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

251–260 of 285 posts

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

#251

Post by nirui »

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…

> why do most of use Github instead of running Gitlab on a home pc/laptop/RaspberryPi or rent a Digital Ocean vps?

Well, for me, it's because GitLab is still too heavy for the Pi.

And even if somehow it became light enough, running it still couldn't help you if your goal is to have a better portfolio for a better job or/and reputation. GitHub is more of a community than a platform, and building a community is way harder than building a platform.

So it's more than just the founding.

Also, sure, you can setup your own website and post contents there, but nobody is going to read it before somebody discovers it. And discovery is really hard.

What those "Big platforms" really got right, is that they've found a way to efficiently deliver the contents created on the platform to their users, and allow the user to give timely feedback about the content. This feedback loop itself is more valuable than the tech behind it.

If decentralization movement want to be successful, it must also create this feedback loop. Otherwise people will just get bored and disconnect.

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

#252

Post by henry_bone »

striking wrote: post #250
henry_bone wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my comments I'm arguing for. I don't think I'm that hard-done-by. I'm referring to gray comments that don't seem to be particularly hostile, but are just, say, conservative (for example) in nature. Perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't think I've complained about being downvoted. Today doesn't count. It's not a complaint, just an observation in a thread about free speech and censorship. Thanks for the feedback…

I've heard people 'just ask questions' or 'make observations' or similar a million times before, and you most certainly have comments that fit the profile of what you've been arguing in favor of. It reads like a deflection, as a result. Moreover, this is kind of what I mean by comments that aren't falsifiable, that don't really add anything. You're not giving me anything to work with when you gesture vaguely to theor…

That's fair. Comments on HN don't have a permalink, do they? If so I would have made reference to one that I actually commented on the downvoting of.

Regarding your assessment of my comments, I'm beginning to wonder if your looking at mine and not someone else in the thread. I went looking for the "twice updated" one where I tell you all to have your way with me. I went right through my comment history and can't for the life of me figure out to what you are referring.

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

#253

Post by nobody9999 »

generalizations wrote: post #234
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What term would you use for an event, even if if doomed to fail, that involves at least hundreds of people outside (and then inside) of the building where the vice-president is present, chanting "Hang Mike Pence" ? Do you think it's just some of kiddie protest party? Do you think they didn't mean it? Do you think that because it wasn't 100,000 people it doesn't count? Do you think that because they didn't have the ar…

"Coup D'etat: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics" That doesn't fit the captiol protest very well. Sudden? Decisive? Exercise of force?

>"Coup D'etat: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics"

>That doesn't fit the captiol protest very well. Sudden? Decisive? Exercise of force?

Tell that to Brian Sicknick's[0] family.

Or did you miss the part where five people died and dozens were injured?

Or the smashed windows to force entry into the Capitol building, with some explicitly saying they were there to overturn the results of the election.

Let's see. A mob overpowers the assembled security without warning. That's sudden. Check.

An armed group stormed the Capitol, assaulted police and other folks, and by their own claims, wished to injure, take hostage and/or kill elected officials. Exercise of force. Check.

That same group did so, again based on their own claims, to overturn legally certified election results. Political motive. Check.

So please tell me, what doesn't fit the term "coup d'etat"? Or in this case, attempted coup d'etat?

Note that just because it didn't succeed doesn't change the facts or the intent.

If I walk into a bank and demand money, I'm still a bank robber even if I don't actually get any money. The analogy is fairly exact.

[0] https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/what-we-know-about-the-5-p...

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

#254

Post by twitchreplyfor »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #222
twitchreplyfor wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One need not prove fraud to substantiate the claim that it was stolen. It could have been stolen, for example, if laws were bent or broken to dramatically increase the number of mail-in absentee ballots, while at the same time decreasing the scrutiny given to those ballots as required by law. In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because…

People keep saying this. If it's true, where is this evidence? It hasn't been on Fox. It hasn't been on OAN. It hasn't been on Newsmax. What's been presented has been uniformly debunked in ways that I find completely convincing. If this is as big as it's claimed to be, you don't shut up just because a judge says you don't have standing. I haven't found a statistical summary, but I've just surveyed the status of all t…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

and ctrl+f "standing" = 16 results (6 cases).

Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al.

Wood v. Raffensperger et al.

Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al.

Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al.

Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.

Gohmert et al. v. Pence

ctrl+f "laches"

Tyler Kistner et al. v. Steve Simon, et al.

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

#255

Post by aabbcc1241 »

henry_bone wrote: post #202
atoav wrote: 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…

Maybe they're just collapsing/folding the comment and sub-comments, not really mean to downvote ?

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

#256

Post by loceng »

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…

The crowdsourcing of moderation via the downvoting mechanism has a pitfall however that I won't get into here except to say there are mobs of irrational, bias, and laziness that get their fix of dopamine by clicking a downvote arrow rather than having the cost of time/effort to add something qualitative to discussion.

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

#257

Post by perryizgr8 »

Free speech is not a technological issue. It cannot be solved with technology. You need men and women with principles to ensure our rights. Unfortunately we seem to have a lack of those today. Without them, we will continue making protocols and platforms and laws and regulations, and keep circling the drain.

Each one of us must realize the absolute importance of free speech, and must speak out even in favor of protecting the free speech of people we despise.

Realize that the entire point of free speech is to protect unpopular/despised speech. There are no conditions on free speech, by definition. The answer to the question "Is this considered free speech?" is always a resounding "YES", regardless of context, or who is speaking, or who may be trying to censor it.

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

#258

Post by AWildC182 »

striking wrote: post #250
henry_bone wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my comments I'm arguing for. I don't think I'm that hard-done-by. I'm referring to gray comments that don't seem to be particularly hostile, but are just, say, conservative (for example) in nature. Perhaps I've forgotten, but I don't think I've complained about being downvoted. Today doesn't count. It's not a complaint, just an observation in a thread about free speech and censorship. Thanks for the feedback…

I've heard people 'just ask questions' or 'make observations' or similar a million times before, and you most certainly have comments that fit the profile of what you've been arguing in favor of. It reads like a deflection, as a result. Moreover, this is kind of what I mean by comments that aren't falsifiable, that don't really add anything. You're not giving me anything to work with when you gesture vaguely to theor…

You're both right in a way, inane comments complaining about downvotes aren't substantive, but I also see a lot of thoughtful and frankly poignant comments bite the dust because they're just slightly outside the decidedly narrow Overton window of HN discourse.

At the end of the day, on a smallish platform like this, the downvotes do also hurt. Some days it seems more users feel like downvoting everything than upvoting anything and unlike reddit, very few downvotes immediately result in censure.

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

#259

Post by riffic »

henry_bone wrote: post #252
striking wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard people 'just ask questions' or 'make observations' or similar a million times before, and you most certainly have comments that fit the profile of what you've been arguing in favor of. It reads like a deflection, as a result. Moreover, this is kind of what I mean by comments that aren't falsifiable, that don't really add anything. You're not giving me anything to work with when you gesture vaguely to theor…

That's fair. Comments on HN don't have a permalink, do they? If so I would have made reference to one that I actually commented on the downvoting of. Regarding your assessment of my comments, I'm beginning to wonder if your looking at mine and not someone else in the thread. I went looking for the "twice updated" one where I tell you all to have your way with me. I went right through my comment history and can't for…

every comment here has a permalink. tap on the timestamp.

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

#260

Post by dvdkon »

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…

Thing is, I don't think most people want to replace subreddits, Facebook groups or HN. The issue is that for two of these three communities, they are hosted by a company that has a large amount of power over the communities. It doesn't make sense to replace HN with some federated/p2p alternative, because HN is already independent.

And not everything needs to be a decentralised system, that's just a false dichotomy. If GitLab.com deletes my repos or stops offering the features I like, I'll just move elsewhere, I could even move to another GitLab instance. It's much harder to move a group of people.

Besides, not everyone needs to run a server in a federated environment. As long as it's a possibility, one rogue actor can't take over the whole network. Most people don't host their own email/Matrix server, and that's okay.

Post reply on HN