Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media • Hacker News Board

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#61

Post by _3u10 » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #24

samlevine wrote: post #18

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things. Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with t…

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves int…

bastardoperator, would you also say that you don't denigrate people based on their parents marital status online?

On YouTube just saying your name would get your videos demonetized and I have a feeling your username banned.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#62

Post by _3u10 » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #37

mellosouls wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences" Whereas I find your counter-argument devolves into "Crappy people are those who disagree with my point of view and they should face consequences"... The truth is there are extremes on both sides; but the censorship seems to be overwhelmingly driven by one.

So how does this work? Some one is crappy for thinking violence, racism, misinformation, and harassment should never be tolerated? What's extreme about that? Please do enlighten me... There is nothing extreme about getting booted from facebook because one can't behave like a reasonable adult. As noted above if anyone did any of this in a setting like a restaurant they would be asked to leave, coupled with assistance…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:

under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers

under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

So far the court has rejected the application of Pruneyard to the online space, but it might change with more sympathetic plantiffs

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#63

Post by karaterobot » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #24

samlevine wrote: post #18

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things. Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with t…

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves int…

> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, espouse unpopular political beliefs, mention atrocities committed by the government, attempt to peacefully organize against the government in power, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem?

You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#64

Post by stolenmerch » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #24

samlevine wrote: post #18

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things. Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with t…

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves int…

> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people.

There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#65

Post by NikolaeVarius » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

stolenmerch wrote: post #64

bastardoperator wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves int…

> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different…

I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians.

It was so incredibly stupid

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#66

Post by austincheney » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

nobody9999 wrote: post #58

austincheney wrote: post #23

The solution is simple. Exchange the client/server model for a peer-to-peer model. By peer-to-peer and I mean literally IP to IP and not something like instant messenger that bounces messages through a central server. Only then can you assure a fix to interference. This requires: * Routes - both parties to be on IPv6 or either party to have something like port address translation on a IPv6 interface. * Identity - Thi…

>The solution is simple. Exchange the client/server model for a peer-to-peer model. By peer-to-peer and I mean literally IP to IP and not something like instant messenger that bounces messages through a central server. Only then can you assure a fix to interference. This is my go to response as to "what to do about social media." And I opine|rant|blather on about it whenever I see folks complaining about or claiming…

YouTube was founded when most people had slow internet and they seemed to have done ok. I have fiber at my house and do about 920mb/s both up and down. It’s only a matter of time before that becomes almost universally common enough to rule out bandwidth from any consideration.

As a result I am writing a peer-to-peer application assuming universal fiber, 4K displays, and IPv6 are already common.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#67

Post by colinmhayes » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:11 PM UTC

14 wrote: post #28

My dad always talked about George Carlin the guy is a legend. My dad always told me a story about when Carlin was “not” allowed to say certain things on the air and made comment to that fact. I am now betting it was because of this case. Supposedly Carlin turned to the camera and said something along the lines of “f&@k all you stupid lip readers out there” except he only lipped it never actually said it. I’m not sure…

I like Carlin too. Here's my choice quote “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

I don't trust people to make good decisions. Admittedly incredibly paternalistic, but I've met a lot of people, and most of them are just making one bad decision after another.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#68

Post by krapp » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #65

stolenmerch wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different…

I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians. It was so incredibly stupid

It does cause violence against Asians. It adds fuel to the increasing hostility and violence that Asian communities have been experiencing ever since the outbreak began. This is the case regardless of whether or not any such theory is true, so that claim isn't incredibly stupid at all.

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#69

Post by wowokay » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #24

samlevine wrote: post #18

I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with. I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things. Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with t…

Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem? You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves int…

If we want to go “there” then can I deem all nudity be censored? Your fixation on viewing things as either racist or not racist, as information or misinformation is opinionated. I think it is wrong that people can tweet pornography on the platform without any censorship. I doubt the Gay Comunity would be okay with that being censored, those are the posts I am subjected too. The point is any form of censorship will hamper someone’s freedom of speech. Why can’t everyone just block people that post what they don’t like? The way I do on twitter? Otherwise if we are going down the block what I don’t like road so will I!

Re: Nicholas Carr on how to fix social media

#70

Post by wowokay » Thu, Nov 04, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #45

motherzucker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.

What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation. Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.

Information is subjective. Do you care what the pin to unlock my door is? If someone had a post asking for a unlock code and I posted mine that would be information to me but could be construed as misinformation by them. If someone makes a post about religion wouldn’t an atheist consider that misinformation?