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

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#31

Post by klabb3 »

phailhaus wrote: post #25
klabb3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no way around this. Uhm, yes there is. > If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. No, you don't. Apologies for the terseness, but there are solutions here. It's a problem of signal-to-noise ratio, not an issue of principles and tolerance. Reddit has done a lot by looking at user behavior , as opposed to content, and it's the best system so far for any public, g…

Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire communities from the platform.

Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#32

Post by peteradio »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #23
peteradio wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

What’s your uncle like at Thanksgiving?

Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#33

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

phailhaus wrote: post #30
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an idea next to you with your…

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat? > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no o…

Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element.

We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere.

It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out.

I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold misstatements like those above require corrections.

I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of mystery.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#34

Post by fredgrott »

Maybe we are missing some things....

What is different about Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIN?

they all do social but Twitter has more abuse than the other two.

Is that due to the structure involved?

Or extend it further, is amplification bad because the ones doing the amplification are somewhat flawed in coping mechanisms?

What I mean is we keep looking at social platforms as the problem, instead of seeing that the are lenses into the society problems yet not solved and handled.

I.E. based on networks and economics the ones that can amplify the worst economic decisions coupled with the least coping skills cause the most harm on social networks. Caution, not a statement about individuals or politics just some deep way above things macro observations.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#35

Post by 35amxn35 »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #10

[…] the political establishment’s hostility towards the idea of Twitter being purchased and run by new free speech–friendly management. It wasn’t (just) the „political establishment“ that considered it a bad idea. Even the buyer thought it was a terrible mistake just hours after making the deal. And they were all right! Only the „free-speech friendly management“ has been most notable for firing a bunch of people for…

They may be fired, but they still can post on Twitter. Big distinction.

You can't critize/one up your boss in public for internet/virtue signalling points and expect to keep your job. Try that in any _job_ and see what happens. The real danger is Twitter acting as the arbiter of truth, which was the case for the last few years.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#36

Post by nathias »

xoa wrote: post #28

Holy crap is this a stupid backwards article. First and foremost, like so many online, IT HAS NO IDEA WHAT "FREE SPEECH" ACTUALLY IS. > With this success came controversy. Critics of content moderation decisions came to view Section 230 liability protections as a de facto subsidy for censorious platforms to limit public speech or to be less than judicious in limiting speech These "critics" are either ignorant or mali…

No, free speech isn't just about keeping violence from search of truth it's about tolerating what you consider untruth. Rationalist philosophers that invented the concept were censored, excommunicated and their works were burned, would you say their censors were just expressing their own free speech?

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#37

Post by pessimizer »

phailhaus wrote: post #30
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an idea next to you with your…

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will. What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat? > It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist. Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no o…

> Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.

What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#38

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

peteradio wrote: post #32
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your uncle like at Thanksgiving?

Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.

I think you underestimate the prevalence of incredulousness in society.

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#39

Post by phailhaus »

klabb3 wrote: post #31
phailhaus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire communities from the platform.

Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?

Banning hate groups has been provably effective at reducing toxicity on the platform, [1] so the idea that bans will just cause the toxicity to spread to other subreddits turned out to be false. Analogously, there's no obligation for us to bend over backwards to avoid ostracizing hate groups and fringe conspiracy theorists. They are not interested in good-faith debate.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-12-reddit-hate-subreddits-b...

Re: The decentralized web and the future of Section 230

#40

Post by Arathorn »

larsonnn wrote: post #26

I’m don’t understanding the claim of Matrix being decentralised. In the end I host a server and you talk with me. I give you the choice of choosing the authentication. For that I need an account at the authentication provider like Microsoft. So all authenticate with Microsoft. I create a user for them at my server which is still be needed to have the at least the timeline saved. At which point I have decentralisation…

what? you don't need an authentication provider like Microsoft to use Matrix! You just sign up with a username/password on the server :)
Post reply on HN