Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPFS Support in Brave

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#421

Post by rzzzt »

kubanczyk wrote: post #420
rzzzt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start with personal pages listed at https://userlist.beakerbrowser.com/ and go from there.

One more question... How am I supposed to come up with that list? I was googling extensively and skimmed through both Beaker's docs and Hyper FAQ. They are friendly towards creators, but I didn't see a word about exploring self-published stuff.

I think it's in a bookmark that shows up on the new tab page in Beaker itself, after installation. Not sure why it is not featured more prominently.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#422

Post by jhardy54 »

agilob wrote: post #361
jhardy54 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals. A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

>A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists. Ex CEO of Mozilla and current CEO of Brave has been removed from Mozilla for donating his private money to some conservative same-sex marriage organisation.

So what? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

You can't be taken seriously as an advocate for a tolerant and accessible non-profit when you spend your salary denying people the right to get married.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#423

Post by jhardy54 »

imtringued wrote: post #389
jhardy54 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals. A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

Well, in the case of violence it is quite easy to pass judgement and just lock them up. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to those terrorists. Even if they only talk bullshit you should at least try to understand why they became terrorists or else you will just declare more and more people as terrorists because it is the easy way out.

Feel free to listen to terrorists all you want -- I'm under no obligation to listen to people who are advocating for my torture or death, and I'm certainly not obligated to supply a platform for their views.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#424

Post by ignoramous »

kortilla wrote: post #350
autocorr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these actions that should be taken: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom…

> Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation It’s horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some of the worst political divides are over which set of facts to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the election, etc). “Amplify factual voices” just sounds…

> “Amplify factual voices” just sounds like more echo chamber bullshit

No, it doesn't. Facts, which are a subset of universal truths, need to clearly outweigh falsehood. For example, you'd not find schools teach conspiracy theories like "Earth is flat", or "Global Warming is a hoax" for a reason. Fringe theories that rely on absurd reasoning and have no basis in actual facts must be curtailed, and under no circumstances do those theories deserve any amplication platform, definitely not one which operates at the scale like Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter.

I realise that what's a universal fact today needn't be a fact tomorrow, but we have got substantially better scientific and socio-political tools to verify and come to conclusions one way or other for many topics. It is only prudent to let fringe theories be fringe and not amplify them for more eyeballs and revenue.

Consuming nonsense does affect real people and has real world consequences.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#425

Post by happytoexplain »

_dh54 wrote: post #293
undefined1 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla seems to be moving in the other direction now. "We need more than deplatforming" https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

The funny part is that this is the bio in Mozilla’s twitter: “We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all.” I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

You accused them of using an oversimplification with a selective definition, and then immediately performed that exact fallacy ("people with political opinions they support").

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#426

Post by ignoramous »

undefined1 wrote: post #232
autocorr wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these actions that should be taken: > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom…

"We need more than deplatforming" is the literal headline, and they support it in the post: "Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken" Note: More than. Additional. Also.

Wow, that quote is taken out of context. Let me try to break it down with reference to the context of the article:

> Changing these dangerous dynamics...

The "these dynamics" Mitchell speaks about are, the rampant use of the internet to:

1. Foment violence and hate.

2. Reinforce white supremacy.

3. Politicians (or anyone playing politics, really) exploiting the architecture of the internet to spread lies / hate / what-have-you.

> temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors

These, presumably, include:

1. Terrorists organizations like the Proud Boys.

2. Divisive, regressive, repressive figures like Donald Trump.

3. Institutions hell-bent on inciting hate, spreading disinformation, facilitating abuse, inculcating disharmony, encouraging violence, sowing mistrust, aiding conspiracies...

> Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken

Absolutely.

I see this policy stance as being no different to wanting the education system to not purport Racism; this isn't curtailing freedom of speech or any other freedom. It is purely an exercise in needing to do more than just deplatforming Racists: Not actively seek to create new ones!

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#427

Post by jjcon »

pseudalopex wrote: post #198
jjcon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> against a single company (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users That isn’t really applicable here though. That’s kinda like claiming we should be against Linux because it runs all the web servers. There is a difference between centralization and standardization.

Linux isn't controlled by an advertising company.

Neither can an open source project be controlled by a single entity

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#428

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Draken93 wrote: post #399
xvector wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One day, people may actually need to invade the Capitol building, but it will never happen because of your eagerness to create an authoritarian state that shuts down all controversial discourse. If we deplatformed every “violent thug” that did something people didn’t like, you would have a fraction of the rights you have today.

I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when a certain group of people decided to ignore all reasonable arguments, to ignore sience. This is not about shutting down all controversial discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with (massi…

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#429

Post by ajsnigrutin »

jhardy54 wrote: post #298
_dh54 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny part is that this is the bio in Mozilla’s twitter: “We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource that is open and accessible to all.” I guess by “all” they mean only people with political opinions they support.

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals. A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

> A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#430

Post by busterarm »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #304
jhardy54 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're unfamiliar: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize the internet to contradict those goals. A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.

If you can effectively cast your political opponents as “terrorists” you can rationalize denying them all sorts of rights and still get to call yourself a supporter of human rights. They did a similar thing during the Iraq war.

I made a litmus test that an alarming number of people I've had recent discussions with cannot pass.

Basically it's about whether you can get them to agree with both of the following statements:

1) X-ism should not exist. 2) X-ists have a fundamental right to exist.

Point number one is perfectly reasonable as should be point two. The really scary authoritarians flat out deny point number two, but most people will start equivocating or scream at you because you don't want to punch X-ists.

This is a growing problem that society needs to find a solution to quickly. Denial of point 2 leads to mass murder of people for thought crime. Still some people seem okay with this.

And I just want to point out before I get tons of hate that it's perfectly acceptable to give X-ists consequences for their _actions_. Not their private thoughts.

Post reply on HN