined up and shot, judges and juries will side with them and establish clear precedent.

That's not what happened before Section 230[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#97

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

msla wrote: post #90
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a non-sequitur. It simply does not follow. If it was intended as an analogy, it fails at several levels. Still, in the spirit of continuing this conversation, and extending this metaphor I will play along. Has necrophilia been reported in NY post touting its discovery or its relationship to current WH occupant? Have other publications later confirmed that necrophilia was indeed present[1] and was not limited to…

> Has necrophilia been reported in NY post touting its discovery or its relationship to current WH occupant? Not yet, but there's a long way to go until 2024. Yes, I get that you believe in Hunter Biden's magic laptop. I think it's nonsense and that you've been duped, and you need to respect my beliefs, because trying to ban them will only make them more credible. Really, you're the one being unreasonable here.

No. I only need to tolerate them. And I do. The moment tables turn and your beliefs are on the chopping block, I will be the lone soul advocating for you on the same basis. I actually believe in right your to express those beliefs. I would not even consider banning you. Aren't I a chump?

However, in my admittedly simple world, there is no automatic respect. And as such, I have little respect for people, who do not look at what is front of them, or worse, pretend it is not there. It is a recipe for a disaster.

It is possible. I was wrong before. We will find out during the exciting finale of US 2024 election! Don't miss it!

We are in agreement here. It is a long time in politics, but you have to admit that the pieces are in place now. I know that key power centers have stuff ready for release on known candidates ( and furiously research any challengers for any flaws that can be exploited ).

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#98

Post by nathias »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #84
nathias wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, free speech isn't just about keeping violence from search of truth it's about tolerating what you consider untruth. Rationalist philosophers that invented the concept were censored, excommunicated and their works were burned, would you say their censors were just expressing their own free speech?

Who are the rationalist free speech advocates of today? So far it seems like the free speech absolutist don't really value free speech but value their speech.

I'm here, I care about free speech in general, mine included. It seems pretty bad faith to consider people who just want to spread their specific message and would be glad to censor their opponents as free speech absolutists.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#99

Post by nathias »

joshuamorton wrote: post #50
nathias wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, free speech isn't just about keeping violence from search of truth it's about tolerating what you consider untruth. Rationalist philosophers that invented the concept were censored, excommunicated and their works were burned, would you say their censors were just expressing their own free speech?

"Burning their works" sure sounds like violence.

it isn't, it's destruction of property or just preventing something to be published by royal decree (or nowadays by advertisers)

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#100

Post by ocdtrekkie »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #96
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't meaningfully true, it's just a rhetoric used by big tech companies to protect their willfully harmful behavior. Section 230 provides blanket immunity, but it's important to consider what actually happens without it: People doing their actual best to operate a site aren't going to be arbitrarily lined up and shot, judges and juries will side with them and establish clear precedent. But bad actors like Googl…

> People doing their actual best to operate a site aren't going to be arbitrarily lined up and shot, judges and juries will side with them and establish clear precedent. That's not what happened before Section 230[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod... .

Yeah, there's one poor piece of case law from 1995, well before the modern Internet.

I understand people's fear of actually having to defend behavior on merits, but the literal death toll of Section 230 is a cost too high to avoid a couple court cases that will inevitably side with people doing the right thing.

Post reply on HN