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

What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

jeremydormitzer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#81

Post by throwaway8879 »

stcredzero wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecen…

It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecent exposure is illegal in a grocery store" to "here is a set of claims I can make on a grocery store as a public space". Then how is it that it's illegal for a grocery store to exclude people because of their race? There is clearly some reason that people can't be excluded from a such a space, while there also exist exclusive private clubs.

You're comparing a grocery store in the physical realm of trading goods with social media, which makes no sense. Compare social media to traditional media if you want a fair comparison.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#82

Post by jimbosis »

amelius wrote: post #13

They list a whole bunch of services built on top of AP, except for events. Please give me decentralized events (including the rsvp option), and I might be able to leave Facebook.

Friendica and Hubzilla have events (not sure about the rsvp feature):

https://friendi.ca/

https://project.hubzilla.org/page/hubzilla/hubzilla-project

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#83

Post by apatters »

hello_marmalade wrote: post #61
irrational wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. I must be stupid, because I don't understand why I shouldn't have this right.

Because it's counter-productive. I agree with it insofar as things like spam, which has nothing to do with communication, really - but when it comes to just simply, speech, it's a bad idea. Lets take a really overly simplified example. Lets say you don't like people who like Purple. You're a Pink guy, through and through. In fact you hate people who like Purple. You think they're all jerks. So - you decide, you're go…

There's plenty of speech which is non-political, non-substantial, has little or no intrinsic value, and I'm simply not interested in reading it. For instance if I wake up one morning and feel like telling you that you're a piece of sh*t because I'm just not a fan of fruit jams, you have no obligation at all to accept my message. This isn't really spam it's just me being a troll and a dickhead.

If you argued that certain people in 2018 are too thin-skinned and characterize everyone as attacking or oppressing them I'd agree, but we still need filters to deal with legitimate abusers.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#84

Post by drb91 »

hello_marmalade wrote: post #29

The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Not to mention that the way Mastodon works kinda lends it self to the old issue of jerk forum admins. If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. They can also share that information with other instances to block you from going to those instances as well. Sure, you could start your ow…

Actually this serves as a pretty good pitch for mastadon. Being able to choose the flavor of admin jerk is better than having no choice at all.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#85

Post by drb91 »

hello_marmalade wrote: post #61
irrational wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. I must be stupid, because I don't understand why I shouldn't have this right.

Because it's counter-productive. I agree with it insofar as things like spam, which has nothing to do with communication, really - but when it comes to just simply, speech, it's a bad idea. Lets take a really overly simplified example. Lets say you don't like people who like Purple. You're a Pink guy, through and through. In fact you hate people who like Purple. You think they're all jerks. So - you decide, you're go…

> You need to be aware of, and have to confront things you don't like.

I’d agree anywhere but twitter/mastadon. Terrible platform for any kind of coherent conversation. Use it for shit that DOESN’T matter, and please god get your news anywhere else.

I honestly have no clue how you would use it without filtering. Seems miserable.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#86

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tptacek wrote: post #74
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private businesses are absolutely places in the public sphere. If you pull your pants down in the middle of a Wal-Mart, are you not exposing yourself in public? YouTube, Twitter, etc. and similar public sites with predominantly public content are absolutely "in the public sphere", and definitely the modern analogue of the street corner you can shout your feelings in. We really no longer have the luxury of saying the…

Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecen…

I would argue that I wasn't trying to "approach the law axiomatically", since I was trying to demonstrate the law does not cover something that it arguably (by a more common "human understanding") should.

The right to free speech arguably requires that we have a place to express that speech. Given that all communications are effectively corporate-owned, it's hard to argue that this isn't an important gap to discuss. Hosting providers, domain registrars, CDN services, certificate authorities, etc. are all owned by companies, and beyond platforms, infrastructure has now been increasingly used as a target to use to restrict speech.

Perhaps an example would be if you could be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete.

Or another example, people don't often consider, is that phone communications, like Internet communications, are owned by corporations. Wouldn't people consider it crazy if I suggested that Verizon or AT&T should have a say in what you said over their networks?

I recognize that the law doesn't consider an Internet platform to be a public space where free speech is required, but my point is that this is the problem: Our laws have not kept up with the society we live in.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#87

Post by tptacek »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't try to approach the law axiomatically like that. You won't get anywhere. In this case, you have it backwards: the law doesn't start with a definition of "public place" and then attach conditions to it, but rather starts with conditions ("you can't lasciviously expose yourself in public") to which specific definitions of the word public space are attached. It does not therefore make sense to reason from "indecen…

I would argue that I wasn't trying to "approach the law axiomatically", since I was trying to demonstrate the law does not cover something that it arguably (by a more common "human understanding") should. The right to free speech arguably requires that we have a place to express that speech. Given that all communications are effectively corporate-owned, it's hard to argue that this isn't an important gap to discuss.…

You can't be banned from protesting on a sidewalk by the company that poured the concrete.

Verizon is not allowed to monitor your phone calls (except as needed to maintain its network) under the ECPA.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#88

Post by Bendingo »

droopybuns wrote: post #56
hello_marmalade wrote: post #29

The idea that you should be able to shield or blind yourself to content is a flat out stupid one. Not to mention that the way Mastodon works kinda lends it self to the old issue of jerk forum admins. If an instance owner doesn't like what you say for any reason they boot you off. They can also share that information with other instances to block you from going to those instances as well. Sure, you could start your ow…

I feel like one of the truly unique aspects of American millennials is the widespread abandonment of a commitment to free speech. It is so disheartening to hear people who earnestly equate physical violence with offensive speech. Mastodon offers a forum for people who see the wisdom of a commitment to free speech.

It's not just American millennials; this is also occurring in Australia.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#89

Post by stjohnswarts »

mikedilger wrote: post #17

What could help Mastodon grow significantly is if the moderation on a large number of instances was toned down a bit. What happened to Wil Wheaton was a bit nuts. And conservative opinions are often banned due to being agressively labelled as hate or racist when they are usually not technically so. Most people don't want to be part of a social justice warrior authoritarian "fall in line or we will ban you" community.…

But the beauty of mastodon is you can go find a conservative group to talk on if you don't like the one that banned you. Or even start your own.

Re: What is ActivityPub, and how will it change the internet?

#90

Post by westpfelia »

hello_marmalade wrote: post #60
MattJ100 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, you could start your own or join an instance that doesn't do that kinda stuff, but then what's the point of federation? That is exactly the point of federation. Maybe jerk admins are a real problem, maybe they aren't - but they can't boot you off the network, and you'll always have options.

Well more specifically, what I was trying to say is, if you wanted to be part of, say - the cross-stitching community, and you made a post about how over-under stitching sucks, and so the owner of that server banned you, and then let every other cross-stitching based mastodon know about your terrible stitching beliefs, then while you can still "join" another mastodon instance, you are effectively removed completely f…

Well in that case couldnt said person create their own community? Assuming there are those in Mastodon that don't agree with the (possibly repeated) actions of the server admin people will start to leave.

So no matter what there is still an option. Unlike Facebook/Twitter. I mean technically even InfoWars and Alex Jones could start their own community and by the rules of Mastodon not get kicked off.

Please no one tell Alex Jones about Mastodon.

Post reply on HN