Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #149

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 what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc. To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there…

And on a related note, the ability to browse forums with vastly different themes, cultures, and tolerance has always been there. The big networks solve a discoverability problem for end users (and get accused of being the problem when they [don't] stop certain things being discoverable). Moderation complaints have revolved around the platform companies promoting or refusing to promote stuff to their widest possible audience even though other websites exist, and I don't see how the biggest 'filter' providers don't run into the same issue (with the existence of niche and manually customisable 'filters' failing to be a 'solution' in the same sense many people are unhappy with being able to reach Gab followers but not Twitter ones)

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

#182

Post by kangaroozach » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #149

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 what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc. To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there…

In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform.

There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government. And a means for government to take efficient and prompt action.

Disliked speech is not illegal speech and this article states the unique definition that each person has and poses some solves to allow people to use systems that filter out what they dont want to hear in addition to what is illegal.

The issue we are facing is what to do about the legal but disliked speech and whether to forcibly prevent people from hearing or seeing it.

The spirit of of our first amendment is very much the opposite. It is to protect your ability to speak. Our public forum is now virtual, privatized and highly centralized and we didn’t prepare for that as a society.

As they say “...Defend to the death your right to say it.”

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

#183

Post by mbostleman » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #174

mbostleman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...45 and the Republicans attempted to throw out the results of an election." Do you mean that 45 Republicans voted against ratifying the electoral college votes? My understanding is that that vote is largely procedural and that the losing side voting against it as a protest is common in every election. If you take away that context it makes for a great narrative in this election (the whole histrionic overthrow them…

Your understanding is wrong. Voting against result certification is occasionally used as a protest against certain specific irregularities. It is absolutely not common to vote against them, and not in these numbers (i.e. not as a lone congressperson or two drawing attention to something they see as a problem). [ EDIT: added known historical examples ] Specific examples: 2016, 11 Democrats rose to object to certifying…

Ok, only 40% wrong. So protesting that the election was flawed occurred in 60% of the elections in the last two decades, which more than supports my point that without such context the overthrow narrative loses a good deal of its exaggerated effect when one learns that this election was not unique on that point.

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

#184

Post by fareesh » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #162

fareesh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember watching a very strange segment on American news about a man who owns a mattress and pillow company who was banned from Twitter because he continuously expressed his disbelief in the legitimacy of the election result of 2020, and was organizing various events along this theme. From what I recall the 2016 election was frequently attributed to some vague accusation of hacking from Russia but the same standar…

> From what I recall the 2016 election was frequently attributed to some vague accusation of hacking from Russia but the same standard was not applied at the time, nor is it applied today. The people espousing this view were eventually proven inconclusive in all the different inquiries into the matter, and they were far more influential than a man who sells pillows. Your recollection seems at odds with reality. There…

I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied for 2020 so I was applying the same standard.

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

#185

Post by kangaroozach » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

dqpb wrote: post #51

_jal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

GitHub is an interesting example, because if I push code to GitHub, I still have my local source, and being an open protocol I can easily push it elsewhere as well.

Can an open source repo contain illegal speech commented in the code itself? What happens then?

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

#186

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #183

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding is wrong. Voting against result certification is occasionally used as a protest against certain specific irregularities. It is absolutely not common to vote against them, and not in these numbers (i.e. not as a lone congressperson or two drawing attention to something they see as a problem). [ EDIT: added known historical examples ] Specific examples: 2016, 11 Democrats rose to object to certifying…

Ok, only 40% wrong. So protesting that the election was flawed occurred in 60% of the elections in the last two decades, which more than supports my point that without such context the overthrow narrative loses a good deal of its exaggerated effect when one learns that this election was not unique on that point.

I think that scale matters. The number of house members and their coordination with 6 senators in my mind makes what happened this year different in so many important ways. Obviously, YMMV.

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

#187

Post by unishark » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #169

unishark wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were nationwide protests against the election result in 2016. They blocked the highways here in california. People also disrupted confirmation hearings back then.

Those protests mostly fizzled out with a week or two of the election results (even before all state results were certified). "Disrupted confirmation hearings" seems fairly different to me from "smashed windows and doors to gain entrance to the US Capitol while hundreds of people chanted "Hang Mike Pence!".

Different in some ways, of course, same in others. Ultimately I'm just seeing the same news with one side one-upping the other. They weren't even the first armed group to try and defy the government in the last year, though perhaps the most ambitious.

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

#188

Post by julianmarq » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

It's interesting, the usual go-to argument of the censorship apologists is to claim that they're not actually advocating for censorship because the hopeless gigantic corporations they so nobly defend are private actors and thus have the right to ban whatever they want.

Then this article (posted long before recent events made the discussion a hot topic) presents how we need a serious alternative to these giant platforms and build protocols to replace them... And those same people immediately start saying that no, they in fact do want to forbid whoever they choose from saying/publishing anything anywhere.

Mind you, not that "Facebook/Twitter/Google/etc are private companies and can allow anything they want and that's not censorship" wasn't always a motte-and-bailey, but it's sad to see it on display so transparently.

At least most of them are downvoted, if nothing else.

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

#189

Post by ameister14 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #175

ameister14 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So to protect the electorate (!) from being grossly misled, many European countries in the aftermath of the 1940s decided to counterbalance the freedom of speech with rules what is not freedom of speech. That's a very generous way of looking at it. In the West, I would say that it would be more accurate to look at it through the lens of the cold war, though. Communism and radicalism were to be prevented and so freed…

Here in Canada, we have laws which don't originate from cold war paranoia. They're just attempts to cool the heatedness of elections. For example, you can't campaign before the official election season begins, and there are limits on how much you can spend, and how much people can donate, there are limits on polling close to the election, it's illegal to reveal early results in the eastern parts of the country (where…

There are limits on campaigns like that in the US as well. That's the problem with the Citizens United ruling - it broke some of that for us.

The rules he was talking about though are more to do with the limitations on speech that can be considered insulting, transgressive or hateful. They also include constitutionality of political parties in general, disparaging the president, and many other things.

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

#190

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #184

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what I recall the 2016 election was frequently attributed to some vague accusation of hacking from Russia but the same standard was not applied at the time, nor is it applied today. The people espousing this view were eventually proven inconclusive in all the different inquiries into the matter, and they were far more influential than a man who sells pillows. Your recollection seems at odds with reality. There…

I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied for 2020 so I was applying the same standard.

The standard for 2020 is whether the alleged fraud actually took place at all. There is no court-worthy evidence that it did. Some would say there is no evidence at all.

The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.