Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
knightcolumbia.org
Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
1–10 of 285 posts
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#2Certain events that have taken place over the last few days and weeks will drive decentralization forward like never before.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#3>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface.
As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a popular topic but it does not make progress.
The real issue is funding and trying to make humans do what they don't want to do.
If HN is overrepresented by vanguards of decentralization and free speech, why are a lot of us here on HN instead of running USENET nodes and posting to a newsgroup such as "comp.programming.hackernews" to avoid being moderated by dang?
If most of HN knows how to set up git and stand up a web server, why do most of use Github instead of running Gitlab on a home pc/laptop/RaspberryPi or rent a Digital Ocean vps?
It's because "free & open protocols" weren't really the issue!
A lot of us don't want to run a USENET node or manage our own git server to share code.
[1] the so-called "open" internet of free protocols: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231960
[2] free & royalty free protocol like Signal still doesn't solve the "who pays for running the server" problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20232499
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#4>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
> If HN is overrepresented by vanguards of decentralization and free speech, why are a lot of us here on HN instead of running USENET nodes and posting to a newsgroup such as "comp.programming.hackernews" to avoid being moderated by dang?
Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors.
Also notice that you're using a web page delivered via HTTP over TCP/IP over Ethernet, resolved via DNS, secured via TLS etc. These are all standard protocols. But Facebook isn't one and that's at the root of the problem.
> If most of HN knows how to set up git and stand up a web server, why do most of use Github instead of running Gitlab on a home pc/laptop/RaspberryPi or rent a Digital Ocean vps?
The network effect.
> It's because "free & open protocols" weren't really the issue!
It's because "free & open protocols" are an important thing but not the only thing, and their importance relative to other things was until recently not under the spotlight.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#5Certain events that have taken place over the last few days and weeks will drive decentralization forward like never before.
Let's hope it also works for the platform economy (e.g. UberEats, AppStore, YouTube, ...)
Companies should not own or regulate entire markets.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#6>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
You are exactly right. And you can see the same thing with the Internet as a network as well as with Bitcoin.
Both of those can, by design, be run by individuals and independent entities. However, in the end most people end up preferring to delegate the administration of their share of the network to someone else, either out of ignorance or convenience.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#7>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
The reason people don't run nntp servers is the same reason I don't go to Antarctica to socialize.
The reason people use github is because it it there.
> It's because "free & open protocols" weren't really the issue!
Why do VC funded startups build platforms? Because that's how you get the gate-keeping function. Protocols do not get funded because they do not let you exclude.
Chiding others for not making progress on hard problems against well-funded opponents doesn't make one look wise.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#8"After a decade or so of the general sentiment being in favor of the internet and social media as a way to enable more speech and improve the marketplace of ideas, in the last few years the view has shifted dramatically—now it seems that almost no one is happy."
10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech".
Today people looks at Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/Reddit, see mismanaged cesspools and declare that we need centralized speech control.
This is understandable, but highly reactionary and irrational. Speech control is facilitated by big tech at their own discretion. Advocating for more of it means you're advocating for giving more power to the companies who fucked up the system in the first place.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#9>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
> If HN is overrepresented by vanguards of decentralization and free speech, why are a lot of us here on HN instead of running USENET nodes and posting to a newsgroup such as "comp.programming.hackernews" to avoid being moderated by dang? Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media compani…
> Because the point isn't to have no moderation, it's for the power of "moderation" not to be vested in a small number of oligarchs pressured by angry mobs spurred on by media companies with bad incentives to want to damage their political opponents and market competitors
I mean, or that the angry mobs don't like violent insurrections being encouraged and planned openly on these platforms. Is that what you mean by "damage their political opponents?" Phrases like that make it sound like the "opponents" are some innocent little scared children who did nothing wrong. If demanding that calls to violence are stopped is political for you, then ok, sure.
As I've said and will keep saying: those most vocal about protecting the 'freedom' of domestic terrorists to terrorize are the ones most certain they'll never suffer from that terror.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#10>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
> don't want to run a USENET node
I would love to run a Usenet node, I just suspect my hosting provider would shut me down after too long.