2 ms·

I would argue it's less about this and more about the power to dictate narratives at a broad scope. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube etc. have all been single poin

I would argue it's less about this and more about the power to dictate narratives at a broad scope. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube etc. have all been single points of failure in this regard: targeted, sustained efforts—probably by nation states—have resulted in extremist political content being in the feeds of almost anyone who uses these platforms. In the 'Dweb' (god I hate that word), the question isn't so much about censorship vs. hate speech, but how the system is robust (or not) to well organised/funded minorities pushing content throughout the whole network. The web has become centralised meaning there are relatively few targets required to compromise to reach a large number of people. In theory a decentralised or distributed network makes this harder, but in practice...?

arkh 8y ago
> targeted, sustained efforts—probably by nation states—have resulted in extremist political content being in the feeds of almost anyone who uses these platforms. It has more to do with the targeting algorithm used. Once you start watching some kind of content they start proposing more of the same kind of content to you. So people see less and less contrary ideas. And you can't select an option to "give me quality containt from domains I never touched". Instead of discovering random new content and concept you get pigeonholed into some things you already know and agree with.