Live data from Hacker News

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

knightcolumbia.org

201–210 of 285 posts

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

#201
post #200

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 platfor…

> the censorship apologists in HN's usual go-to argument Please don't make spurious generalizations like this one, which is obviously false. Instead, please familiarize yourself (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) with the cognitive biases that lead to these false feelings of generality [1]. Yes, a lot of people make the argument you're mentioning—and a lot of people also make the opposite argument. I don't…

I apologize, dang. I understand how my phrasing can be taken as a generalization of everyone in HN, but that was not my intention.

I wasn't trying to say that everyone in HN was advocating for censorship (if anything, I always feel a little better when I read people defending free speech, they're what keep me coming back, at least to this type of posts); I was talking about what those in specific who speak in favor of censorship say.

I'll edit it to make it less ambiguous. Thanks.

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

#202
post #149
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…

> 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.

I'm over it. I see many comments that politely present the opposing view get downvoted to oblivion. It isn't just the "inflamatory or snarky" comment. Dissenting opinion is censored on this platform.

I made the mistake of reacting to it the other day and was punished for commenting on moderation. Fair enough, I guess, but the reason for the comment was exasperation at the downvoting of opinion.

And it bites that downvoted comments just fade away, so later readers can no longer consider it, or respond to it. Remember that I am talking about unpopular opinion, which may sometimes be objectively wrong, but not rudely presented. It's common for such additions to the thread to be obliviated through moderation. (I know about showdead, but only learned about it recently).

That's the thing about free speech: we often don't like what other people say. The price we must pay for that freedom is to be exposed to speech we do not like. It's a cost, that we must pay because we are imperfect. We make mistakes, we think incorrectly from time to time. So I say, let it all ride. On HN at least, the culture of thoughtfulness and intellectualism serves to curb the worst rudeness, but let us be willing to expose ourselves to views that we don't agree with. Let's be prepared to have the argument, and possibly be persuaded.

So the next time someone says "You know, I think Trump was an alright president, for .. ", curb your outrage. Let it ride, and engage with the argument.

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

#203
post #199
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Success for them would have looked like apprehending the legislature and coercing them into throwing out the votes of states that didn't go to Trump. And this is charitably assuming that their chants of "hang Mike Pence", along with the gallows they erected out front, might have only been for show.

My version of editing the constitution is vastly more likely to happen than whatever fever dream this is.

Perhaps you're so naive that you think that a murderous mob successfully overthrowing an elected government is unprecedented in US history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...

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

#204
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I'm over it. I see many comments that politely present the opposing…

I don’t think I would visit HN if the voting system worked like this. I like hearing the popular opinion, but I also like hearing the popular contrary opinion and very often - like with your comment - the popular contrary sits right below the popular.

What I don’t like reading is “zinger” comments - stuff like “X is bad and people that think X is good are dumb”.

From what I’ve seen - these are the comments downvoted the most. I don’t dislike these comments because they cause me outrage, they just don’t make me feel the same way that well thought out comments - popular and unpopular - make me feel.

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

#205
post #203
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My version of editing the constitution is vastly more likely to happen than whatever fever dream this is.

Perhaps you're so naive that you think that a murderous mob successfully overthrowing an elected government is unprecedented in US history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...

Ah yes, Wilmington NC 1890, the place I go to when I need to imagine what could possibly happen in DC not 130 years later.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discoverability is a fundamental part of protocol design. Here's a list of service discovery protocols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_discovery We could use a C-3PO (protocol droid, fluent in over six million forms of communication) for interop.

I'm not talking about a zillion protocols with discoverable services, but of a single language of the internet that allows service discoverability and concept sharing dynamically between peers.

You mean like HTTP? Isn't Google already doing this?

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

#207
post #205
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're so naive that you think that a murderous mob successfully overthrowing an elected government is unprecedented in US history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...

Ah yes, Wilmington NC 1890, the place I go to when I need to imagine what could possibly happen in DC not 130 years later.

