501–507 of 507 posts
Someone tell Jack and Elon that matrix.org could use their support. Sounds just like what they're talking about. Someone tell Matthew and Amandine at Matrix that it does actually need Write-All support. The only bit lacking.
We showed Matrix to Jack via https://matrix.org/blog/2020/12/18/introducing-cerulean/ last year. We’re still hoping he may revisit it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We showed Matrix to Jack via https://matrix.org/blog/2020/12/18/introducing-cerulean/ last year. We’re still hoping he may revisit it :)
Neat! I signed up and replied to thread on the announcement.. https://cerulean.matrix.org/@freality:dendrite.matrix.org/!o...
Is he talking about ActivityPub[1, 2] and the Fediverse[3]? Just look at Mastodon[4, 5] if you're looking for something like twitter without the centralization and the corporate greed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActivityPub [2] https://activitypub.rocks [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software) [5] https://joinmastodon.org/servers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like this response deliberately avoids the point I was making, in favor of kicking up confusion. He grew up on the internet. At a time when everyone was turning their internet web pages black to protest censorship. At a time when "the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" was a slogan touted proudly by technologists and philosophers. It's not Elon Musk that changed, it seems to me. It'…
> He grew up on the internet Elon Musk was born in 1971. He grew up on television.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you want is one large centralized administration that can dictate what each smaller instance can do. Not at all. I want some administration that’s shared between instances. If you take a SQL database and split it into one instance per table, is that "decentralization"? I would rather think that decentralization is adding more nodes to the same database, such as no data is lost if a node is down. Mastodon is li…
Okay, but the end result of your decentralization is exactly what Mastodon is. Which is in order to be truly decentralized instances should have the option to opt into one or more shared administrations. But functionally that ends up being the same thing as what you complain about which is that ultimately administration and/or accounts are localized at certain administration levels. 'Instances' in Mastodon are that a…
I was thinking of something based on concensus (see also how blockchains work) but I don’t know of any social network that work like this and I don’t know if it’s feasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're on a social media site, for chatting and expressing opinions - that's specifically not the paradox of tolerance. That, as Popper points out, is when speech and debate are given up in favour of violence.
When it comes to the "the utterance of intolerant philosophies" Popper suggested that "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force". Specifically if: "they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of…
That's a either a direct call to violence or it implies that violence has already been threatened or used via those weapons. Which means, as the preceding part of the the quote shows, that free speech has been eschewed in favour of violence:
> they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive,
Not to argue or listen is part of free speech i.e. freedom of conscience - I don't have to listen to you or anyone I don't wish to if I am free. But Popper uses the phrase meet us on the level, these intolerant people have chosen a different level where they will not allow certain argument to occur that is against their position.
So, when you say "utterance of intolerant philosophies" he is talking about violence or assault, and certain speech, actually threatening speech has been covered by the crime of assault for over a thousand years in English common law, which American common law has continued, and SCOTUS has provided particular exceptions to the US first amendment that line up with that (to be a threat a statement must be credible and imminent).
> Are you claiming that there is no content on any social media site used for comments and opinions that advocates for an "intolerant philosophy" of the sort that Popper recommended suppressing?
No, I'm saying that there's already a well defined level that Popper, common law, and the US constitution have all given and it's not this nebulous idea of anything that gives rise to something bad. If there are people writing credible and imminent threats of violence on social media because they don't like what's being said, that is what Popper was looking to suppress.
If a Nazi, for example, wishes to engage in argument without any such threat of violence, while arguing for National Socialism, that's fine by me, because it gives me the chance to destroy those arguments using my free speech. Those who are looking to suppress that are on the same level as Nazis and reveal their lack of confidence in their own ability to counter criticism of their position - just as a Nazi might - and hence, reach for violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to the "the utterance of intolerant philosophies" Popper suggested that "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force". Specifically if: "they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of…
> and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols That's a either a direct call to violence or it implies that violence has already been threatened or used via those weapons. Which means, as the preceding part of the the quote shows, that free speech has been eschewed in favour of violence: > they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argume…
The "utterance of intolerant philosophies" does not solely refer to calls for violence or assault. As you point out yourself, that sort of speech had long been covered by the "harm principle" in common law and would have been entirely superfluous for Popper to rehash in the 1940s. In this and other writings he was clearly outlining a new class of speech and proposing a restriction on it.
> it's not this nebulous idea of anything that gives rise to something bad
That is also not what Popper described. There are clearly many things that give rise to something bad yet would not qualify as "intolerant philosophies" because their adherents are willing to conduct a rational argument and unlikely to resort to violence.
Of course people are free to reject Popper's argument and embrace the lesser constraint of the harm principle so that they can do things like debate Nazis on the internet. Personally I think there are some compelling arguments in favor of erring on the side of free speech. But we should be honest that this involves rejecting Popper's argument, not stretching it to mean whatever we want.
> Those who are looking to suppress that are on the same level as Nazis and reveal their lack of confidence in their own ability to counter criticism of their position - just as a Nazi might - and hence, reach for violence.
I do not understand this. Are you saying Twitter moderating Nazis is a form of violence?