This philosophy is whas has been driving our work at planetary.social, building out protocols and tools for public sphere managed by the participants instead of the platforms.
Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
61–70 of 285 posts
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#62>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…
You're exactly right that funding - or rather adequate effort - is what's missing, necessary to enforce and guide people along a protocol that will need to evolve as we learn how to better, more efficiently guide people towards calm rationality and reasoning; helping to open people's hearts and minds, healing whatever past unhealed/unprocessed trauma they likely have - along with helping them work through whatever blocks they have, whether misconceptions, emotion, or from an unhealthy body, nervous system.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#63"After a decade or so of the general sentiment being in favor of the internet and social media as a way to enable more speech and improve the marketplace of ideas, in the last few years the view has shifted dramatically—now it seems that almost no one is happy." 10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech". Today people loo…
Reactionary perhaps. Irrational is unfair, I feel.
We, anyone who knows what an article titled "Protocols, Not Platforms" is probably about... our discussions have failed to have enough impact outside of niche. People see there is a problem. "Marketplace of ideas" is somewhat of a hard sell . As you say... mismanaged cesspits, but also monopolies. Also, "marketplace" is more euphemism than metaphor when referring to a handful of click-optimizing algorithms.
I'm on the fence, but don't tend to think whatever the current politics does give more power to those companies who fucked up the system in the first place.
Facebook and Twitter were already in an uncanny valley of free speech. It has been, Free speech at their discretion all along, and this wasn't a theoretical problem. At least now it is clear what we are looking at.
In any case, this post in on point. It's disheartening that decades into this discussion we have not had enough impact that politicians even know what the hell we are talking about. Twitter doesn't need to be regulated. It just needs to die. Twitter does not need to be a company. It's already basically a protocol. Free the protocol. Discard the company. They are not needed.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#64> In short, it would push the power and decision making out to the ends of the network, rather than keeping it centralized among a small group of very powerful companies.
This only creates that same echo chamber effect we are trying to avoid.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#65I am getting really sick of these articles. NO: building protocols or decentralized networks, or anything really isn't going to solve the hate-speech/censorship problem. This. Is. A. Culture. Problem. The hate-speech/censorship problem exists everywhere. If you can publish somewhere, you can publish hate/spam. And if there is hate and/or spam, you need to censor. That's it. The very fact of publishing is the problem.…
FWIW, I'm glad you posted this.
I think most people on HN have the breadth of experience to understand your main point. For example, many of us have extensive experience running communities and/or have seen how quickly bad actors will overrun even well-intentioned unmoderated communities.
Other folks here do not necessarily have this experience, don't see the extensive "gardening" that happens in the background of healthy online communities (see: dang), and believe that all human problems can be solved by implementation details like protocols.
There's the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Do HNers know of good resources for folks who only have a hammer, but want to develop a more holistic, humanistic understanding of online communities?
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
The left wing is still not wanting to rise up against censorship because they believe it's still benefiting them, since BigTech (+M5M) is their leftist ally...for now. What they need to realize is that once you give Tyrannical Control over to your leaders (governments, or BigTech censors), because you consider them benevolent today, it's foolish because they won't be benevolent forever. Our founding fathers knew powe…
[flagged]
>>lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election>>
This isn't even remotely a representative sentiment of the 70+ million people that are not on the "left".
>>"The left" is for democracy>>
Again, I don't think we would find this accurate if data were collected. Both sides are "for democracy". I think what you would find is something slightly more refined: that one side appreciates that democracy alone is flawed and requires a strong constitution to guard against its propensity to oppress individuals. The other side finds a constitution that limits democracy too constraining.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm shocked (/s) that Silicon Valley's brand of libertarianism led to five companies dominating everything and then pulling up the ladder behind them by abandoning open standards in favor or proprietary silos.
Expect to be down voted for speaking such heresy on HN.
[deleted]
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm shocked (/s) that Silicon Valley's brand of libertarianism led to five companies dominating everything and then pulling up the ladder behind them by abandoning open standards in favor or proprietary silos.
Expect to be down voted for speaking such heresy on HN.
It's the sarcasm, not the heresy.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't want to run a USENET node I would love to run a Usenet node, I just suspect my hosting provider would shut me down after too long.
You do not have to carry all newsgroups, and the last time I used a free Usenet node they explicitly did not carry any binaries (too much traffic and too much liability). The reason nobody uses Usenet is that unmoderated newsgroups were taken over by nazis and trolls, and moderated newsgroups have no particular advantage over forums as far as "free speech" goes. (Though I take issue with the idea that moderation some…
Moderated forums and moderated Usenet groups both have the characteristic of not being subject to the whims of a central platform. Contrast Facebook groups and subreddits.
Re: Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech (2019)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>>lately it seems that "the right" remains undecided about whether or not it is acceptable to threaten the lives of politicians who refused to overturn the results of an election>> This isn't even remotely a representative sentiment of the 70+ million people that are not on the "left". >>"The left" is for democracy>> Again, I don't think we would find this accurate if data were collected. Both sides are "for democrac…
The world is not divided into two camps, not should it be. Some people are neither with nor against you; they've got their own things going on.