8 ms·

We royally fucked up with the internet. I literally have to question my own motives for things, and often wonder if I have been manipulated into my beliefs, opi

by frebord 10y ago

We royally fucked up with the internet. I literally have to question my own motives for things, and often wonder if I have been manipulated into my beliefs, opinions, and desires. It is kind of scary to think about! How do we move to a less centralized internet and is it too late?

frebord 10y ago
I mean Facebook for example, at its core for an end user it really just mirrors what the Internet was built to do. I can easily host my own profile and allow people to log in to it and talk to me. How did it become so dangerously centralized?
- mjevans 10y ago
  The average user is lazy, cheep, and unaware of how valuable their freedom is.
  - willemmali 10y ago
    Did you mean "sheep" or "cheap"?
    - tombrossman 10y ago
      I think we've just witnessed the birth of a new technology portmanteau on HN- "Cheep: (noun) Member of one or more online herds of users who are exploited for personal data". I like it. (sadly, cheep.com is already taken or I'd be on that like white on rice...)
- criddell 10y ago
  > How did it become so dangerously centralized? Network effects and there's nothing out there better than Facebook.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Facebook owns the directory, and the notifications channel. Freestanding sites lack this, and it turns out that behavioural costs matter.
willemmali 10y ago
Fun question: where does the idea "decentralization good" come from? What big players could have an interest in this and why?
- astrodust 10y ago
  Decentralization is a way of removing dependencies and adding redundancy. It's often less efficient, there's way more duplication of effort, but can be more resilient. Big players don't necessarily have an interest in this, but some do. It's always a balancing act between too much centralization (single target/point of failure) and too much decentralization (impossible to control).
  - willemmali 10y ago
    I'm trying to think of specific actors that have interests in this, but I'm finding it hard. Not the NSA, right? I don't understand why you think decentralization is a balancing act. What do you mean by "impossible to control", and why would that be bad? What would "full" decentralization even entail? A network of sentient computers doing whatever they want, except using supernodes "too much"? (My definition of supernodes: nodes that transfer significantly more traffic than others structurally, in practice nodes that accept incoming connections, like servers or BitTorrent supernodes, but also AS's.)
    - logicallee 10y ago
      If (my example) instead of people messaging each other on facebook, every single person needed to run a server (such as an IRC server) at home - no centralization at all. (If five people want to talk to each other, there are a total of 10 connections because 4+3+2+1 to fully connect every node with every other node). That would be an (extreme) example of decentralization, and obviously centralizing chat so I can just use a thin facebook/whatever app is hugely convenient. Likewise the blockchain is a joke, a single $200 pc can trivially do the work of the entire bitcoin network, trivially - if it were centralized. This second example also shows what is meant by control. So it's a balancing act.
ordu 10y ago
> I literally have to question my own motives for things, and often wonder if I have been manipulated into my beliefs, opinions, and desires. Its possible to be immune for such manipulaions, I believe. If you subject you thoughts to strict formal rules of rational thinking, than it would be hard to manipulate you. But the first and most important thing is constant questioning own motives. So you are on the right track. ;)
- riprowan 10y ago
  > If you subject you thoughts to strict formal rules of rational thinking, than it would be hard to manipulate you. If the brain was fundamentally a linear processor, you might have a chance. But the brain is almost entirely a pattern-machine, and linear, logical thought is mostly an artifact. Humans can be programmed like any AI. It just requires the correct stimulus.
  - ordu 10y ago
    I'm not saying that one can be completely rational. I'm saying that you can be much more resistant to mind influencing technologies. Moreover you can be resistant for such a level, that you'll become immune for technologies which targets 95% of population.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  In addition to what riprowan said, if you are perfectly logical and rational, but I can control your input data, I can control your conclusions.
  - ordu 10y ago
    Really? What you know about my consclusions? How can you check that you control them? By looking at my behaviour? Ha-ha. How you can control them if you have no precise knowledge about them and processes leading to them? Oh... And how can you control my input data, if I'm not reading your ads?
gpderetta 10y ago
"Discordians shall not believe anything they read."
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> How do we move to a less centralized internet and is it too late? Oh great, divide et impera.
jdhopeunique 10y ago
I think Urbit is trying to tackle this problem of decentralizing the internet. I'm not sure of their current status however.
- k__ 10y ago
  Decentralizing won't help much. The who really knows what is fake news? And what about the filter bubbles that keep the full picture hidden from you?
  - willemmali 10y ago
    A decentralized search engine with configurable or even just inspectable filter bubble would be a good start? (Although I think the correct abstraction is not "search engine", but "decentralized content index" + "decentralized content ranking" with tweakable parameters.)
gene-h 10y ago
That is only half the problem, from the article: "Cambridge Analytica buys personal data from a range of different sources, like land registries, automotive data, shopping data, bonus cards, club memberships, what magazines you read, what churches you attend." Data collection like this still occurs without the internet. In addition, decentralization of the internet does not necessarily prevent targeted ads. IE, now instead of buying an ad from facebook that targets everyone with interest x in geographic area y, now we buy an ad on a local website for interest x in geographic area y.
- lalalander 10y ago
  Since targeted ads (and sponsored Facebook posts) are the vectors for influencing people, wouldn't it be a great deal easier if people just blocked ads? No matter how much accurate a profile is built off you (through other companies selling your data), you can't be influenced by ads if you don't see them. Especially since we know that ads are not just trying to persuade you to buy things (which is probably still morally acceptable, at least to me), but also to influence your political affiliations without you realising it.
hkmurakami 10y ago
Not sure if being influenced unbeknownst to you is a n entirely new phenomenon though. What was its extent with print or TV media where everything is centrally controlled? At least one core problem is that no one wants to read primary sources and make decisions themselves. We seem to prefer an illusion of independent thought when we're actually choosing from a set of prepackaged partitions that are neatly presented to us.

