Live data from Hacker News

Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

matduggan.com

91–100 of 217 posts

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#91
post #85
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist (side-eye to the guy who ruined the term), but IMO one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard”. People have a right to ignore speech, and to establish standards for speech on their private property. If there is market demand for a service that filters out content based on ideology, whether mastodon.…

[flagged]

Free speech does exist in the law, not just as an ethical ideal. The law states that the government can’t infringe on your speech.

Anyone who is not the government is free to block your ass if they don’t like you or what you’re saying.

Not all speech is worth defending. The only people who benefit from free speech absolutism are the ones with only horrible things to say.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#92
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist (side-eye to the guy who ruined the term), but IMO one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard”. People have a right to ignore speech, and to establish standards for speech on their private property. If there is market demand for a service that filters out content based on ideology, whether mastodon.…

why not let people say whatever they want? you already hinted the appropriate solution which is that you don't have to listen.

If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great.

Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it.

The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies.

The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world.

(NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#93

> If the American press had given me 20 minutes of airtime I could have convinced everyone they don’t want to get involved with Greenland. On one hand the author recognizes the scope of the “protocol wars” as a rational thing being irrelevant in the actually relevant time span. On the other hand, the author swears that they can bring rationality to a deeply emotional matter through discourse.

you are aware that he doesn't actually believe that he "[...] could have convinced [..]" it's a manner of speech a instrument of telling a story a way to express how completely absurd "US getting involved into Greenland" is for anyone who understands the land (geography/weather) and people even unrelated to geopolitical aspects like alienating allies

My argument stands whether the author meant to be read literally or not. Below the surface it’s still about the tension of rationality and irrationality within social settings.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#94
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist (side-eye to the guy who ruined the term), but IMO one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard”. People have a right to ignore speech, and to establish standards for speech on their private property. If there is market demand for a service that filters out content based on ideology, whether mastodon.…

why not let people say whatever they want? you already hinted the appropriate solution which is that you don't have to listen.

Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource.

When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die.

Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#95
> See I had forgotten the one golden rule of capitalism. To thrive in capitalism one must be amoral. Now you can be wildly sickeningly successful with morals but you cannot reach that absolute zenith of shareholder value. Either you accept a lower share price and don’t commit atrocities or you become evil. There is no third option.

A platinum rule might be that everything has a lifecycle.

Trading the morals for gold might drag out the demise by buying some time, but the real point is to preserve the morals and re-invent the tech, or take the money and run and let, e.g., an Elon Musk assume the Slim Pickins position and ride the tech to its detonation.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#97
Let's say that for news we need the "economic web", meaning no more "newspapers", but independent reporters with their own blogs and followers who micro-pay for individual articles by downloading and truly spreading them from a human to another instead of "many humans toward a network hub". This would solves the censorship problem, as you have thousands of scattered sources that are impossible to control or corrupt all at once, and it generates pluralism where the background noise is mitigated by personal scoring, like the WoT of GNUPG back in the day or Nostr now. The FLOSS foundation guarantees neutrality, while distributed sources like Radicle ensure it can't be censored.

But... for this to succeed, you need LOADS of participants; otherwise, the small amount of compensation collected isn't enough to live on or even maintain as a side hustle. It still works to some extent as long as people doing other things have their say in an interesting way, but it doesn't take off. To get a lot of people, you need to attract a lot of people.

Increasing censorship in recent times has made people migrate from Reddit and Discord to other things, but honestly, the alternatives out there are a bit of a mess. Personally, I set up Matrix for family and friends, only because XMPP doesn't seem to attract anyone, and both Matrix and XMPP are largely a pain to self-host properly if you want to include audio/video calls. The "fragmentation" of other tools is total. To attract people, you need a single, slick go get -able, cargo build -able, pip -able (and so on) application that does pretty much everything without a ton of dependencies. That way, someone discovers it, it's easy, they come for one or two features and discover others, providing enough mass to kickstart the spread. The Fediverse model does not offer that so far, Nostr is only a little bit better, ZeroNet is dead, ...

It seems that recent/young developers can't grasp this, so caught up as they are in what they do at work, the "zero barrier to entry" of living on someone else's servers, which hamstrings every FLOSS project. Creating countless separate applications useful for selling services in a commercial model, but it's a recipe for failure in FLOSS. No idea to integrate client and server in a single app to solve even if DHT and alike are there since decades...

The mind is one, so the application must be one and integrated to cover the bulk of needs in a single environment. Emacs understood this a long time ago, Smalltalk workstations even earlier; today, it seems most people still can't wrap their heads around it...

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#98

>I want news I don’t want your endless meta commentary on the news. I want commentary on the news. We should be critiquing the news and it's way more interesting that just uncritically accepting mainstream narratives.

News used to be mostly neutral delivery of facts that occurred recently. It was not supposed to be following a narrative or whatever. But that is boring for many people and the American media found out they could make news much more interesting by adding their spicy takes on it, and it worked. Now people watch the news as a form of entertainment. I find that horrifying, the reason you should be informed about the world is so that you can participate in it effectively. News today is much more propaganda than information, and that gives the opposite effect of making you a more effective citizen.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#99

>I want news I don’t want your endless meta commentary on the news. I want commentary on the news. We should be critiquing the news and it's way more interesting that just uncritically accepting mainstream narratives.

Pretty much all US news is just blindly stating “what’s happening” which lends credence to the current admins (seemingly) illegal/poor behavior. Just accept that the president can start a war, no notes.

Re: Boy I was wrong about the Fediverse

#100
post #45
post #44

> If the American press had given me 20 minutes of airtime I could have convinced everyone they don’t want to get involved with Greenland. We’re not tough enough as a people to survive in Greenland, much less “take it over”. Greenlandic people shrug off horrific injuries hundreds of kilometers from medical help with a smile. I watched a Greenlandic toddler munch meat from the spine of a seal with its head very much i…

The US has long since wanted to purchase Greenland, not "fight" them, for strategic reasons. I'm not sure why there is this fantasy that the US is going to fight the Greenland people? Honestly.

The president of the United States literally said that they were going to get Greenland, one way or another.

If I were to say "I'm going to get Dionian's house, one way or another" would you not prepare yourself for an invasion?

Post reply on HN