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

Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

blog.paulbohm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#21

Post by bohm »

zol wrote: post #20

> Having all the data of the entire network on all the Big-World Servers. That's what you need to do if you want to crunch the data, make it searchable, and provide algorithms that help you discover new content and new people to follow. How is this all possible if the data is encrypted? Also, what’s the economic incentive for building and maintaining the software that runs on the servers?

The posts and likes are all public. Some servers can charge users, and will likely have more resources to improve their offerings that way.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#22

Post by zol »

bohm wrote: post #21
zol wrote: post #20

> Having all the data of the entire network on all the Big-World Servers. That's what you need to do if you want to crunch the data, make it searchable, and provide algorithms that help you discover new content and new people to follow. How is this all possible if the data is encrypted? Also, what’s the economic incentive for building and maintaining the software that runs on the servers?

The posts and likes are all public. Some servers can charge users, and will likely have more resources to improve their offerings that way.

> A centralized service runs on computers wholly under control of a single entity. They can change, monitor, amplify and bury all information. They can read your private messages. They can delete content, promote other content, and even impersonate you.

Apart from reading your private messages, does that mean you still need to trust that the server you’re connected to isn’t doing all those other things?

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#23

Post by bohm »

zol wrote: post #22
bohm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The posts and likes are all public. Some servers can charge users, and will likely have more resources to improve their offerings that way.

> A centralized service runs on computers wholly under control of a single entity. They can change, monitor, amplify and bury all information. They can read your private messages. They can delete content, promote other content, and even impersonate you. Apart from reading your private messages, does that mean you still need to trust that the server you’re connected to isn’t doing all those other things?

Nope. You own your keys, and you can switch to a different server instantly while retaining both your username and your followers. They can't impersonate you because they don't have your keys. They can't ready your messages because they don't have your keys.

It's a bit more complex underneath (e.g. the are light-clients that you can entrust with part of your key), but that's the gist.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#24

Post by rileyphone »

selectodude wrote: post #11
bohm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. You get to have all the moderation, filtering, etc. that is implemented on the servers you use. I'm sure there will be servers that very closely try to approximate what Twitter is/has been doing. Servers also can share any and all information needed to effectively moderate.

So it’s closed source Mastodon?

You can use verified domains as handles

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#25

Post by nextlevelwizard »

selectodude wrote: post #11
bohm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. You get to have all the moderation, filtering, etc. that is implemented on the servers you use. I'm sure there will be servers that very closely try to approximate what Twitter is/has been doing. Servers also can share any and all information needed to effectively moderate.

So it’s closed source Mastodon?

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#26

Post by nl »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #25
selectodude wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it’s closed source Mastodon?

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Is there any difference between tooting and tweeting really?

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#27

Post by nextlevelwizard »

jacobreg wrote: post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

Have you considered that maybe de-plaforming people on the fringe and forcing them into their own private silos actually ends up boosting their message?

When you try to be the goody two-shoes and block anything and everything that could potentially be offensive to someone you just make controversial opinions more intriguing. At least I want to see what the big fuss was about and determine myself it such banishment was actually justified and more often than not it feels like too hash of a punishment, which in turn makes it more likely that I go look for the next banished person's shit and so on.

One can then easily get directed to one of these silos where there are no opposing arguments at all. At least when someone acts out on a public forum majority of users can rein them back in line and avoid further indoctrination. However this last part is hard pill to swallow for most, since they don't want their own bad opinions to be called out.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#28

Post by nextlevelwizard »

nl wrote: post #26
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Is there any difference between tooting and tweeting really?

Other than that "tweeting" is what birds do and "tooting" is term for farting and slang for snorting cocaine? Well, isnt that enough?

Whenever I hear someone "tooted" on Mastodon I just imagine them farting while high on cocaine.

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#29

Post by omeid2 »

nl wrote: post #26
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon needs to at very least change its terminology if it ever wants to be taken seriously. As funny as it is for people to be "tooting" out whatever happens to be in their head in that very moment no one wants to be known as a "tooter" who "toots" frequently.

Is there any difference between tooting and tweeting really?

Yes. "toot" sounds far less refined than "tweet". Is it completely subjective? Yes, but if enough people think so, "it is so".

Re: Blue Sky: Can Twitter be owned by its users?

#30

Post by lll-o-lll »

detrites wrote: post #15
jacobreg wrote: post #6

There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down

Why? The vast majority of people aren't interested in terrorising minority groups, or anyone, or enacting violence of any kind on any people of any kind. While situations like that, and sites like that are an important issue, they're not the type of issue that spirals wildly out of control and takes over the world if left unchecked. It doesn't mean they should be left unchecked - any such negative outcomes are horrif…

5% of the population is diagnosable with severe personality disorders that lead to anti-social behavior. Approx 1% have NPD, a bit over that have diagnosable psychopathy, and there are several other disorders to round out that 5%. They aren’t going to “terrorise” people so much as troll, manipulate, disrupt, abuse. Any specific form of attack is often only a means to an ends.

The vast majority of people (95%) are not like this, however if you cannot police those 5%, then your platform will be the playground of the malcontents. Moderation is a non-negotiable for any social platform.

Post reply on HN