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

11–20 of 108 posts

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#11

Post by giantrobot »

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…

> 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 personality the only way out is deprogramming. That takes so much effort. It's also not something most people are equipped to handle. It's also not something the general public should be expected to do.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#12

Post by kodah »

thrown_22 wrote: post #8
kodah wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DiAngelo followers don't generally like intersectionality because their views are incompatible with it.

How?

DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept.

Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#13

Post by thrown_22 »

kodah wrote: post #12
thrown_22 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.

No post body was provided.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#14

Post by peteradio »

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…

> That's how we got flat Earth

Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls?

Don't feed the trolls people!

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#15

Post by dinosaurdynasty »

giantrobot wrote: post #11
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…

> 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…

Problem is if there are enough of them they end up storming a capitol building

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#16

Post by phailhaus »

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 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 communities where they do.

There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This is how they spread.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#17

Post by kodah »

giantrobot wrote: post #11
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…

> 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…

> How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society?

This is probably where our work needs to be, and I agree it's not everyone's burden to undertake. It's taxing and requires a lot of emotional energy that some might not have. My personal experience with people that believed in conspiracies is that with enough normal human contact they eventually adjust. Sometimes there's an underlying issue that leads to conspiratorial thinking; I'm not even necessarily talking about mental health. It could be financial or interpersonal.

I'm just saying that the alternative of banishment isn't great. It doesn't dissolve the things we don't want, generally.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#18

Post by phailhaus »

thrown_22 wrote: post #13
kodah wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept. Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is bottom-of-the-barrel flamebait.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#19

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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 don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not.

Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work.

It would destroy current social media.

And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#20

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

phailhaus wrote: post #16
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 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…

>They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted

none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or had much traction) before massive purges on those platforms

Post reply on HN