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

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#101

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #72
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I beg to differ. There are private groups in existence right now, who are excluding protected classes and everyone is perfectly fine with it ( sex ). I don't even have to troll 4chan. They are right there in the open[1] Unless that kind of double standard is ok. [1] https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-gir...

I will admit to not understanding the scope of the "discrimination" against protected classes that is barred by law. It clearly has some significant extent, but I've never really been able to find a clear description of where the edges are.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#102

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #95
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... .

Good. All Section 230 did was grant safe harbor which created the massive consolidated, extractive, and exploitative megacorps we see today.

We would have figured it out naturally as we do other things. Instead, lawmakers forced the internet in an unnatural direction.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#103

Post by vineyardmike »

kgwxd wrote: post #93
vineyardmike wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yea that’s true.

My point was that the “group X needs to be accepted or they’ll make their own space” is a universal behavior.

If we make it hard for outsiders to make their own space, it will impact queer and similarly marginalized groups. Queer people still need their own space today because they’re still not always accepted. While we should accept reasonable people and allow them into our space, we do need a society that allows people to make their own space.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#104

Post by Arathorn »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #83
larsonnn wrote: post #26

I’m don’t understanding the claim of Matrix being decentralised. In the end I host a server and you talk with me. I give you the choice of choosing the authentication. For that I need an account at the authentication provider like Microsoft. So all authenticate with Microsoft. I create a user for them at my server which is still be needed to have the at least the timeline saved. At which point I have decentralisation…

It isn't and Matrix is about as decentralized as Gmail or Microsoft Outlook.

if the amount of FUD that gets levelled against Matrix was converted into work on other solutions, Matrix wouldn’t need to exist.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#105

Post by phailhaus »

thrown_22 wrote: post #66
phailhaus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bottom-of-the-barrel flamebait.

Quoted post unavailable.

More flamebait, you should stop. The GOP already used their "groomer panic" card on gay people and failed, so it falls pretty flat today. Some people are trans, get over it.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#106

Post by giantrobot »

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."

There's no convincing people that have left rationality behind. All of these types of conspiracy theory movements operate the same way. They pull people away from rationality and convince them that rational discourse are attacks against them.

It's little different than how cults operate. They go after marginalized (or convince people they have been marginalized) and prey on their insecurities and desire for belonging.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#107

Post by encryptluks2 »

Arathorn wrote: post #104
encryptluks2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't and Matrix is about as decentralized as Gmail or Microsoft Outlook.

if the amount of FUD that gets levelled against Matrix was converted into work on other solutions, Matrix wouldn’t need to exist.

Other solutions exists. XMPP has been around for a long time.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#108

Post by kodah »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #62
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…

I googled Robin DiAngelo and expected to read about a far-right Jordan Peterson type. Instead I found that she's the person who created the term "white fragility". From her wiki page, I don't see any reason to compare her to a flat earther

She's socially accepted by some groups. If you want to understand why I dislike her book I'd suggest reading it. It's one of those that either makes you a follower or question whether you've traveled into a parallel dimension.

Farther up I provide a critique juxtaposed with what I generally follow (intersectionality).

Post reply on HN