If oblivious sarcasm is your only recourse for when you have nothing left to contribute to an argument, then I accept your concession.

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

#208
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The end goal is to make sure "ILLEGAL" speech can not be suppressed. If you can block "illegal" speech you can block legal speech any protocol designed to be immune to censorship will have to make that sacrifice; I am very much willing too.

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

#209
It's a vast smörgåsbord. Choose the things you like and avoid those you don't. And if you're feeling adventurous or are simply curious, perhaps try a dollop of the odd or unfamiliar. You are perfectly at liberty to accept or reject the advice of others about your choices, as are they of your mutterings on the subject. Everyone ends up with a different selection of delectables and, most importantly, everyone eats...

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

#210

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 platfor…

I agree. In fact, I'm not aware of any context or venue where leftists have supported freedom of speech (for non-leftists). They're failing every test. Campuses, disinviting speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or even Condi Rice – don't know if the latter was successful). Twitter. Facebook. Any action to remove apps from stores because they lack the vigorous and extremely expensive censorship infrastructure of the big leftist corps line FB and Twitter. Even removing apps and services from web servers, like Amazon did, which was breathtaking. Any infrastructure-level censorship/sabotage like Cloudflare has done at various bizarre points (I think one was an alleged Neo-Nazi website, and the other was merely one of the chans, apparently for the sin of being used by a killer; I have no idea if Prince has tried to censor more, but I found it too depressing to dig into further).

I thought we had a deal, but clearly we don't. I assumed that everyone understood and could predict their own future motives and emotions toward a desire to censor speech they disagree with or find "offensive" (if you're the kind of person who chronically experiences that state of being "offended" – I'm not).

I assumed we all knew that we couldn't possibly trust ourselves to censor dissent from our own views. I assumed that we all knew that our initial impulses toward that would have to be dismissed out of hand, given everything we know about human fallibility, cognitive biases, how incredibly easy it is to be wrong, and the obvious arbitrariness of this time and place – that is, the time and place we happen to be alive. Leftists seem to not be accounting for any of these factors. They think they're right. Well, they know they're right. And they apparently think there's no way their ideology could be mistaken or unwise or harmful in any serious way, or that any of a dozen or so discrete beliefs/narratives/dogmas could be wrong. They for some reason believe that early 21st-century American leftist ideology is airtight, mostly complete, the first complete and totally true belief system in human history, and it's not a huge coincidence that it happens to be the one that's sitting there when they happen to be alive.

And that their whole framework and dogma around their preemptive marginalization of outsiders with the idiosyncratic usage of the word "hate", and an associated set of evidence-free abstractions like "privilege", and a bunch of -phobias that don't actually exist, at all, to the knowledge of serious scientists... well that whole package is of course completely true, just like everything else. No only is it true, but they'll recursively use that sort of immune system package to justify censoring non-leftists, much like how Scientologists tag people as Suppressive Persons (SPs).

This is bad news. Their epistemology is terrible. It was always the elites who were the vanguard defending freedom of speech. It was never expected that regular Joes could be counted on to grok the epistemic and psychological facts that motivated a principled commitment to freedom of speech. It was the intellectuals who understood how easy it is to be wrong, how ideologies can blind us, how our own subjective sense of the certain truth of our beliefs was completely irrelevant to their objective standing, how so many humans in history have had that subjective experience of certainty, with mixed results. Now we face an awkward situation where intellectuals have let themselves stumble into a cult, a cult that has conveniently constructed arguments and rationalizations that purport to justify censorship. So now they can just skirt on past the many robust reasons to defend freedom of speech, if they ever knew them. Because, "hate" obviously. That's all they needed to abandon something so crucial to human progress and growth. Just use an arbitrary human negative emotion word in contradiction to its actual, dictionary meaning, applying it to a huge swath of outsider/non-cult speech, even encompassing someone noting that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Boom..."hate". Something huge is falling to something very small.

Post reply on HN