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

Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

knightcolumbia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 285 posts

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#11

Post by godelzilla »

> Rather than relying on a few giant platforms to police speech online, there could be widespread competition, in which anyone could design their own interfaces, filters, and additional services

To me this sounds something like "less walmart, more supply chains, warehouses, and storefronts." I agree in spirit, but it's the reverse of how capitalism usually works. The few giant platforms were built off the work of people who built their own interfaces, filters, and additional services. Why would we expect new/improved protocols (crypto or otherwise) to be any different?

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#13

Post by breck »

I do some research with some people on a dead simple new low level encoding for new protocols called Tree Notation.

It's all public domain.

I plug it a lot here when I see something relevant, which this post is (and I've long been a fan of the Knight orgs and supporter of them).

Anyway, always happy to chat with people about how this stuff could help a new generation of simple open protocols:

Homepage: (needs a refresh) https://treenotation.org/

Demos: (also needs a refresh) https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer/

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#14

Post by lifty »

jasode wrote: post #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 pop…

I think a very important reason why people don't run their own USENET node or Gitlab instance is because it's not easy. In fact, it's the opposite of easy. It's extremely difficult in the long run. If using your own server was as easy as using an iPhone, then we would see way more people doing it.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#15

Post by WClayFerguson »

You can tell this article is well over a year old, because it doesn't mention the words Fediverse, ActivityPub, Mastodon (or Quanta.wiki!)

It was summer of 2019 when the vast majority of those who are most 'plugged in' realized we're going to need a new censorship-resistant web, after the Vox Adpocolypse and other totalitarian and dictatorial over-reach by BigTech, which has been escalating steadily since then, culminating even with specific stories being blacked out (by cancelling people, and companies) and leading to a level of election interference that would've simply been impossible not many years ago. Committed by not just BigTech, but by M5M also.

Point of Fact: 68% of voters had never heard of the Hunter Laptop on election day.

(Full Disclosure: I'm the developer of Quanta.wiki, a new Fediverse App)

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#16

Post by commandlinefan »

> in which the marketplace of filters is enabled to compete

Well, that's a nice thought, but the goal of deplatforming is to remove somebody entirely. Nobody was forced to follow Trump on twitter - he had tens of millions of voluntary followers. If your goal is to get rid of Donald Trump, you have to centralize the decision.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#17

Post by betterunix2 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #10
jasode wrote: post #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 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.

You do not have to carry all newsgroups, and the last time I used a free Usenet node they explicitly did not carry any binaries (too much traffic and too much liability). The reason nobody uses Usenet is that unmoderated newsgroups were taken over by nazis and trolls, and moderated newsgroups have no particular advantage over forums as far as "free speech" goes.

(Though I take issue with the idea that moderation somehow implies less free speech. It is hard to express an idea when you are buried under a pile of off-topic trolling and nazi conspiracy theories.)

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#18

Post by zrm »

virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #9
zrm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "d…

Forcing your way into the capitol and taking over a police station are both illegal and should not be done. They both meet the formal definition of "violent insurrection" and they both happened over the last year. The media response has been asymmetrical.

Also, people are being excluded who have never called for violence. What "violent insurrection" was Discord suppressing by /r/WallStreetBets?

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#19

Post by metalliqaz »

colllectorof wrote: post #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 loo…

I'm shocked (/s) that Silicon Valley's brand of libertarianism led to five companies dominating everything and then pulling up the ladder behind them by abandoning open standards in favor or proprietary silos.

Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)

#20

Post by HotVector »

colllectorof wrote: post #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 loo…

If you look at it that way, then what Facebook was advocating for starts to look noble. They wanted ultimate transparency so that if anyone said anything stupid, it would get instantly knocked down, preventing the spread of misinformation, but obviously they failed really badly.
Post reply on HN