by frebord 10y ago

frebord 10y ago

I mean Facebook for example, at its core for an end user it really just mirrors what the Internet was built to do. I can easily host my own profile and allow people to log in to it and talk to me. How did it become so dangerously centralized?

mjevans 10y ago
The average user is lazy, cheep, and unaware of how valuable their freedom is.
- willemmali 10y ago
  Did you mean "sheep" or "cheap"?
  - tombrossman 10y ago
    I think we've just witnessed the birth of a new technology portmanteau on HN- "Cheep: (noun) Member of one or more online herds of users who are exploited for personal data". I like it. (sadly, cheep.com is already taken or I'd be on that like white on rice...)
criddell 10y ago
> How did it become so dangerously centralized? Network effects and there's nothing out there better than Facebook.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Facebook owns the directory, and the notifications channel. Freestanding sites lack this, and it turns out that behavioural costs matter.

willemmali 10y ago

Fun question: where does the idea "decentralization good" come from? What big players could have an interest in this and why?

astrodust 10y ago
Decentralization is a way of removing dependencies and adding redundancy. It's often less efficient, there's way more duplication of effort, but can be more resilient. Big players don't necessarily have an interest in this, but some do. It's always a balancing act between too much centralization (single target/point of failure) and too much decentralization (impossible to control).
- willemmali 10y ago
  I'm trying to think of specific actors that have interests in this, but I'm finding it hard. Not the NSA, right? I don't understand why you think decentralization is a balancing act. What do you mean by "impossible to control", and why would that be bad? What would "full" decentralization even entail? A network of sentient computers doing whatever they want, except using supernodes "too much"? (My definition of supernodes: nodes that transfer significantly more traffic than others structurally, in practice nodes that accept incoming connections, like servers or BitTorrent supernodes, but also AS's.)
  - logicallee 10y ago
    If (my example) instead of people messaging each other on facebook, every single person needed to run a server (such as an IRC server) at home - no centralization at all. (If five people want to talk to each other, there are a total of 10 connections because 4+3+2+1 to fully connect every node with every other node). That would be an (extreme) example of decentralization, and obviously centralizing chat so I can just use a thin facebook/whatever app is hugely convenient. Likewise the blockchain is a joke, a single $200 pc can trivially do the work of the entire bitcoin network, trivially - if it were centralized. This second example also shows what is meant by control. So it's a balancing act.

ordu 10y ago

> I literally have to question my own motives for things, and often wonder if I have been manipulated into my beliefs, opinions, and desires. Its possible to be immune for such manipulaions, I believe. If you subject you thoughts to strict formal rules of rational thinking, than it would be hard to manipulate you. But the first and most important thing is constant questioning own motives. So you are on the right track. ;)

riprowan 10y ago
> If you subject you thoughts to strict formal rules of rational thinking, than it would be hard to manipulate you. If the brain was fundamentally a linear processor, you might have a chance. But the brain is almost entirely a pattern-machine, and linear, logical thought is mostly an artifact. Humans can be programmed like any AI. It just requires the correct stimulus.
- ordu 10y ago
  I'm not saying that one can be completely rational. I'm saying that you can be much more resistant to mind influencing technologies. Moreover you can be resistant for such a level, that you'll become immune for technologies which targets 95% of population.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
In addition to what riprowan said, if you are perfectly logical and rational, but I can control your input data, I can control your conclusions.
- ordu 10y ago
  Really? What you know about my consclusions? How can you check that you control them? By looking at my behaviour? Ha-ha. How you can control them if you have no precise knowledge about them and processes leading to them? Oh... And how can you control my input data, if I'm not reading your ads?

gpderetta 10y ago

"Discordians shall not believe anything they read."

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

> How do we move to a less centralized internet and is it too late? Oh great, divide et impera.

jdhopeunique 10y ago

I think Urbit is trying to tackle this problem of decentralizing the internet. I'm not sure of their current status however.

k__ 10y ago
Decentralizing won't help much. The who really knows what is fake news? And what about the filter bubbles that keep the full picture hidden from you?
- willemmali 10y ago
  A decentralized search engine with configurable or even just inspectable filter bubble would be a good start? (Although I think the correct abstraction is not "search engine", but "decentralized content index" + "decentralized content ranking" with tweakable parameters.)

gene-h 10y ago

That is only half the problem, from the article: "Cambridge Analytica buys personal data from a range of different sources, like land registries, automotive data, shopping data, bonus cards, club memberships, what magazines you read, what churches you attend." Data collection like this still occurs without the internet. In addition, decentralization of the internet does not necessarily prevent targeted ads. IE, now instead of buying an ad from facebook that targets everyone with interest x in geographic area y, now we buy an ad on a local website for interest x in geographic area y.

lalalander 10y ago
Since targeted ads (and sponsored Facebook posts) are the vectors for influencing people, wouldn't it be a great deal easier if people just blocked ads? No matter how much accurate a profile is built off you (through other companies selling your data), you can't be influenced by ads if you don't see them. Especially since we know that ads are not just trying to persuade you to buy things (which is probably still morally acceptable, at least to me), but also to influence your political affiliations without you realising it.

hkmurakami 10y ago

Not sure if being influenced unbeknownst to you is a n entirely new phenomenon though. What was its extent with print or TV media where everything is centrally controlled? At least one core problem is that no one wants to read primary sources and make decisions themselves. We seem to prefer an illusion of independent thought when we're actually choosing from a set of prepackaged partitions that are neatly presented to us.